Fact - everything requires particular conditions to be met in order to Function in particular ways. Crystals, toasters, carrots, humans, etc.
Make your argument for why this has Moral implications for carrots surviving, thriving and reproducing. How Oughts are derived, and who or what these Oughts apply to.
I'm happy to make the argument again, but please don't complain that I am merely repeating myself when satisfying your request.
Morality is species specific. What we "ought to do" and "ought not do" to other members of our species is originally derived from our real needs. For the sake of argument, I assume Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a sufficient working analysis of the real needs of human beings. Our needs motivate us to satisfy them, and our needs at lower levels of the pyramid must be sufficiently satisfied before we attempt to satisfy needs at the next higher level.
In addition to the real needs of individual persons (covered by Maslow), there are real needs of societies (e.g., rules for cooperation), and real needs of species (e.g., less global warming).
We call something "good" if it satisfies a real need we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species. We call something "bad" if it unnecessarily harms the individual, the society, or the species.
This rests on the notion of ''needs''. ''Real Needs'' like ''Good For'' is slippery use of language here, because it infers Interests. That's why I put it neutrally -
''Fact - everything requires particular conditions to be met in order to Function in particular ways. Crystals, toasters, carrots, humans, etc.''
And then asked you to make the argument for your Claim that particular conditions being met which enable organisms to survive thrive and reproduce have moral connotations.
Here's the kind of argument I haven't seen yet -
- Explains what it is specifically about the function of survival, thriving and reproduction of biological organisms which confers moral consideration.
- And how that special property logically entails Oughts.
- Avoids tangential distractions.
- Avoids slippery language
- Avoids circular arguments
- If you are treating a premise as axiomatic, notes this.
I don't think you can come up with a sound argument which doesn't have some flaw or assumption which itself needs justification. That's not a personal insult, because I don't think there is one. But you're so committed to your position you unconsciously slide into such errors, I think we all can do that. But then they have to be chased down, explained, only for rinse and repeat. It's like whack-a-mole on a loop at this end.