Common sense tells you, respecting the individual is all about dictating what must absolutely be avoided in limited sense to preserve the social contract, not dictating social particularities.
This is fairly complex. I do think it's true. We can't reliably capture what I think of as the qualitative foundations of life. We capture it by compiling particulars.
At face value this leaves room for relativism. You could set any standard and call the outputs "good". Meeting functional goals that preserve life in general are "good".
I think it's important to add that we can become wise by the knowledge of other men, as well as learn from the mistakes of other men. The intelligent will do that. The not so intelligent will unknowingly wait for it to happen to them.
I've tried to focus inwardly for a long time, but, for the necessity of all of us. I feel new technologies are existential ones...we've been neglecting them for capital.
There's a lot of clues that life could be a testing mechanism, but, if that mechanism was supposed to capture Good, it has failed as scarcity value has compromised what would have to be an even playing field.
I think the message here is to be reasonable and don't assume you can just redefine things. But sometimes definitions need to be expanded or new ones created...we shouldn't forget that.
Murder and slavery are ultimate crimes against universality. There's a lot of smaller crimes where one walks the path toward making another a slave or murdering another without actually doing it. These are also crimes against universality.
It's also interesting how living by scarcity value paradigms sets up the situation where the determined order drives deception and rapaciousness and it takes intent to be moral and ethical. This might be the biggest clue that life could be a test of some sort.
