Morality and Ethics

[pixelero]

I suggest that there is no "objective morality", by definition. The word "morality" is cognate with the Latin mores (customs: singular mos.) What is moral in one culture can be immoral in another.

Ethics, in contrast, is cognate with Greek ethos (which can also denote customary behavior, but has a further denotation of character.) In precise modern usage, "morality" denotes what a particular culture considers right behavior while "ethics" denotes a branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine what is right behavior based on a set of accepted premises. For example: "life is preferable to death" - "happiness is preferable to suffering" - "truth is preferable to falsehood" and so on. (One premise that was only formally adopted by most thinkers fairly recently, historically speaking, is "freedom is preferable to bondage." Hence the persistence of slavery as an institution well into the Enlightenment.)

I would like to know: are there any believers who accept this distinction between morality and ethics, or any non-believers who reject it? Why?

[Artie]

I suppose the value in telling the truth might be that such behavior would tend to give us all a better picture of the reality around us, which could reasonably be assumed to enhance survival potential. So, in that sense, truth might have an objective value in itself.

Telling the truth might not enhance survival potential for an individual. On the other hand, if always telling the truth enhances the overall survival potential for the society the individual belongs to then it would have been selected for. We must always remember that evolution is about populations.

Of course, one can imagine plenty of situations where the truth might actually be harmful ... in Japan, it's common for doctors to not inform patients whom they have diagnosed with terminal cancer, on the grounds that it would only depress them and make their last days miserable. I am adamantly opposed to that attitude as it deprives the patient of the right, not only to know, but of the opportunity to make final arrangements. It assumes too much knowledge: the "knowledge" that the patient would be miserable, as opposed to the alternative possibility that the patient would be accepting, focused, and motivated to achieve certain objectives before life ends.

But in this case the default state is not knowing and the doctor can't prevent the inevitable. So "knowing" might be "too much knowledge" for the patient to handle and if the doctor estimates that this particular patient might be likely to go jump off a bridge if he learned the truth he shouldn't say anything. It's all individual.

Anyway, ethics, in practice, is full of interesting questions. The liberating thing about it is that we can determine answers by ourselves, without appeal to scriptural or legal authority, (or so I hope.)

Yes. But we do have the major answer. What benefits survival and well being is ethical. Simply ask any question and you already have the answer to the question.

[Darias]

Yet, the key point that is causing the problem is the key point that the free market economy is pushing, and that is the 'lack of regulation by government'.

I think the problem here is that wherever you see a lack of regulation, you choose to see the handiwork of libertarians.

China is not run by libertarians, and its communist policies are the reason why it owns 50% of its industrial sector. There is indeed a near absence of regulation by government in China precisely because those heavy, polluting industries are owned by the state. The state has little to no incentive to spend tax revenue policing its own companies, companies that would profit the state even more without red tape. But this situation is wholly the fault of government.

You also suggest that a free market means no regulation at all because you believe government is regulation and that there cannot be any apart from government. Well I don't see much regulation going on in China, but it still doesn't look like it's in a state of anarchy to me. Maybe the presence of big government doesn't mean there will be regulation after all. Maybe it shouldn't be an assumption on your part anymore.

The demand for testing and safety inspection is very high in China, as well as it is here. In a free market, there would be huge incentives to meet that demand. So how would it be done? Well, one possibility is if business owners want to be insured for fear of being sued, insurance companies would have their own inspection team inspect their business for cleanliness, safety etc. If business owners refused to be inspected, they would go uninsured because insurance companies have a monetary incentive to insure safe businesses. Without insurance and corporate personhood and limited liability, all it would take is one split cup of hot coffee to put them under.

You assume that a world without government is one without roads and food and just about everything else because you believe government is society, and that nothing can be done apart from it. And I've debated with you about this before and proven you wrong with many examples.

That is the whole point, and I don't think you will ever get it.

Maybe you could help explain to me how it makes any sense to push for regulation in an environment where the government is a corporatist one. How does that lead to the level of safety and environmental preservation you want? How does that make any sense at all?

