I have Moral Authority

The Objectivity of Morality: What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do. "The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy It is right to follow the sole meaning of life. The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence. Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive. Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct. You should not maliciously or apathetically end humanity. I would also put forth the laws of causality. Everything that is literally happening right now has a literal reason in which to why it happened. Thus, if we accept that there will be a point in time or at the end of time that humanity will become no more, then it would imply that every action we take now until then would cause such an event. Take for an instance all the actions you do in your life. We will represent all those actions with the letter "A". Now all those actions will lead to other people making their own actions. Those people's actions will be labeled as "B". Now all of those actions will lead to more people making more actions. We will call all of those actions "C". "A" leads to "B" which leads to "C". This is logic, point effect. We will get to the point where people no longer can take action(Humanity's end). We will call it "K". The alphabet is a representation of the timeline where "Z" will represent the end of time. Now I am arguing that ending humanity at "K" is wrong. I think we should be going for "Z". But in order to do that, we first have to figure out why is it ending at "K". However, I'm getting a little ahead of myself. What if you could change even a little of your actions today so it could lead to pushing that to even "L"? At which letter would it be worth it? (yes, realistically in this metaphor, the Earth itself would be completely barren unable to sustain any life due to the increasing temperature of the sun a lot sooner than "Z", but hopefully we have some kind of effective form of space travel by then.) Causality states that your actions today will bring extinction to Humanity eventually. We just have to keep trying to push that point as far as we can. At least that's what I want to do. I've have had a few debates with to solidify this theory. Please go to www.debate.org and check out the debates regarding Objective Morality(there's several of them, but I believe they are all mine. The biggest thing to take from this is that we can finally have peace in the world. The morality is not mutually exclusive to any religion. It can exclude people who break the law in the name of God. Religion is not wrong. Man is. A world government can be formed with this code of morality. One that is not subjective to any person beliefs. Here are some of what I believe are the finer points of this theorem: "What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do". What is moral and what is ethical is what one should or can do. You cannot objectify morality because it gives us no choice but to take the morally acceptable action. Note I do not write the "right" action because morally you have no choice. "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" but does it? 50 shop assistants on one side and five heart surgeons on the other which group would you save from certain death at the expense of the other? Morally you must save the assistants even though the surgeons could save far more than fifty patients so ethically you should save them. Morality is linear thinking, straightforward and unchanging and cannot be objectified." -GrimlyF www.debate.org Would 5 surgeons help the survival of humanity or 50 shop assistants? With all the information we have currently, 5 surgeons are more likely to save more lives than 50 shop assistants in the foreseeable future, mostly because their job is to save lives. Because this theorem was never revealed in the history of mankind, the only objective way of determining of right and wrong was from the creation of ethics(which is still needed for lower governments but must be altered to match this morality). Absolutely, this argument can nullify ethics. Would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family? You essentially have to ask, does stealing this bread and feeding your family helps or hurts humanity's existence? This also asks the question, does not stealing this bread and not feeding your family help or hurt humanity's existence? It can't be answered factually because of all the variables between now and the end of humanity are unforeseen. However, it may be answered conceptually. In addition, we are aware of some current institutions that can promote human continuity(education for one). It is your moral choice whether or not you should help humanity. We have been dependent for so long for religion to answer our moral questions. Religion is a necessary institution for humanity, for it gives a shortcut explanation of why we do things. In my opinion, any religion that leads to the end of humanity is wrong. I argue that since "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son," John 3:16, why would he tell anyone to end it? Even though I cannot say for certain other religions realize the same thing about their deities, I'm assuming that since most people aren't trying to kill each other is because they are aware that forming groups with a common ideology will help fortify institutions thus helping humanity continue to exist. The fact of the matter is that this hypothesis is not mutually exclusive to religion. One can even begin to say that killing in the name of God is wrong. Also keep in mind that there can be groups or individuals within the religion that may share a difference of opinion with the mass majority of the population of said religion. If one man said the Earth is round and presented evidence as such, but millions of people said it was flat with their own rationale, which side would be morally correct and which should be morally correct? If you really loved someone, then why wouldn't care about their legacy as well? I'm sorry, but if you don't care about your legacy ending, then I believe you can't ever know what love truly is. Say we have come to the point in time when humanity ends. You have a great great great etc. grandchild dealing with the end of the world. I assume that nearing the end, life would really suck. What if you started to take actions today to move that point in time further? Would those actions of yours be worth it for that grandchild to have the opportunity to a child of their own since there was more time given? Is it right to love so much to give them the gift of time so they can experience the greatest aspects of life? I suppose it all depends on how much you love life yourself. If you are truly happy, would it be worth it to make another descendant have the opportunity of feeling it his/herself? What is the most likely scenario/s to cause humanity's extinction? I think that if we had a consensus of those scenarios are, then we should do everything to prevent it. I would also argue that the people at the end of humanity wouldn't want to die. If you had lived at the end, would still not care. If you claimed self-interest, then why wouldn't you be upset at the past for not trying harder to save your life? I'm upset the dark ages happened for humanity. When should we become the bigger man? If you have made the choice not to care, what about those do? The only people who don't care or even maliciously defy this morality are sociopaths and psychopaths. This theorem proves they are immoral. This theorem does not say you should always think about the future first. It is implicit that if you don't care for yourself first, then you may not have a legacy to work on. This just says the most selfless reason you can have for being selfish is to worry about your legacy. You should always take care all your emotional, physical and mental needs first. But anything beyond that is a choice of morality. The general population of the world can feel love for one another. This love can travel through time as well.