Basic principles of ethics

[Deepeco]

My moral project consists of trying to articulate my moral intuitions into a consistent set of ethical principles that form the basis of an ethical system of ecological justice. Below are the eight most important principles of my ethics.
1) A just distribution of quality of life. Maximize the qualities of life (values of well-being) of all sentient beings, giving a strong priority on increasing the lowest values of well being. I.e. maximize the qualities of life of the worst off individuals, unless this is at the expense of much more well-being of others. Sentient beings are all beings who have a functioning complex nervous system (they developed the capacity to feel and have not yet permanently lost this capacity). These include future generations, vertebrate animals, some squids,..
2) The basic right of living beings (plants and all beings with complex interests, such as staying alive). Never allow the killing or injuring a non-sentient living being for luxury needs. (We are allowed to use plants for basic needs.)
3) The basic right of sentient beings (beings with complex interests and the capacity to subjectively experience their needs). Never allow the use of sentient beings as merely means to someone else’s ends (including both luxury, basic and vital needs). One exception: sentient beings who became dependent (by evolution) on other animals in order to survive, are allowed to hunt for their vital needs, until feasible alternatives exist (but we are allowed to defend the prey, if we feel compassion).
4) The intrinsic value of biodiversity. Protect the biodiversity, because the biodiversity for ecosystems is analogous to well-being for sentient beings: both are intrinsically valuable properties of an entity (ecosystem, sentient being) that is unique and irreplaceable.
5) Restorative justice. Strive for reconciliation, forgiveness, non-violence, and moral growth, instead of retributions and punishment.
6) Universal love. Develop a feeling of universal love, a solidarity and compassion with all life, even with humans doing highly immoral things. Never regard someone as an enemy. This love is like the unconditional care of a mother for her children: Even when her son does the most terrible things, the mother still loves him deeply, she has no hatred or disdain but empathy and respect, but she’ll do whatever she can to stop his immoral behavior. She will not trust her son, and she may use violence, as long as the violence is accompanied with love.
7) Just caring. When helping others, you are allowed to give (to some level) priority to those with whom you feel a personal or emotional concern or involvement, on the condition that you should tolerate the choice of other caregivers to give priority to whom they prefer. So you should tolerate the choice of other helpers.
8 ) The golden rule. Abide by those principles which we would like that everyone abides them. Give the good example and do that what every moral being should have to do, even if no-one else does so. This is an unconditional commitment and we should, if need be, swim up against the stream. We should abide by those principles which are generalizable, which means that if every moral being should follow those principles and consequently apply them, there will be no undesirable consequences that violate one of the above principles.

Let’s illustrate a few implications that can be derived from the above principles:
-Eat vegan (100% plant based diet). We don’t need animal products to have a healthy life (American Dietetic Association). Inform yourself about healthy, well-planned vegan diets. Don’t use animals for things we would not use humans for: clothing, experimenting, amusement, trade, slavery,…
-Only use environmentally friendly technology.
-No overconsumption, but sobriety and voluntary simplicity. Lower your ecological footprint, don’t use luxury (all products used to increase social status, needs created by commercial advertisement, fashion trends,…). By consuming less, the saved money should be given to help the most vulnerable life (poor people, animals, nature,…).
-No overpopulation. Help create fair conditions for a worldwide voluntary pregnancy limitation. Financially support organizations working on reproductive health an family planning, especially in countries with high fertility rates.
-Do actions to help vulnerable life (humans, non-human sentient beings and nature)

 

[Tellurian]

Are you describing an Epicurian philosophy?

 

[Deepeco]

Are you describing an Epicurian philosophy?

not really. It is a combination of consequentialist ethics, virtue athics, ethics of care, deontology. the only epicurian part is in the first principle, it's focus on well-being

 

[work in progress]

Let’s illustrate a few implications that can be derived from the above principles:
-Eat vegan (100% plant based diet). We don’t need animal products to have a healthy life (American Dietetic Association). Inform yourself about healthy, well-planned vegan diets. Don’t use animals for things we would not use humans for: clothing, experimenting, amusement, trade, slavery,…
-Only use environmentally friendly technology.
-No overconsumption, but sobriety and voluntary simplicity. Lower your ecological footprint, don’t use luxury (all products used to increase social status, needs created by commercial advertisement, fashion trends,…). By consuming less, the saved money should be given to help the most vulnerable life (poor people, animals, nature,…).
-No overpopulation. Help create fair conditions for a worldwide voluntary pregnancy limitation. Financially support organizations working on reproductive health an family planning, especially in countries with high fertility rates.
-Do actions to help vulnerable life (humans, non-human sentient beings and nature)

I'm with you on fundamentals here. I believe our civilization has just about hit the limits to further growth, and we either have to adopt a new way of thinking and living together, or the natural consequences will be a series of catastrophes caused by nations and groups of people trying to fight for control of available resources.