The main incentive for corporations to get involved in politics is PRECISELY because this government has the level of power to regulate that it does. If it did not hold a monopoly on safety inspection and environmental protection and if it did not have the capacity to regulate that it does, corporations would not be as involved in politics as they are now -- at least not for that reason. They could always lobby the government for favors and protection from competition (bail outs, trade barriers, etc.), but if safety inspection was allowed in the marketplace, you would have more regulation and more rigorous regulation at that.

But the people who favor coercive monopolies and who want the government to have more power are responsible for what we have now. They are responsible for the main incentive corporations have to control the government. They, not libertarians, are responsible for corporatism.

How you hope to achieve more and better regulation by giving this corporatist government more power is beyond my comprehension. Wouldn't that lead to even less regulation?

If I just don't get it, it's because I cannot comprehend magical thinking. If there is some argument, some step I'm overlooking, please let me know because I just don't see how you could ever plan to achieve the level of regulation you want by giving corporatist politicians more power. It is literally no different than saying corporations should regulate themselves; they are doing just that by way of the government.

Nor, can you ever provide any evidence at any time that I am wrong.

Well, I gave you the facts about China, and even dug up some libertarian demographics. Does that count, or are you just never wrong?

[Darias]

[Replying to pixelero]

We seem to be in agreement.

Regarding ad populum, Goat seemed to have acknowledged that it was not a valid way to achieve that which is ethical in post 19:

No, it's not the standard, it's the way things get implemented.

He followed this with rationalizations for the state due to some perceived necessity.

However, this is very different from what he said in post 3.

In other words, if there are no objective moral standards, then nobody has the right to say that anything anybody does is wrong. . . .

Absolutely not. There is the little thing known as 'instinct to survive', and 'reciprocal altruism'. It can be boiled down to a social contract. You don't go kill other people, and other people won't go kill you. The social contract says 'If you go ahead and do things we as a collective deem incorrect, we, as a collective, will take action to protect ourselves against you.'. That is what happens today.. some people just use the threat of an imaginary judge to keep them in line, and rationalize it all. But, it actually is just a culturally conditioned response.

[. . . .]

We don't need the book of Judges. We have appointed police and real human judges to insure that the rules deemed needed for the smooth functioning of society are enforced.

As for Hitler, we, as a global society, decided he was a threat to us, and we removed him. End of story.

Rather than a description of the world as it is, this seems to me to be an endorsement of the appeal to force, with the mention of earthly judges, and the appeal to democracy, especially so for the last sentence (despite not being historically accurate).

If Goat was not actually endorsing this, I hope you can see how easily it was for me to misread his implications.



At this point, we should all be on the same page. You, me, Artie, Haven, Goat, and Overcomer. The ethical principle is really rather simple:

[center][/center]

If Goat and Overcomer wish to justify (with ex-post facto rationalizations) the unethical and fallacious for some perceived societal necessity, fine (that's a debate for another time); but I hope we can all acknowledge that objective ethics cannot validly or consistently be derived from government (authority) and democracy (popularity).

[Artie]

[center][/center]

If Goat and Overcomer wish to justify (with ex-post facto rationalizations) the unethical and fallacious for some perceived societal necessity, fine (that's a debate for another time); but I hope we can all acknowledge that objective ethics cannot validly or consistently be derived from government (authority) and democracy (popularity).

No, you can't derive objective morality validly and consistently from government or democracy.

If there is one thing most people do agree on it is that "survival is good". Most people have a survival instinct and want to live. Most people also agree that the Golden Rule is "good" (live and let live), because in a society living according to the Golden Rule generally leads to better chances of survival for all.

Your illustration: If John and his friends and even the government wants everybody to live by the Golden Rule and I don't, if I do things contrary to the Golden Rule I would expect to be stopped and they would have the right to stop me.

[Goat]

[center][/center]

If Goat and Overcomer wish to justify (with ex-post facto rationalizations) the unethical and fallacious for some perceived societal necessity, fine (that's a debate for another time); but I hope we can all acknowledge that objective ethics cannot validly or consistently be derived from government (authority) and democracy (popularity).

No, you can't derive objective morality validly and consistently from government or democracy.

