Obviously we won’t agree but at least we can establish where we don’t. For example I believe in the reality of “anamnesis” or remembrance as described by Plato. what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form. Insignificant facts we may learn during life but the deeper values are remembered as normal for the conscious universe itself.Intellectual interpretation is all we have. it is fed by the more primordial parts of our brains. The brain evolved from the inside out thus feelings predate the frontal lobes, what you are speaking about is sourcing the reptilian brain and/or the brain stem. Genocide is never reasonable and is considered a crime against humanity, infanticide is sometimes reasonable unless you have some mystical belief that says otherwise. If a fetus is a monstrosity that can be determined today ahead of time, it would be immoral to bring it into this world simply to suffer and expire slowly. Objective conscience still seems to me to be a nonsense phrase what about it is objective?
“How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy.” Nietzsche
Who defines what is reasonable? It was considered reasonable for the Nazis to kill Jews or the Turks to kill Armenians or even the Russians to kill Ukranians. Proponents of these genocides can give sound reasons for it. It seems we need something more than reason and the hypocrisy it invites. We need objective conscience.
Is a mother bird wrong for throwing the sick ones out of the nest or a human mother to destroy a badly deformed baby? A good question but answering it requires defining what respect for life is beyond our interpretations which we see is rarely done.
This will probably be another area of disagreement. I believe in the Great Chain of Being as the most reasonable explanation for my basic questions: what is the purpose of our universe and for Man within it? Briefly we normally consider being as something we either have or don’t have. The Great chain of being suggests that there are degrees of being descending from God down into minerals."Universal value of relative existence," does that mean in English giving value to all life forms? "Objective conscience defines values by its place in the universal life process." quote Temporality is one of the most prominent aspect of reality the other being being itself. Do you believe that human life is in some way superior to other life forms? Define for me it you would, the slavery of the self as a whole in which it can no longer feel?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being
Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God.
Does animal Man invent these ideas or are they remembered by some and passed on into social life? Is their value invented by Man or inwardly known by objective conscience? If we don’t know, how could man as a whole have respect for the life cycle?
Science accepts mechanical evolution but as of yet avoids the question of its passage into conscious evolution. Can Man evolve from mechanical evolution into a higher quality of conscious being or the New Man? The Great Chain of Being suggests it is possible if not probable.