This is a continuation of https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1 In reading this, you accept the previous points. If you wish to argue against those, please post in the previous posts.

A summary of the previous points.

1. If there is an objective morality, a foundation is "Existence must be good."
2. To measure existence, it must be quantified. A quantified existence is an existent.
3. Existence is quantified through the way it expresses itself. This can be by itself, or as an interaction with another existent.
4. The way to measure existence is expressions over time.
5. The possible expressions an existence can do in the next time set, is potential existence.
6. Existence can evolve by interacting with another in such a way as to create potential and actual existence that could not exist on its own. Ex: Two atoms combine into a molecule.

Again, if there are any issues with the above, refer to the previous posts.

What is life?

Life is not some special substance, but an organization of matter and energy in a particular way. It is a self-sustaining set of reactions. This is different from a reaction that does not sustain itself. Mix vinegar and baking soda and you'll get a reaction that eventually fizzes out. Life actively seeks more ingredients for itself by finding food, water, and reproducing itself to make more.

What is the good of life?

A chemical interaction is a sharp rise in existence over a short period of time. The problem is it eventually ends. Life, in theory, does not. A little math can show us the extremely high existential value of life.

1 chemical reactive explosion that generates 100,000 existence in one day = 100,000 existence
1 life that generates 1 existence in one day forever (by reproduction) = infinite existence

In other words, the extension and preservation of life is paramount in comparison to non-life.

How do we compare life to other life?

As usual, the co-existence of everything is the ideal. But there are cases in which certain lives are prioritized over others. In the case of a singular life, this is difficult to evaluate. But in the case of a system, its much easier to analyze.

Homeostasis is the goal of all life

Let us imagine that the only life which existed were sheep. As they reproduced in number, more existence would be produced. But eventually the sheep would grow so numerous, they would eat all of the grass and die. Thus at the point in which life would grow to eliminate itself, there must be some check.

Wolves are a check on sheep. Too many sheep, and all life dies. Not enough sheep, and wolves die. But if there is a balance between the grass, sheep, and wolves, homeostasis is achieved.

A hierarchy of existents

We now have a hierarchy.

a. In cases where all existence can co-exist, this is the most existence, and highest good.
b. In cases in which a choice must be made between an individual life and non-life, life is the higher good.
c. In cases in which a system of life would be destroyed vs one life destroyed, the system of life is the greater good.

That's all for now! The next post will be how an objective morality would conclude the morality of human existence. Continued here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15264/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-intelligent-life