Yea I totally agree - adapting to its environment. Like all other Darwinian processes.
Discussion
we finally bridged talking past each other.
if that’s how you need to think about objective morality, you’re already there.
if i understand you correctly, this should be in your language:
human beings are complex adaptive systems adapting according to their environment.
being social creautures, always in relation to others, be it parents friends, know and unknown neighbors, “others” are part of our environment. friend or foe
just like fish adapt fins to better swim through water
humans adapt morals to better navigate social relations.
objective morality is simply one adaptive system adapting to the presence of another adaptive system.
this adaptive process is not driven internally/subjectively within one person, but driven exterallly/objectively by an objective environmental condition: the presence of another complex adaptive system.
it’s not simply having preferences, it aligning your preferences to the environmental conditions, which for humans includes social relation
the philosophical word for this is:
intersubjective
one subjective being interacting with the object of another subjective being
if ur long on might makes right, its counter to that objective order and will lose hard in the end
if ur long truth, ur just aligning your preferences to rhe objective order
and that provides metaphysically grounded ethical defense to why murder,
theft, slavery, etc etc are objectively bad/evil/contrary to nature
and not just accidental preferences
how did i do?
You did very very well.
Just clarify this part for me before I respond. What exactly do you mean by this:
> if ur long on might makes right, its counter to that objective order and will lose hard in the end
here is a stab at it:
if a person prefers to adapt towards a “might makes right” strategy, they might have what appears to be a short term gain but in the long run will cost them everything.
not because they are unlucky, or didn’t execute the strategy properly, but because they are adapting in a manner contrary to the objective organization/structure of inter-related subjects
getting smaller fins and attempting to go against the current, a bad combo.
a live by the sword die by the sword type of thing