If there is one thing most people do agree on it is that "survival is good". Most people have a survival instinct and want to live. Most people also agree that the Golden Rule is "good" (live and let live), because in a society living according to the Golden Rule generally leads to better chances of survival for all.

Your illustration: If John and his friends and even the government wants everybody to live by the Golden Rule and I don't, if I do things contrary to the Golden Rule I would expect to be stopped and they would have the right to stop me.

You have precisely pointed out where the Libertarian concepts break down. If everyone was equally ethical, and respected other people's rights.. if they were all the 'you' that is depicted in that straw man, then the libertarian ideas would work.

But, even if you have a minority of people who are bad apples, and don't want to play by the rules, the libertarian principles break down.

And , for a smilar reason, the 'free market economy' concepts break down too. If everyone was 'ethical and moral', that would be fine. However, history has shown us that people will cut corners for profit, and lie about the effects of their products.There is also the economics of 'economy of scale' , and that means that larger companies would use their economic power to drive smaller business out of the marketplace to be able to control prices. That allows them to control the labor force, and you get the Robber barons of the 19th century arising. That is what is happening iwth the 'supply side' economics, and that would also be the pattern with the free market economy... a destruction of the middle class, the rise of a huge poverty class, where desperation makes them accept bad working conditions and miserable pay, and an elite upper class.

Look at who is bankrolling the conservative think tanks that is pushing the libertarian ideals. Look who is financing the Cato institute, the heartland institute, and the Reason Foundation.

[Darias]

1)

No, you can't derive objective morality validly and consistently from government or democracy.

If there is one thing most people do agree on. . . .

Objective morality cannot be validly and consistently be derived from consensus.

However, according to most people, . . . hocus pocus. . . ergo, ethics.

This is an example of doublethink. That 180° was so quick, I'm surprised you don't have whiplash.



2)

"survival is good". Most people have a survival instinct and want to live. Most people also agree that the Golden Rule is "good" (live and let live), because in a society living according to the Golden Rule generally leads to better chances of survival for all.

1. Objective ethics cannot rest upon whatever maximizes survival for the individual or the group, because that which maximizes survival for the individual or, conversely, for the group, may come at the expense of others. People can prey on others just as easily as they can trade with them and do quite well for themselves at that. Examples include, gangs, taxation, war, etc.

I disagree with Sam Harris' view in this regard, that 'objective morality is maximizing human flourishing'. I certainly do not dislike the idea of a better world, but you cannot derive objective, consistent ethics from whatever is best for most at any given time; that is simply opportunism, not ethics. Such a claim is indistinguishable from the idea that the ever-changing nature of the Biblical Yahweh's will is the basis for objective morality; and both notions are simply schizophrenic.

Ethics cannot be objectively defined as “that which is good for man’s survival.� Certain individuals can survive very well by preying on others, so this definition of ethics does not overcome the problem of subjectivism. In biological terms, this would be analogous to describing evolutionary tendencies as “that which is good for life’s survival� – this would make no sense. Human society is an ecosystem of competing interests, just as the rainforest is, and what is “good� for one man so often comes at the expense of another.

[center][/center]


2. Objective ethics cannot be derived from what the majority prefers; clearly there exist people who prefer death to life and who prefer predatory behaviors to cooperative ones or who prefer indoctrination to facts. Universally preferable behavior is not universally 'preferred' behavior; the latter is just greenlighting the will of the majority as truth. Again, objectivity cannot be achieved via consensus. Most persons on this earth reject the objective standard for understanding the universe we call the scientific method, instead preferring various creation myths. Most people in this example are objectively, demonstrably wrong. If most people on this earth or, more realistically, in a region of the planet, preferred slavery and suicidal jihad, that cultural consensus would not indicate that something objective is emerging.

When I was attending university, my professor often quoted the following Qur'anic scripture in an effort to persuade Muslims that Democracy is compatible with Islam.

My ummah will never agree upon an error

She was most certainly right to make that connection between ideologies. But the idea that the community/nation's consensus leads to truth is fundamentally fallacious, not to mention completely the opposite of what occurs in reality.



3)

Your illustration: If John and his friends and even the government wants everybody to live by the Golden Rule and I don't, if I do things contrary to the Golden Rule I would expect to be stopped and they would have the right to stop me.

