By definition, a group is a collection of at least 2 or more INDIVIDUALS.
No. You either understand objective morality or you do not.
The CORRECT DEFINITION of the word "morality" is as follows: AN ACTION THAT CAUSES NO HARM TO ANY SENTIENT BEING.
Thats all. It's not a philosophers debate. It's simple facts.
Natural Law (Universal Law)
I’m not taking a side here, just hoping to understand how you decided on yours as opposed to some that equally intelligent and dedicated folks seem to choose instead.
So far it sounds like you’d say that there is this moral principle of doing no harm which you see as fundamental, and this is the main reason you believe in objectivism?
So with that, how do you balance the harm done to future sentient beings with those of today? If you must harm, how do you balance harm done to people afar vs close by?
Generally speaking, how did you come to decide that you understand objective morality and others who disagree are wrong as opposed to the other way around (epistemology)?
🫂
