For context, I have claimed,
1. It is fundamental to our nature to prefer to live and thrive.
2. If we are to obtain living and thriving there are actions that we ought to take.
3. While there are many values worth pursuing, we must avoid pursuing lesser values at the expense of greater values.
4. So long as our existence is required in order to coherently discuss those things that are of value to us, our existence is at the bottom of our value chain, whether we grasp that fact or not.
5. Since moral actions are those actions that we ought to take, then this hierarchical order of values and actions is what gives rise to objective morality (morality that is actual, that is rooted in reality, in our nature, and the natural order rather than an arbitrary morality based on whim, tradition, and the dictates of others).
6. This is the correct morality for us all whether you and I happen to agree or not.
From what I can tell, you are not disagreeing with my claims 1-4. Perhaps you agree that they form a coherent system of morality that you might choose to call “swine morality” because you feel that a morality based on rational self interest is as loathsome a thing as you can imagine, hence you associate it with the most derogatory term you can. Your “higher” morality has not been defined yet, but it sounds like it places self at the bottom of the value chain. So then, with yourself being at the bottom, I’m wondering why you haven’t donated all you have to charity. Even your kidneys, liver, and eyes could benefit others, so why do you maintain them for yourself? Think of the lives that could benefit from your sacrifice. Oh, but then, those whom you sacrifice to would be immoral if they didn’t give in the same way. Is this your idea of morality? I mean, you don’t have to look too hard to find an opportunity to give all that you have, right? You are a conscious volitional rational being who can choose to act in a way that realizes self benefit or that sacrifices self for the benefit of others. So what’s the problem? Wait, I’m guessing that not only have you failed to demonstrate to me why you ought to value these others above your own life, maybe you have failed to demonstrate such an arbitrary notion to yourself. Am I right, or are you just keeping your reasons a secret? Maybe you just don’t want to throw your pearls before the “swine.”
Now, I’m still not quite communicating on #4 and 5 so let me elaborate. If you have, oh, say a dog that greets you at the door and offers you a great deal of love and companionship, you get benefit from having the dog, right? But if you are dead or never even existed, can we still say that you get benefit from the dog? Of course not. Your existence is required before the notion of your getting benefit and value from the dog can be coherently discussed in any way. Your existence, your life is required as a precondition for anything to be of value to you. And to be clear, I do not mean value as a whim based preference, I mean value as when something is objectively beneficial to you whether you grasp it as a benefit or not. Since your existence is required for such benefit and value to you to exist, there is never a value that is beneficial to you that can be greater than you. This is because value is not intrinsic. Value requires a valuer. If no valuers exist, nothing has value of any kind. Since the valuer is at the bottom of the valuer’s value chain, and since self sacrifice destroys that deepest value (the valuer’s life), it is acting to gain a lesser value in exchange for a greater value and as such it is immoral. Throwing yourself on a grenade is immoral just as is sacrificing your life in order to donate your vital organs for others who need them is immoral. You say,
Metacrock: I still don't accept the concept of objective morality, nevertheless, you are getting something out of place, unless I'm not following you accurately. You are doing a bait and switch you stick the necessity of our own participation into the works then make a value higher than the values we would participate to preserve. That's like the corporation becoming an entity that works for its own survival and thus abandoning the reason for which it was founded.
Corporations, communities, collectives, are not conscious volitional rational beings. People are. Morality applies to people not corporations. But your analogy does work in one sense. We evolved because it benefited our genes, and it continues to benefit our genes for us to buy into this “sacrifice for the good of the collective” so I understand all too well where your notion of morality came from. And yes, now we are in a position as conscious volitional rational beings to act in ways that result in self benefit, thereby “abandoning the reason for which” we have genetically evolved. Our genes are not volitional or intelligent and we don’t have a contract that obligates us to repay them. As a conscious volitional rational self with self interest, I and others like me are the only ones that morality applies to. I hope I haven’t offended you by being a bit sarcastic. I’m enjoying the opportunity to think this through with you.