If the Golden Rule is defined in a positive sense, i.e., "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself," then society doesn't have any right to do what they will with you. Hypothetically, you could be a complete asshole, but if you're not committing a crime -- and by crime I do not mean disobeying arbitrary state laws -- e.g., if you're not violating property rights by murdering, stealing, assaulting, damaging, invading, or raping the property/life of another, then you are not jeopardizing/voiding your life, wealth, economic reputation or freedom to roam. Given this circumstance, you are not provoking self-defense on behalf of one or more people. Any issuance of force applied outside of self-defense is the definition of aggression. The initiation of force, aka violence, is not valid because it is the fruit of one or more aggressors who have set themselves up as the unjustified exception to the rule of logic and reason. This is also known as special pleading. We're all human beings, so you do not have the logical right to take my things for any reason or need (barring self defense or the defense of others), and neither do I. Applying different moral standards for different sets of people just because they wear funny costumes, or because they live over there and not here is insane; and the thought has no place in a discussion about objective ethics.

Now if you reverse the roles in the image, where you are an aggressor, and where others are victims (real victims, not simply a 'moral majority' offended by your ideas and customs) of your actions and threats, then self-defense is perfectly justified.

But a state that monopolizes security and arbitration, means of protection and restitution, is not required to enforce the respect for property rights. You can have a thriving security and arbitration industry, respectively, through wholly voluntary means, without the need for taxation (theft). Justice and safety are musts that most people demand, and because there is such a high demand, that demand will exist as an incentive to be met. People will not tolerate criminals; and as I previously stated, crimes are not rights (freedoms) because rights can only be said to be universal; and it is impossible for a crime to be a universal good for all individuals, since crime requires a victim -- otherwise it's a gift, a trade, lovemaking, a guest, or voluntary euthanasia (not theft, coercion, rape, criminal trespass, or murder).

Consistency is the heart and soul of anything objective or universal. It is no different for determining "the good" from that which is evil (if you can pardon my moralizing language, I am after all speaking about ethics here). To see why it is inconsistent to claim that crimes like rape can be a universal moral good, please read pages 65 to 72 of UPB.

It is both nonsensical and hypocritical, ethically speaking, to appeal to murderers, thieves, and slavers in the name of preventing murder, theft, and slavery. The state itself can only exist via violence and theft in its various forms -- but brutality is still brutality, whether it greets you with a club or with a smile.

[center][/center]

[Artie]

1)

No, you can't derive objective morality validly and consistently from government or democracy.

If there is one thing most people do agree on. . . .

Objective morality cannot be validly and consistently be derived from consensus.

However, according to most people, . . . hocus pocus. . . ergo, ethics.

This is an example of doublethink. That 180° was so quick, I'm surprised you don't have whiplash.

1. Something is objectively correct because most people agree that it is correct. (Wrong.)
2. Something is objectively correct and most people understand this and agree it is correct. (Right.)

Do you see any difference between point 1 and 2?

2)

"survival is good". Most people have a survival instinct and want to live. Most people also agree that the Golden Rule is "good" (live and let live), because in a society living according to the Golden Rule generally leads to better chances of survival for all.

1. Objective ethics cannot rest upon whatever maximizes survival for the individual or the group, because that which maximizes survival for the individual or, conversely, for the group, may come at the expense of others.

In this case, humanity is the group. Who are these others you speak of? Aliens?

Most persons on this earth reject the objective standard for understanding the universe we call the scientific method, instead preferring various creation myths. Most people in this example are objectively, demonstrably wrong.

Religion evolved because people who gathered with like-minded "sheep" in "flocks" or "congregations" and read Bibles and believed in religious authority figures such as "shepherds" like Jesus telling them they should be nice to each other got a survival advantage. Evolution couldn't "care less" if these gods actually existed or not.

Applying different moral standards for different sets of people just because they wear funny costumes, or because they live over there and not here is insane; and the thought has no place in a discussion about objective ethics.

All humans are living in the same "house" called the Earth which is one community. All activity that jeopardizes chances of survival for anybody is "objectively wrong". It is all about the survival of the genome and as many as possible. We are even wired by evolution to give up our own lives if it means the continuted survival of several other lives such as for example our children. "Crimes against humanity". Any crime is a "crime against humanity".

