And what do you consider as justification?

But I think we have to go beyond just survival. Of course, survival is important, you can't do anything if you're dead after all. Human beings also care about having good relationships with other beings for example. — Hello Human

Exactly. That's why I said: "From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being." This encompasses almost everything that is "good" for everyone. And vice versa: everything that is "good" helps people's survival. E.g. "Good relationships" that you mention, help people in difficult situations in their life and in general enhance their life (survival).

One can see survival as a sphere, which is expanding and contracting on a constant basis. When it is expanding, it grows towards a maximum potential. When it is contacting it is reduced to a minimum potential. When it is totally contracted, it becomes just a "point" (the center), with no dimensions, that is, nothing, no life. You can feel this expansion and contraction: When you are healthy and happy, this sphere is much expanded and you feel that you are winning, that you can conquer the world, that the whole world is yours. When you are sick or sad, you feel that you have lost a part of that world and that the world around and inside you has shrunk. Too much sorrow leads to death. All this is survival.

Now, who is most in the wrong here ?
— Hello Human
This is a silly example. I don't know why you're trying so hard. You don't have to agree with me. — T Clark

I believe that it is a very good example. (@Hello Human :up:) The main difference between the two is their intention. The criminal intends to harm the victim. So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference!

what you call survival has a way of seeping out and attaching itself to people other than ourselves by evolution or culture I guess — T Clark

I'm not sure what do mean exactly, but if you mean that I have only talked about our own survival, it isn't so. I have included "others" in a very clear manner, as follows (quoting): "Now, since we are talking about morality, which has mainly a social connotation, we should also expand "survival" in a "spherical" way, to include persons around us -- from family, to friends to larger groups, to society, to humanity -- and say that an action is as moral as it is good for the greatest part of the people in the mentioned areas or "spheres" of reference."

Exactly. That's why I said: "From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being." This encompasses almost everything that is "good" for everyone. And vice versa: everything that is "good" helps people's survival. E.g. "Good relationships" that you mention, help people in difficult situations in their life and in general enhance their life (survival). — Alkis Piskas

You're right. I didn't read far enough.

I believe that it is a very good example. (@Hello Human :up:) The main difference between the two is their intention. The criminal intends to harm the victim. So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference! — Alkis Piskas

So, what if the bad guy wasn't trying to kill the other guy? What if he were just robbing him. Or beating him up. Or insulting him. What if he just broke a promise. What if he slept with his wife. I'm guess that could be stretched to constitute survival, but it would be just that, a stretch.

Back to the most important part - morality might make sense to reason, but that's not where it comes from. It comes from our regard for each other and our society's need to provide security for all of us.

So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference! — Alkis Piskas

I agree. But I think that there is some point where actions trying to protect survival go too far. Being paranoid or overprotective for example.

Addiction is a good example on how the informing principle of our physical stimulation takes control over our purpose. As well, physical stimulation is not only reserved to pain or pleasure. Starvation is simply the bodies way of telling you its hungry, and yet, it would transform, or take control of our purpose to that of searching for a way to find food. That would incite that it has a control over an aspect of our purpose, which would mean that therefore we do not have full control over our purpose.

Hunger incites you to eat, but you don't necessarily eat afterwards. That's why intermittent fasting exists. It does help us make our decisions, but we don't have to follow it.

Why would you not follow it?

Edit:
If an incitement is so strong that it becomes your present purpose, if even for only a second, could it be considered an incitement still?

As well for the ambiguous question that I asked above, I am mostly trying to describe that even if you were to create a separate scenario, It would be guided by a form of emotion, which is a form of physical stimulation e.g I am not eating because I am fasting, and to complete the fast is a task I must do to satisfy myself.

there is some point where actions trying to protect survival go too far. Being paranoid or overprotective for example. — Hello Human

Of course. But these are extreme cases. There are always extreme cases in everything. Moreover, in this case, we cannot speak about morality when the person is mentally ill or cannot distinguish right from wrong.

what if the bad guy wasn't trying to kill the other guy? — T Clark

But the example talks about a serial killer ... Anyway, I get what you mean (outside the example given): 'A' wants to harm 'B' but not severely, and 'B' tries to prevent the harm or responds to the harm done more severely, even killing 'A'. Well, I think this case belongs to the subject of "justifiable" actions that are judged in courts and elsewhere. But I think this gets outside the scope of this discussion, doesn't it?

If an incitement is so strong that it becomes your present purpose, if even for only a second, could it be considered an incitement still? — john27

No it cannot be considered incitement. I agree with the claim that incitement can become our purpose, but not with the claim that it always is our purpose.

But the example talks about a serial killer ... Anyway, I get what you mean (outside the example given): 'A' wants to harm 'B' but not severely, and 'B' tries to prevent the harm or responds to the harm done more severely, even killing 'A'. Well, I think this case belongs to the subject of "justifiable" actions that are judged in courts and elsewhere. But I think this gets outside the scope of this discussion, doesn't it? — Alkis Piskas

As I noted previously, when I bring up an argument against you positions, you and @Hello Human just redefine the issue. I don't see that we're getting anywhere. Enough for me.

No it cannot be considered incitement. I agree with the claim that incitement can become our purpose, but not with the claim that it always is our purpose. — Hello Human

I agree. I only wished to demonstrate that it would seem that we do not have control over our purpose because we only control it partially; the remaining bits are left to whatever remains.

Wait did I just do a No Scotsman?