A cooperative approach might give our descendents a fighting chance for longterm survival. But the games that are being played out now for control of the world's oil, rare earth elements, land and water resources make me feel more than a little pessimistic in general about our future.

 

[Bob Dixon]

-Eat vegan (100% plant based diet). We don’t need animal products to have a healthy life (American Dietetic Association). Inform yourself about healthy, well-planned vegan diets. Don’t use animals for things we would not use humans for: clothing, experimenting, amusement, trade, slavery,…

Dude, I'm not lowering my own quality of life for the sake of the animals.

Yes, I love them. True enough. But I don't think it's fair to compare them to humans. Animals simply are not people. End of story.

You can point me to studies showing how animals feel simple, rudimentary emotions. I will point you to studies showing that plants feel even simpler, even more rudimentary "emotions". Then I will ask you, "where do we draw the line?" And you will say, "right after plants and right before animals." And then I will say, "so plants don't matter?", at which you'll surely respond, "they do, but we need them to live", at which I'll say, "we need animals, too", but you'll be all like, "no, we can use plants as substitutes in nearly any area", and then I'll be all like, "can we make steaks and bacon out of plants?" and you'll be like "well, we can-", at which point I'll cut you off and say, "of course not, tofu doesn't count." I'll apologise for my rudeness and tell you that I agree that animals should be treated more ethically, although I do think that they can be used. I'll tell you that I buy meat from places/farms which treat their animals better and eggs from free-roaming chickens. I'll also tell you that I respect your choice, at which point you'll say, "well, even though I disagree, I'll respect yours, too. Let's work together to make this world a better place for both humans and animals." I'll say, "plants, too?" and you'll answer, "haha, plants, too!" And we'll both walk happily into the sunset, smiling and holding hands.

 

[Koldo]

Dude, I'm not lowering my own quality of life for the sake of the animals.

What exactly do you mean by this?
How can changing to a vegetarian diet lower your quality of life?
Will you be any less happy if you don't eat meat? :sarcastic

If that is the case then i am a very unhappy person because i am not able to kill people randomly. Poor me.

 

[Bob Dixon]

What exactly do you mean by this?

Exactly what I said.

How can changing to a vegetarian diet lower your quality of life?

It doesn't let me eat delicious, tasty meat.

Will you be any less happy if you don't eat meat? :sarcastic

Yes; the deliciousness of my meals will be greatly decreased. I don't want that.

If that is the case then i am a very unhappy person because i am not able to kill people randomly. Poor me.

You didn't seriously, honestly compare killing animals to killing people... did you?

Responses in bold.

 

[Koldo]

It doesn't let me eat delicious, tasty meat.

Do you consider yourself a happy person?
Currently you are not allowed to do many things.
Why would eating meat be essential to your happiness while many other things are not? It has already been proven that human beings can live on a vegetarian diet.

Yes; the deliciousness of my meals will be greatly decreased. I don't want that.

So when putting things on a scale, the taste of your meals is worth more than the lives of countless animals. Do you realize how selfish this is?

You didn't seriously, honestly compare killing animals to killing people... did you?

No, i didn't.
Albeit people indeed are animals, but that is beyond the point.
I compared you , hypothetically speaking, not being able to do what you want and me not being able to do what i want. And how not being able to do those things is actually much better for everyone in general.

 

[Bob Dixon]

Do you consider yourself a happy person?

Fairly happy, yes.

Currently you are not allowed to do many things.

This is unfortunate.
Some of these things, such as stealing, are there for ethical reasons.
Others, such as posession of marijuana, are arbitrary nonsense rules.
Follow the ethical ones, disregard the nonsense. Yes.

Why would eating meat be essential to your happiness while many other things are not? It has already been proven that human beings can live on a vegetarian diet.

Because I don't need to steal to be happy. Well, I don't need to eat meat to be happy, either, but I like it and the food I like uses it.

So when putting things on a scale, the taste of your meals is worth more than the lives of countless animals.

Yes.

Do you realize how selfish this is?

What about you? Don't you have animals killed for your own food?



No, i didn't.

Oh, I think you did.

Albeit people indeed are animals, but that is beyond the point.
I compared you , hypothetically speaking, not being able to do what you want and me not being able to do what i want. And how not being able to do those things is actually much better for everyone in general.

You cannot compare the killing of humans to the killing of animals. Seriously, it's different. And don't give me that, "animals are concious beings with emotions" nonsense. While it's true, it's vastly different to our emotions and to our conciousness.

Besides, eating meat is natural for humans.

Once again, responses in bold.

 

[Deepeco]

Dude, I'm not lowering my own quality of life for the sake of the animals.