[Darias]

1)

1. Something is objectively correct because most people agree that it is correct. (Wrong.)
2. Something is objectively correct and most people understand this and agree it is correct. (Right.)

Do you see any difference between point 1 and 2?

Thank you for clarifying.

Still, point 2 seems to be unnecessarily confusing the issue, simply because what most people think is irrelevant to the objectiveness of ethics.

The objectivity of the scientific method is in no way undermined by the presence of even one believer; and this world is home to more people who reject it than who acknowledge its validity. Yet, if we lived in a parallel universe, where most people recognized its value as a tool for discovering universal truths, the scientific method would not be anymore objective than it already is here and now.

Likewise, ethics neither acquires objectivity by recognition, nor is it in want by repudiation.



2)

Objective ethics cannot rest upon whatever maximizes survival for the individual or the group, because that which maximizes survival for the individual or, conversely, for the group, may come at the expense of others.

In this case, humanity is the group. Who are these others you speak of? Aliens?

By 'group' I meant a majority in a society... of humans. However, you bring up a good point.

For the sake of argument, objective ethics must be universally applied to all rational life capable of ethical behavior, not just humans. And of course you can't demand ethical behavior from the comatose, mentally ill, minors, or animals, but you can certainly hold their caretakers and creators accountable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Mr. Tsoukalos, but if we don't recognize universality now (as it applies to the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life), then we're just pretending human speciesism is somehow objective. Property rights is still valid whether you're red, yellow, black and white... or grey. Technological progression is irrelevant.



3)

Religion evolved because people who gathered with like-minded "sheep" in "flocks" or "congregations" and read Bibles and believed in religious authority figures such as "shepherds" like Jesus telling them they should be nice to each other got a survival advantage. Evolution couldn't "care less" if these gods actually existed or not.

Evolution doesn't care about anything, not even ethics. Evolution is a phenomenon, not an agent with will or purpose.

I understand how religious beliefs can come about and replicate throughout the ages. It could be said that irrational beliefs can quicken spirits and unite people together, ultimately promoting survival of a group in a certain time and place. Yet, there comes a time where those same beliefs threaten life; and whatever advantages that can come from self-deception and delusion on a grand scale are ultimately dwarfed by the negative consequences that necessarily come with it.

This is precisely why anything which can be said to promote survival and reproduction should not automatically be considered ethical. That is not to say that death is somehow universally preferable to life, it is just to say that appealing to nature, or the effects of nature is not a valid basis for ethics. Evolution and popular acceptance cannot inform that which is true, they can only be complementary to that which is true.

Empathy, based on emotion, is great because it is compatible with ethics, which is based on reason. But empathy is not the basis for ethics. We could all have lizard brains and still be ethical.



4)

All humans are living in the same "house" called the Earth which is one community. All activity that jeopardizes chances of survival for anybody is "objectively wrong". It is all about the survival of the genome and as many as possible. We are even wired by evolution to give up our own lives if it means the continuted survival of several other lives such as for example our children.

Voluntary euthanasia guarantees the discontinuation of an individual's survival, but it is not objectively wrong.

If procreation and long life are objectively 'the good' that all seeking to be moral or ethical should pursue, then having lots of children and being healthy would be objectively moral, whereas having no children and taking risks would be immoral. Rape and subsequent childbirth could also be considered ethical following this reasoning. I hope I don't have to explain how illogical this is.

Survival and health makes no sense as a basis for universal, objective ethics (Note: this does not mean death and pestilence must be maximized). All you are doing here is looking at what natural selection does and calling this phenomenon of life "ethics." This is an appeal to nature. So, that's not valid.

No, the only basis for objective right and wrong is whatever is voluntary, barring crime. This leaves room for lots of subjective preferences, be they healthy or unhealthy, or cultural or individual, or amoral. So long as one agent does not violate the property of another, there can be no crime, and thus no wrongdoing.



5)

"Crimes against humanity". Any crime is a "crime against humanity".

