Starting with one essentially true thing about ethics...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living].

This is a ridiculous thought experiment, but if insist..
Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
It is immoral for one human to commit suicide.

WHO CLAIMS that it IS IMMORAL for one human to commit suicide?

VA has his own Alice in Wonderland way of looking at ethics. Prepare to leave logic behind if you talk to him.

Where is your logical argument to counter my argument above?
Otherwise you are the one who is leaving logic behind.

[CIN]

Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living].

This is a ridiculous thought experiment, but if insist..
Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
It is immoral for one human to commit suicide.

Where is your logical argument to counter my argument above?
Otherwise you are the one who is leaving logic behind.

Actually I was referring to the fact that you recently accused me of pedantry when I pointed out that one of your arguments was invalid. You should realise that an invalid argument is simply worthless.

Your argument above depends on three premises being true:
1. 'Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living]'
2. Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
3. Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
Until you can show grounds why all of these premisses should be regarded as true, we should assume them to be unproven. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are true. Until you do that, your argument isn't philosophy, it's fantasy.

Over to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living].

This is a ridiculous thought experiment, but if insist..
Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
It is immoral for one human to commit suicide.

Where is your logical argument to counter my argument above?
Otherwise you are the one who is leaving logic behind.

Actually I was referring to the fact that you recently accused me of pedantry when I pointed out that one of your arguments was invalid. You should realise that an invalid argument is simply worthless.

Your argument above depends on three premises being true:
1. 'Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living]'
2. Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
3. Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
Until you can show grounds why all of these premisses should be regarded as true, we should assume them to be unproven. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are true. Until you do that, your argument isn't philosophy, it's fantasy.

Over to you.

1. 'Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living]'
Whatever is of Morality it must be universal.
I had already argued, if morality is NOT confined to humans, then it must be extended to all organism that are non-humans, i.e. to the extremes of germs, bacteria and viruses.

Note the Jains of Jainism [500BCE] had been covering their mouth with mask long before Covid19. This was to ensure insects and the smallest observer organisms do not fly into their mouth such that they could kill them.


It is also claimed that the Jains when they walk they will sweep the front of them with a broom to avoid killing small organisms on the floor.

• A Jain in his traditional attire. The broom is used to sweep the path in front to avoid stepping on animals, while the cloth before the mouth prevents the inhalation of organisms (from Postans 1839).
  https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-J ... _272764928

This is 'stupidity' if morality is NOT "confined only to humans."

Veganism
Veganism morality insist humans should not kill animals for food.
To counter this we need to argue Morality should be confined to humans only so that there is no issue with killing of animals for food.

2. Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
Since 1, therefore 2.

3. Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
1. Since all moral principles must be universal,
2. if suicide is not an ought-not-ness within Ethics, then it is unrestricted universally.
3. IF this [2] is a universal principle, then there is a possibility the human species could be extinct.
4. To ensure it is idiot-proof, Suicide must be an ought-not-ness within Ethics to ensure there is no possibility of 3.
This is a very rational principle of Morality to be used as a Guide only, not to be enforced on individuals.

[hjcarden1]

Ethics always involves notions of how one living being 'ought' to relate to another. Therefore, if there were only one living being in the entire universe, then ethics would be unnecessary.

I believe that there are positive ethical statements that relate to treatment of oneself. It might be true that it is ethical to keep oneself alive, so if there were only one living being, ethical notions would still be possible.

This assumes that there are self reflexive ethical statements.

In the same way that we have ethical concern when we indebt ourselves to others in the future (credit, promises, etc.), I believe in ethical statements of being indebted to our future selves. If you are aware that your future self would most likely enjoy being in good health, you have an ethical imperative to create healthy habits in the present.

What underlies this sense of indebtedness and gives validity to ethics in this hypothetical world? Is this one being eternal/infinite or marked by finitude?
^ potential thought experiments about ethics