A behavior that does not exist is not good.
I see many arguments claiming moral authority or superiority so my go to response is that their position is not superior to mine since their position will not exist in 100 years whereas mine will. Any argument claiming moral superiority becomes invalid if said argument ceases to exist. The reason for this is very simple: the existence characteristic precedes all other characteristics. For something to even have a chance of being good, it must first exist.
This logic applies to ideologies, desires, wills, duties, oughts, etc as well, not just behaviors.
Assuming the above, does it follow that you ought to perpetuate as much about you as you can? Everything your physical self prescribes to its own self must necessarily exist without end to avoid becoming invalid. A sort of *foreverism.*
This logic applies to ideologies, desires, wills, duties, oughts, etc as well, not just behaviors.
Assuming the above, does it follow that you ought to perpetuate as much about you as you can? Everything your physical self prescribes to its own self must necessarily exist without end to avoid becoming invalid. A sort of *foreverism.*
Comments (5)
I know because science allows us to predict the future to some extent. You're right that I can't say "your claim to moral superiority will become necessarily invalid in 100 years with 100% certainty" but I can say "I have evidence that suggests your claim to moral superiority will become necessarily invalid in 100 years with 90% certainty." All I have to do is show you the consequences of your moral system onto a real world population. One example is the ancient Greeks. Obviously any claim to moral superiority by ancient Greeks is invalid because their moral system resulted in their own, and their moral system's, demise.
I take it you do understand the fundamental though, that X has to be, before X can be moral, yes?
Existence itself is probably not enough.