Yes, I love them. True enough. But I don't think it's fair to compare them to humans. Animals simply are not people. End of story.

what are the characteristiscs of "people"? Do you mean intelligence etc...? Are mentally disabled persons also people? Or do you mean Homo sapiens? But what is so special that all and only homo sapiens have? What is the relevance of the species boundary? I can give 4 arguments why the species boundary is not morally relevant, and another 4 arguments why sentience is. See "speciesism and moral illusions" on my website (Stijn Bruers)

You can point me to studies showing how animals feel simple, rudimentary emotions. I will point you to studies showing that plants feel even simpler, even more rudimentary "emotions".

animals (vertebrates and some others) can feel pain, fear and distress, that s the scientific consensus, backed up by a lot of evidence. The same scientific consensus says that plants can't feel those emotions. However, if you believe they can feel rudimentary emotions, well, then my second principle about the right of plants is for you. So indeed I think that plants also have some right, to some degree, because they have complex interests.

Then I will ask you, "where do we draw the line?" And you will say, "right after plants and right before animals." And then I will say, "so plants don't matter?", at which you'll surely respond, "they do, but we need them to live", at which I'll say, "we need animals, too", but you'll be all like, "no, we can use plants as substitutes in nearly any area", and then I'll be all like, "can we make steaks and bacon out of plants?" and you'll be like "well, we can-", at which point I'll cut you off and say, "of course not, tofu doesn't count."

why does tofu not count? Indeed, we cannot make bacon from plants, but is that a problem? We can make alternative protein rich food from plants. We can live healthy without using sentient beings.

I'll apologise for my rudeness and tell you that I agree that animals should be treated more ethically, although I do think that they can be used. I'll tell you that I buy meat from places/farms which treat their animals better and eggs from free-roaming chickens.

for me, thats like the situation of slavery. Some people argued that it is allowed to treat black people as property, as merely means, as long as you respect slave welfare laws (give them enough food, don't hit them unnecesarily). others said that it is still immoral to treat someone as a merely means, that it is against their dignity (intrinsic value). We now know that the latter people (the abolitionists) won, and we support their vision. It was still racist to treat black people as property, even if they were threated well. Now it is still speciesist to treat non-human sentient beings as property.

I'll also tell you that I respect your choice, at which point you'll say, "well, even though I disagree, I'll respect yours, too. Let's work together to make this world a better place for both humans and animals." I'll say, "plants, too?" and you'll answer, "haha, plants, too!" And we'll both walk happily into the sunset, smiling and holding hands.

actually, I don't respect the choice of eating meat, just like I don't respect the choice of raping a woman or treating a black person as a slave or using a mentally disabled person in painful experiments... In summary, I don't respect violations of fundamental rights.

 

[Deepeco]

Because I don't need to steal to be happy. Well, I don't need to eat meat to be happy, either, but I like it and the food I like uses it.

we have more than 10.000 vegan recipies. Don't tell me that non of them are really delicious. You would only miss the texture of meat. But there are vegan sausages that are as tasty as meat. there has been done some experiments about taste preference and prejudice. It appears that meat eaters have prejudices towards vegan foor, and that influences their taste. If you give a meat eater two sausages, and you say the first is meat, the second vegan, than they say the first tastes better, even though you lied and the first one was the vegan.

What about you? Don't you have animals killed for your own food?

no. I mean, I don't kill and use animals for my food. Some animals (or humans) can be accidentaly killed on the farm, the road or the factory, but that is something else. Even if humans get killed by accident, it does not imply that we are allowed to breed, slaughter and eat humans.

You cannot compare the killing of humans to the killing of animals. Seriously, it's different. And don't give me that, "animals are concious beings with emotions" nonsense. While it's true, it's vastly different to our emotions and to our conciousness.

is that so? What about mentally disabled persons? A pig or dog can have more complex emotions than a seriosuly mentally disabled person. By the way, also interesting studies "the humanity of what we eat. Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores"

Besides, eating meat is natural for humans.

1) what is natural?
2) is everything that is natural also allowed? That would be a naturalistic fallacy
Let's take the example of rape: I am a man and I am anatomically equipped with something that makes it possible to rape women, that thing (penis) is a product of evolution, a lot of men rape, a huge amount of animals rape, our ancestors raped for thousands of years, and it is highly likely that we owe our entire existence to the fact that one of our ancestors raped a woman... So, what else do you need to say that rape is natural?

another point: our diet is unnatural, because we need toothpaste to protect our teeth. So we are already willing to eat something "unnatural", some diet that requires us to use toothpaste, because the food tastes good. Why then are we not willing to eat an "unnatural diet" if that would be more ethical (less violations of rights, less suffering)? Is ethics not a more important motive than taste?
You can say that ethics is unnatural, but then...

 

[Valjean]

Dude, I'm not lowering my own quality of life for the sake of the animals.

Yes, I love them. True enough. But I don't think it's fair to compare them to humans. Animals simply are not people. End of story.

