1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. ‘Life’ or existence may already entail certain rules, a structure, beyond which there is no existence, that limits what it means to exist, so if a person violates those rules they diminish their own existence, in effect becoming unconscious, deterministic, they self-destruct as conscious agents. If such rules exist then we can say that there are objective moral norms, and these appeal to self interest; if such rules do not exist then there is no authority, no right or wrong, there is no valid process of political or cultural or moral ‘legitimisation’, and you can do whatever you like provided you can take the heat. The question is; which story is true?
1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. ‘Life’ or existence may already entail certain rules, a structure, beyond which there is no existence, that limits what it means to exist, so if a person violates those rules they diminish their own existence, in effect becoming unconscious, deterministic, they self-destruct as conscious agents. If such rules exist then we can say that there are objective moral norms, and these appeal to self interest; if such rules do not exist then there is no authority, no right or wrong, there is no valid process of political or cultural or moral ‘legitimisation’, and you can do whatever you like provided you can take the heat. The question is; which story is true?