There is no transcendent source material. — Tom Storm

You are pretty much in agreement with Moore and Foot, then.

That depends on your views of morality.

It is not against the guidelines. Posting a link in the thread is unless it is relevant to the conversation.

No link posted.

I think the whole problem can be easily addressed here by framing the is-ought problem with a the lens of emotivism. It is a conscious association not an instinctual one.

We also know that we are neurological wired to favour whatever outcome serves us. So, our evolutionary adjusts have, so some degree, led us to associate 'good' outcomes as 'ought to be' situations.

It does seem to suit species survival. The problem behind this though is the tools used to assess how favourable an outcome is alongside our temporal appreciation - short vs long term repercussions.

Where it comes down to basic survival (meaning immediate existential threats) the is-ought is overruled by instinctual apparatus.

This is not a good song. But it is all this thread deserves.

Yes, doing what is good is doing what someone else wants

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

minus "self"

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.

Hmm. Or you could... cooperate....

Reported to moderators as self-promotion in accordance with site guidelines against "Advertisers, spammers, self-promoters". — Wayfarer

Thanks. :up: