Yeah, there's no shortage of jackasses in the world lol.

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."

I know the feeling lol

Yes, I think we're on the same page :smile: . (Bah someone else thought of it too haha.)

I can prove it (not kidding). Unfortunately though, I want to try profit from my sage powers so I have to ask for a small fee. :grimace:

I agree that other lifeforms are not self aware the way we are. I would argue that our advanced development allows self-actualisation. The fundamental property of life, however, is the same across the board.

It's more than just our neurological development. Even the most simple lifeforms display self-preservation, it permeates all life.

Like I've said, Moore's argument is about meta ethics, you're asking about applied ethics, which requires further elaboration and would take the topic in another direction.

So what if it's self-published and new? And I've discussed the main point of the thread, I'm just not going to go on a tangent to other topics.

I'm not going to get into applied ethics for now, but if you're interested there's a link to a book I wrote in my profile that deals with meta, applied ethics and more :smile: .

Yes.

The argument is about the nature of right and wrong, saying it isn't reducible to a property on its own. Which is correct, it isn't the property, but rather the relation and effect of the property to the entity being alive.

It is, because is-ought isn't about specific prescriptions but the nature of prescription itself.

You're right that on it's own it is subjective. This is the text that follows in the chapter :wink:
"This on its own, however, does not help us determine what is right or wrong specifically. We can easily descend into murderous chaos in the notion that our actions are for survival or self-preservation. To go deeper, we must first, go beyond."

Are you aware that the slave trade was occurring in Africa before Europeans ever got there?