Thank you for your interesting response.
You wrote: “People can and do logically choose non-life.” It is true that many people choose non-life; I contend, however, that they do not choose it *logically*, because the choice entails making a contradiction in the sense that the goal (non-life) requires its direct opposite (life) in order to be obtained. So unless people drop dead without any effort on their part, it cannot be said that they *consistently* choose non-life. It can only be said that they pursue mutually inconsistent behaviors and thus that their behaviors cannot be called moral, because morality requires logical consistency.
Furthermore, the very question of what is moral is only necessary for living beings. A dead person has no possibility for action, so morality is a moot issue for him - just as it is a moot issue for an inanimate object. Only living beings can act deliberately and thus only for them is morality a consideration. Thus, whatever you might think of my argument regarding the justification for valuing life, it is true that *morality presupposes an individual who is alive* and therefore any moral system must presuppose the value of this necessary condition.
thanks.. here’s a quick response to your first rebuttal..
You contend that choosing non-life.. death is illogical. Only if one were not forced to choose between life and a higher value. And only if, contrarily, there were no higher value than life.
I ask you: Would you choose to live under all conditions?
Is there anything you would sacrifice your life for?
Is it illogical to say: “Some things are worth dying for.”?
Is a father who sacrifices his life for his child, or his squad-mates, or his country, therefore committing an immorall act?
thanks for your reply.. hope to continue a reply later..