But isn’t the (implied) statement there “People will act in what they believe to be their best interest and seek to protect those interests” itself an objective statement of human values?
If everyone’s interests are the same perhaps.
Enjoy,
Steven
.Well wouldnt it be fair to say there is a kind of moral absolute. Every moral code is developed in order to help the society that created it. Since most societies profit from rules like no insest or murder they may also seem like moral absolutes. In that 1k tribe that you mentioned they have none of the family relationships we see as natural. This is because that their society would be hurt by it, it is better that some people get enough food then many people get very little. Now the problem with moral codes is that they are very hard to change, where as your situation can rapidly change. If you transplanted that 1k tribe to a new york like enviorment there selfishness and lack of family structue would doom them in several generations. Whereas if you took a group of common New Yorkers and put them in the 1k tribes situation, they would quickly die out due to their group mentality
Actions are neither good nor bad in and of themselves; it is the relationship of the action to all of the people (and/or other creatures and things) that are affected by it, and the desirability of those effects both short- and long-term, that make an act good or bad.
I personally am of the non-poststructuralist opinion that there is ultimate truth in all cases – that if everyone clearly understood everything from every aspect we would be in agreement about what is good and what is evil – but we never have that kind of complete and integrated knowledge, so we are best off remembering that our sense of what is good and what is evil is formed from incomplete knowledge and filtered through our single-faceted experience, and that we should avoid being arrogant and closeminded about it.