NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm trying to come up with morals from first principles, based on logic, the current state of the world and a single axiom:

The human race must be preserved.

Now, I've run into a problem. I can't come up with any way to make a single human life have a value in this.

Does anyone have any ideas as to how I can give human life a value? Because murder's suddenly stopped being "wrong". I was a moral relativist before, but this is depressing me.

:confused: :confused:

p.s. And "x said so" doesn't count, even if x == god.

:edited

I'm trying to come up with morals from first principles, based on logic, the current state of the world and a single axiom:

The human race must be preserved.

Now, I've run into a problem. I can't come up with any way to make a single human life have a value in this.

Does anyone have any ideas as to how I can give my life meaning? Because murder's suddenly stopped being "wrong". I was a moral relativist before, but this is depressing me.

:confused: :confused:

p.s. And "x said so" doesn't count, even if x == god.

By your single axiom, the single individual is secondary to the whole, so murder, when benefiting the collective, would not be immoral.

By your single axiom, the single individual is secondary to the whole, so murder, when benefiting the collective, would not be immoral.

I don't think collective benefit is necessary. A single death cannot change the future of the human race in any real sense (leaving out the "what if he was the next..." argument, no single person in history has ever done anything of benefit to the human race, only to its' detriment).

On another note, is my single axiom sensible? It seemed to me that I needed a starting point, can anyone come up with more?

I have another couple, criticize:

There is a limited supply of mineral resources.
The habitat of the human race (Earth) is a non-linear dynamic system in balance at a certain set of conditions.

Your axiom is that the human individuals as a collective must be preserved, so the benefit of the collective is the most important thing.

As for the other two, at my current level of knowledge, I can't dispute them.

Your axiom is that the human individuals as a collective must be preserved, so the benefit of the collective is the most important thing.

Perhaps a better definition of preserved is required for further discussion.

And I don't see why the human race should be preserved. Our population is booming. Perhaps one means that our morals as humans should be preserved.

This is a very strange topic for discussion first of all.

I would simply like to state that what I believe gives a life meaning is but one's own will to live. Giving in to grief or self-pity leads nowhere, so all there is to do is simply to live. Life goes on. There should not be a time when one considers that life has no meaning for no one can know what is yet to come.

Perhaps a better definition of preserved is required for further discussion.

And I don't see why the human race should be preserved. Our population is booming. Perhaps one means that our morals as humans should be preserved.

I take preserved to mean that the species should continue to exist.

There is no particular reason for the continued existence of the human race, but a moral code is rather pointless without it, don't you think?

I don't understand your last sentence, I'm sorry.

This is only a thought experiment to try to derive a moral code without superstition or many assumptions, and I am open to criticism; if you think my assumptions are naïve please tell me.

I don't think collective benefit is necessary. A single death cannot change the future of the human race in any real sense (leaving out the "what if he was the next..." argument, no single person in history has ever done anything of benefit to the human race, only to its' detriment).


Every death affects the human race on some level. It is the slow eroding effect of the massive number of deaths that has advanced the race to where it is today. That is the effect of evolution.

Maybe the further advancement of evolution would be a good starting point.

I take preserved to mean that the species should continue to exist.

There is no particular reason for the continued existence of the human race, but a moral code is rather pointless without it, don't you think?

I don't understand your last sentence, I'm sorry.

This is only a thought experiment to try to derive a moral code without superstition or many assumptions, and I am open to criticism; if you think my assumptions are naïve please tell me.

I think he means the aspects of society and civilization are what need to be preserved, not specific moral codes so much. But that was just a shot in the dark.

To value the human race as a whole presents too many probems, mainly the fact that it practically badly needs an excuse to be justified.
Instead, place more value on the individual.

The human race must be preserved.
This is the easiest moral view to adopt, in my opinion. It fits in perfectly with nature, surivial of the fittest and perpetuation of the species. The latter is the driving force of all life. Social insects adhere strictly to collective benefit. If a bee becomes too old to function, no matter its previous status, it will be cast out from the hive. Dead ants are treated the same as other debris in a colony. It is by far the most efficient axiom of all. Murder is justified if it benefits the whole, especially if the on to be murdered has some sort of defect, especially one it might pass on to ots offspring. It is kind of like the basis of communism, which is actually kind of socio-insecto-mimetic. (I just completely made that up...any more experienced etymologists know how correct that is?) Very Japanese too.

