XGuilt

The first consideration when seeking out a 'philosophy' of life and living must necessarily be whether one wants an 'objective' one or a 'subjective' one - and whether one is sufficiently informed to know the difference. Subjective philosophies (which reflect most of what has been imposed on humanity to-date) are designed to answer the question, "What can I get away with in life and with the greatest number of people?" Objective philosophy (which has been identified by only 2 recognized philosophers in history, Aristotle being the first) seeks an answer to the primary question, "What is the meaning and value of my existence within the context of perceivable REALITY?"

The 2nd philosopher built upon Aristotle's foundation, and identified the only fully integrated system of 'objectivity' to the otherwise offensively subjective realm of human philosophy. Her name was Ayn Rand, and the system she, alone, so brilliantly identified is called the Philosophy of Objectivism. You can find its authorized website by searching "Ayn Rand". I've studied it intensively for over 17 years now, and I've yet to find any meaningful contradiction anywhere in it.

You'll also find in this philosophy the answer to your question about the viable concept she called "rational suicide" - and yes, it fully embraces your stated concept of 'self-preservation'. Her philosophical system, as one should expect, also identifies a full and rationally objective code of 'morality' with which to implement its stated values and principles. Again, it's 'fully integrated' - something no other philosopher in recorded history accomplished.

Good luck...

Baptist Vine

I think there are two approaches that can be taken toward attempting to define or understand the basis of morality.

I think a lot of people probably have some kind of synthesis of both approaches in their own individual conceptualization of morality.

One approach would be based on what is harmful or beneficial to people. If something is life giving or sustaining we view it as good. If something is threatening, grievous or deadly we view it as wrong.

The other approach seems to be connected to an understanding or a belief that there is some other kind of reality or standard to which adherence or compliance is due. Why? I don't know. However, compliance, adherence, and actions that are consistent with the standard are moral, they are axiomatically true.

It should be pointed out that the 'reality' and 'standard' might not be well understood or even at all evident according to a well elucidated rigourous proof fashion.

This facet to truth actually has a sense of objectivity because the individual feels that there is a standard that has it's justification entirely outside of their level of existence, entirely beyond personal, cultural or national or racial motivations. It is very abstracted and ideal.

This type obviously comes into play in the lives of peoples and cultures that posess or develop religious belief.

Each individual likely struggles with a synthesis of what I have attempted to describe here as two approaches or understandings.

jlowder

You might be interested in Larry Arnhart's book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0791436942/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Darwinian Natural Right.</a> Arnhart defends the view that the good is the desirable, and he identifies over 20 natural desires that virtually all humans share. Arnhart argues that moral goodness is identical with what promotes human flourishing.

Hope this of some help.

Best wishes,

Jeffery Jay Lowder