(IFF) you are capable of understanding this (AND) you value your own existence (THEN) you must value the lives of at least SOME of those on which you directly and indirectly depend (humans, plants, and animals)
IF YOU SPEAK ABOUT ETHICS
then you must learn to shatter Hume's Guillotine.
Here's the short version.
There are (IS) statements.
And there are (OUGHT) statements.
An (IS) statement is an indisputable fact.
It (IS) raining.
It (IS) one hundred kilometers away.
It (IS) made of steel.
This (IS) the realm of the scientific method.
Science deals EXCLUSIVELY with the realm of the (IS).
Most people think they can get an (OUGHT) from an (IS) by simply making a category-error.
For example,
MURDER (IS) EVIL (THEREFORE) ONE (OUGHT) NO MURDERY
This is a category-error because MURDER contains an implicit (OUGHT).
MURDER is generally accepted as "indisputable" (AND MISTAKEN FOR A "FACT") but this cleverly disguises the REALITY that people DISAGREE about what exactly qualifies as MURDER.
For example,
Is MURDER always "intentional" ?
And iff you believe MURDER is always "intentional" then how do you PROVE what someone was thinking at the time of the MURDER ?
ANY LEGAL SYSTEM THAT RELIES ON DIVINING THE MOTIVES AND OR INTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WITCHCRAFT.