Any crime involves individuals, not the species as a whole. I don't see the need for "against humanity," but that should not diminish the power of the word.

Any crime against humanity is a crime. Any war-crime is a crime; war is a crime.

The reason for the extra qualifiers is because people tend to place value on a majority rather than an individual. People don't really get too upset about crime involving individuals because to them it's "just a crime," as if it doesn't mean anything. But if there is a crime that affects a lot of people, then they decide to care -- purely out of self-interest and not based on any adherence to principles.

There is a reason why the Qur'an says:

. . . if anyone slays a human being-unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth-it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.

It is because of the hidden belief many share (including the religious), that mankind, or a majority, matters -- whereas the individual does not. This is simply utilitarianism, and it has no place in objective ethics whatsoever.

[Artie]

1)

1. Something is objectively correct because most people agree that it is correct. (Wrong.)
2. Something is objectively correct and most people understand this and agree it is correct. (Right.)

Do you see any difference between point 1 and 2?

Thank you for clarifying.

Still, point 2 seems to be unnecessarily confusing the issue, simply because what most people think is irrelevant to the objectiveness of ethics.

I was just explaining why what I wrote wasn't an example of doublethink.
2)

Objective ethics cannot rest upon whatever maximizes survival for the individual or the group, because that which maximizes survival for the individual or, conversely, for the group, may come at the expense of others.

In this case, humanity is the group. Who are these others you speak of? Aliens?

By 'group' I meant a majority in a society... of humans. However, you bring up a good point.

For the sake of argument, objective ethics must be universally applied to all rational life capable of ethical behavior, not just humans.

Sure. But I wouldn't say "universally applied to" because ethics isn't something you apply to somebody. Ethics evolved and a similar code of behavior would have evolved in existing "alien" societies too, otherwise they would have killed each other instead of helping each other and wouldn't exist in the first place.

And of course you can't demand ethical behavior from the comatose, mentally ill, minors, or animals, but you can certainly hold their caretakers and creators accountable.

True.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Mr. Tsoukalos, but if we don't recognize universality now (as it applies to the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life), then we're just pretending human speciesism is somehow objective. Property rights is still valid whether you're red, yellow, black and white... or grey. Technological progression is irrelevant.

True.
3)

Religion evolved because people who gathered with like-minded "sheep" in "flocks" or "congregations" and read Bibles and believed in religious authority figures such as "shepherds" like Jesus telling them they should be nice to each other got a survival advantage. Evolution couldn't "care less" if these gods actually existed or not.

Evolution doesn't care about anything, not even ethics. Evolution is a phenomenon, not an agent with will or purpose.

True. Which is why we say what it produces is "objective" not "subjective".

I understand how religious beliefs can come about and replicate throughout the ages. It could be said that irrational beliefs can quicken spirits and unite people together, ultimately promoting survival of a group in a certain time and place. Yet, there comes a time where those same beliefs threaten life; and whatever advantages that can come from self-deception and delusion on a grand scale are ultimately dwarfed by the negative consequences that necessarily come with it.

Well stated! But if the negative consequences of belief had outweighed the positive consequences we wouldn't have the variety of belief systems and religions we have today. Many continue as priests even though they no longer believe because they realize this. I really doubt religions and belief will die out and be replaced by rationalism in the foreseeable future. Not as long as it serves its purpose.

This is precisely why anything which can be said to promote survival and reproduction should not automatically be considered ethical. That is not to say that death is somehow universally preferable to life, it is just to say that appealing to nature, or the effects of nature is not a valid basis for ethics.

It isn't an "appeal" to nature since evolution is the "basis for ethics". Name something "ethical" that doesn't promote well-being and survival.

Evolution and popular acceptance cannot inform that which is true, they can only be complementary to that which is true.

It is true that we have a survival instinct so the objective truth is that since our survival instinct wasn't the result of somebody's subjective opinion but of evolution then it is objectively true that what leads to well-being and survival is ethical.

Empathy, based on emotion, is great because it is compatible with ethics, which is based on reason.

We evolved empathy and the group with individuals who had empathy got a survival advantage because they helped each other.

But empathy is not the basis for ethics. We could all have lizard brains and still be ethical.

