So that we may retain our humanity you mean? I just do not know that the Universe cares that we do, life here on Earth may be just one experiment in a practically infinite number of them, and it need not be the stage on which Spirit, or Consciousness, to keep it secular, succeeds in knowing Itself. But since it apparently takes billions of years to construct a stage, it is wise not to take this marvelous opportunity for granted.
The meaning of what Mackie is saying gets lost in this kind of talk. The issue begins with, what is ethical goodness? All that empirical science might have to say about the matter, the random outcomes of "experimentation" or the ...... is off the table. Think of it as an examination of what is there that is moral, what makes it moral, that is, what its essence is that makes it what it is. Imagine the discovery of a new primary color, not derivative at all of others. Mackie say claims that ethics is objective are like this, for ethics as objective must have is grounding in a very unique concept of good and bad. It's not like a good or bad chair in that the good or bad of the chair can be determined according to context: a good chair is comfortable, suited for a human body and so on. But you may want an uncomfortable chair because you're a Zen Buddhist and its for long sitting and you don't want to fall asleep. Well then, the standard for what is good changes, doesn't it? Most goods and bads are just like this. But then comes ethics. Don't bludgeon your neighbor! Why? What standard in in place and why? The answer goes to purpose , but unlike the chair, the purpose seems to declare itself very quickly: because it hurts! You may relativize it by saying a society in which people bludgeoning each other is permitted will not survive, or the like, but in the end, with ethics, it always comes down to the hurt of the bludgeoning. Hurting a value, or a negative value, but it is bad in itself (of course, if you're a masochist then the hurting can be good, or you could say, what we generally call hurting is, for you, not hurting at all. It's the opposite.
But now the question is what makes hurt bad? I mean, if its not for something else, like a good chair is for sitting, but is bad in itself, then this utility of being good/bad is out the window. If something is bad in itself, then we have come upon Mackie's (Wittgenstein's, Moore's) philosophical problem. Bad in itself? What kind of thing is this?
If you're like me, you say there is such a thing as bad in itself and the "universe" (whatever that is) does this. It does no good to talk about how long it takes as it "experiments" around, it does this, period, and it is "doing"this as the poor wretched girl screams. My position is the condemned witch's suffering is not, such as it is, stand alone. There is, I say, an underpinning to our affairs in our sojourn in this place called the world that reveals in all cases a redemption of suffering.
Mackie says I am rewriting physics. Wittgenstein says I am speaking nonsense. The rabbit hole is really very deep once we consider the true gravitas is human suffering. Language occludes the Real, reduces it to something manageable, but this is an illusion.
Of all things