On another note, is my single axiom sensible?
Very. Perhaps a little too sensible.

A single death cannot change the future of the human race in any real sense (leaving out the "what if he was the next..." argument, no single person in history has ever done anything of benefit to the human race, only to its' detriment).
This, however is untrue. Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, da Vinci, Plato, et al. all pretty much benefitted society, at least overall. Newton and Galileo also fit in here, as well as Einstein, since his intent certainly wasn't toward nuclear fission warheads (he was horrified that his research was used in such a way).

And I don't see why the human race should be preserved. Our population is booming. Perhaps one means that our morals as humans should be preserved.
Because that is the innate desire of the member of any species. Perpertuation of the species. That is why there are so many humans, because mortality rates have gone down so dramatically that we're reproducing like aphides...

Every death affects the human race on some level. It is the slow eroding effect of the massive number of deaths that has advanced the race to where it is today. That is the effect of evolution.
Are you trying to say that humans are inferior to our predecessors? Because the "slow eroding effect of the massive number of deaths" has allowed the population to swell. Death is all part of the natural cycle.

Maybe the further advancement of evolution would be a good starting point.
How does one, or many, go about "the further advancement of evolution"? Evolution is a natural process (which we're tampering with, frighteningly enough), and we cannot "advance" in in any way.

I'm not exactly sure why there's a question here...

Preservation of the parts amounts to the preservation of the whole...

[Edit:] ...except, of course, when the part poses a threat to the whole... In the case of a murderer, for instance... Committing murder removes one of the parts, which causes a negative impact (insignificant or otherwise, it is still detrimental to the preservation of the whole), and therefore, removing this detriment to the whole becomes a necessary thing... Especially when/if it becomes evident that this killer is likely to strike again... Removing this threat is an overall improvement to the whole...

00000000000000003333333333333333333336666666666666

I'm trying to come up with morals from first principles, based on logic, the current state of the world and a single axiom:

The human race must be preserved.

Now, I've run into a problem. I can't come up with any way to make a single human life have a value in this.

Does anyone have any ideas as to how I can give human life a value? Because murder's suddenly stopped being "wrong". I was a moral relativist before, but this is depressing me.


Interestingly enough this was kind of the topic of my dissertation at the end of my BA. Basically I took this axiom (well, actually the axiom that moral beings should continue to exist) and assessed its validity against a large number of widely held non-consequentialist moral systems. The conclusion of the essay was that it was valid, in relation to the moral systems studied, since its violation would contradict the tenets of all the moral systems in question. It wasn't a great paper, TBH, and I wasn't particularly happy with my conclusions as regarded a couple of the systems. But it clearly worked with some of them. And it got a decent enough mark despite being written in one 36 hour stretch.

Anyway, the point of all this self-indulgent rambling is that you're going too far with your assertion that murder has stopped being wrong. Even having shown the axiom to be valid the furthest I could legitimately go was to assert that it should be an overiding clause. Thus:

Given the moral belief system "x is morally wrong if x is y" where y is any non-consequentialist moral property.

And that the axiom (A) "morally aware beings should continue to exist" overrides any other moral statement

Then

All non-consequentialist moral systems are should read "x is morally wrong if x is y and not-x does not violate A"


Maybe that made things clearer, or maybe it made it even more confusing. In brief: the axiom you point out only means that murder is not necessarily wrong, it does not mean that any one murder, or even most murders, cannot be wrong.

Value of human life = cost of likely compensation claim.

so long as that individual benefits the survival of the group.said morality protects it.those who do not benefit the survival of the group(ie anyone who cannot or refuses to produce something usefull,or harms someone who is usefull)that morality does not protect.and by the rules of the morality,must be :sniper: shoot so they cease to consume resourses useable by the usefull people.

i would however slightly change it to "the species must survive,and become stronger" this extends morality to usefull people who arent directly enableing the species survival but whos work might aid the species in the future.(ie scientists mainly)

Tree fitty