Correct. For example, a vampire bat will share its food with a starving roost mate. That is ethical behavior because it ensures the continued well being and survival of vampire bats.
4)

All humans are living in the same "house" called the Earth which is one community. All activity that jeopardizes chances of survival for anybody is "objectively wrong". It is all about the survival of the genome and as many as possible. We are even wired by evolution to give up our own lives if it means the continuted survival of several other lives such as for example our children.

Voluntary euthanasia guarantees the discontinuation of an individual's survival, but it is not objectively wrong.

Of course not. Evolution isn't about the continued survival of individuals but of populations. If the individual in question is suffering and his continued existence serves no purpose and he considers himself a burden on society taking up resources better spent on the well-being and survival of others it is up to him to act on it. Some years back in my country an elderly man in some nursing home I think it was was very ill and his pride and dignity didn't allow him to be a burden on society. He appealed to everybody but was just ignored so somehow he managed to get out on a little balcony and threw himself to his death.

If procreation and long life

From an evolutionary point of view individuals living too long is not an advantage. There's a reason we have a limited life span.

are objectively 'the good' that all seeking to be moral or ethical should pursue, then having lots of children and being healthy would be objectively moral, whereas having no children and taking risks would be immoral.

And consequently people who have no children or take excessive risks and maybe die don't procreate and don't produce children who are of the opinion that "having no children and taking lethal risks" is moral. You don't think that it is immoral for people who have families to throw themselves off cliffs and possibly die and leave their families to fend for themselves?

Rape and subsequent childbirth could also be considered ethical following this reasoning. I hope I don't have to explain how illogical this is.

Yes, this reasoning is illogical of course. Rape and subsequent childbirth is not ethical because that would violate another person and lead to unwanted children and a less stable environment in which to raise these children which is of course not in the "interest of evolution" and would lead to less chances of survival.

Survival and health makes no sense as a basis for universal, objective ethics

Then show me something ethical that doesn't promote health, well-being and survival for individuals or groups.

No, the only basis for objective right and wrong is whatever is voluntary, barring crime. This leaves room for lots of subjective preferences, be they healthy or unhealthy, or cultural or individual, or amoral. So long as one agent does not violate the property of another, there can be no crime, and thus no wrongdoing.

So leaving my family would be perfectly ethical to you since I haven't violated the property of another?
5)

"Crimes against humanity". Any crime is a "crime against humanity".

Any crime involves individuals, not the species as a whole. I don't see the need for "against humanity," but that should not diminish the power of the word.

Evolution is about survival of the species, that is humanity. The act of unlawfully removing a member of the species from the population also weakens the strength and reduces the number of individuals in the population. Have you heard the saying "strength in numbers"?

The reason for the extra qualifiers is because people tend to place value on a majority rather than an individual.

People do because evolution does and it's programmed into our brains. Which is why one soldier is willing to give his life if it saves a lot of other soldiers.

People don't really get too upset about crime involving individuals because to them it's "just a crime," as if it doesn't mean anything. But if there is a crime that affects a lot of people, then they decide to care -- purely out of self-interest and not based on any adherence to principles.

Because we are programmed by evolution to care more about crimes committed against populations than against individuals because evolution is about the survival of populations not necessarily single individuals.

There is a reason why the Qur'an says:

. . . if anyone slays a human being-unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth-it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.

It is because of the hidden belief many share (including the religious), that mankind, or a majority, matters -- whereas the individual does not. This is simply utilitarianism, and it has no place in objective ethics whatsoever.

No, it is simply hard wired into our brains by evolution that the survival of the individual is of secondary importance to the survival of our genome and several individuals, which is why we give our lives for our children or country. If you deny that, you might as well deny being human.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 33 by Darias]

We seem to be in agreement.

Yes, we seem to agree on ethics and anarchy.

I am, however, interested in your conception of "property rights." Could you offer the premises upon which property rights are based?

Also you wrote, "...of course you can't demand ethical behavior from the comatose, mentally ill, minors, or animals..."

I'm curious about your definition of "minors" and "mentally ill." How do you determine, specifically, who is a "minor" or who is "mentally ill," in anarchist/anti-authoritarian terms?