Apart from gross anatomy, what are you seeing the essential differences between the more complex animals and people? To clarify, I'm getting the impression that you're putting people and animals in different moral categories.

You can point me to studies showing how animals feel simple, rudimentary emotions. I will point you to studies showing that plants feel even simpler, even more rudimentary "emotions".

I disagree with your characterization of animal emotions as simple or rudimentary, BD. I think the evidence points toward many animals having emotions just as intense as our own, and often identical to our own.
I would be interested if you could point me to some of these plant emotion studies, as plants have none of the structures that mediate and are thought to generate, emotion in animals.

Then I will ask you, "where do we draw the line?" And you will say, "right after plants and right before animals." And then I will say, "so plants don't matter?", at which you'll surely respond, "they do, but we need them to live", at which I'll say, "we need animals, too", but you'll be all like, "no, we can use plants as substitutes in nearly any area", and then I'll be all like, "can we make steaks and bacon out of plants?" and you'll be like "well, we can-", at which point I'll cut you off and say, "of course not, tofu doesn't count." I'll apologise for my rudeness and tell you that I agree that animals should be treated more ethically, although I do think that they can be used. I'll tell you that I buy meat from places/farms which treat their animals better and eggs from free-roaming chickens. I'll also tell you that I respect your choice, at which point you'll say, "well, even though I disagree, I'll respect yours, too. Let's work together to make this world a better place for both humans and animals." I'll say, "plants, too?" and you'll answer, "haha, plants, too!" And we'll both walk happily into the sunset, smiling and holding hands.

I would argue that the qualities that define sentience and "personhood" in humans -- awareness, ability to suffer and experience pain, capacity for joy, anticipation of futurity, &c -- exist in many animals as well; that the moral justification behind our treatment of other human beings would apply to all beings exhibiting those traits, regardless of leg number.

 

[Koldo]

What about you? Don't you have animals killed for your own food?

No. I don't.

Oh, I think you did.

But I didn't.

You cannot compare the killing of humans to the killing of animals.

I am not comparing them.Read once again my explanation in the last post.

Besides, eating meat is natural for humans.

Humans don't base their morals solely on what is natural for them to do.

 

[Bob Dixon]

Apart from gross anatomy, what are you seeing the essential differences between the more complex animals and people? To clarify, I'm getting the impression that you're putting people and animals in different moral categories.

I am, yes.
But then, animals do just the same.

I disagree with your characterization of animal emotions as simple or rudimentary, BD. I think the evidence points toward many animals having emotions just as intense as our own, and often identical to our own.

They're still incapable of self-reflection and things like that.

I would be interested if you could point me to some of these plant emotion studies, as plants have none of the structures that mediate and are thought to generate, emotion in animals.

OK, OK, I exaggerated! You got me there, you!
I should've said "reactions". You got me!

I would argue that the qualities that define sentience and "personhood" in humans -- awareness, ability to suffer and experience pain, capacity for joy, anticipation of futurity, &c -- exist in many animals as well; that the moral justification behind our treatment of other human beings would apply to all beings exhibiting those traits, regardless of leg number.

I guess it's just about the sapience then.

No. I don't.
You don't, do you? Do you grow and harvest your own food 100%?


But I didn't.
I am not comparing them.Read once again my explanation in the last post.

OK. It just seemed like you did.



Humans don't base their morals solely on what is natural for them to do.

Of course they don't. You're right.

what are the characteristiscs of "people"? Do you mean intelligence etc...? Are mentally disabled persons also people? Or do you mean Homo sapiens? But what is so special that all and only homo sapiens have? What is the relevance of the species boundary? I can give 4 arguments why the species boundary is not morally relevant, and another 4 arguments why sentience is. See "speciesism and moral illusions" on my website (Stijn Bruers)

I'm averse to cannibalism, that's all. I think eating a member of your own species if a bigger sin than eating a member of another species.
And of course mentally ill people are still people! I wouldn't eat them!
But, again, it's all about the sapience, I guess.

animals (vertebrates and some others) can feel pain, fear and distress, that s the scientific consensus, backed up by a lot of evidence. The same scientific consensus says that plants can't feel those emotions. However, if you believe they can feel rudimentary emotions, well, then my second principle about the right of plants is for you. So indeed I think that plants also have some right, to some degree, because they have complex interests.

Should we stop animals from eating each other?

why does tofu not count? Indeed, we cannot make bacon from plants, but is that a problem? We can make alternative protein rich food from plants. We can live healthy without using sentient beings.

Healthy? Yes. But that's not all I want.

for me, thats like the situation of slavery. Some people argued that it is allowed to treat black people as property, as merely means, as long as you respect slave welfare laws (give them enough food, don't hit them unnecesarily). others said that it is still immoral to treat someone as a merely means, that it is against their dignity (intrinsic value). We now know that the latter people (the abolitionists) won, and we support their vision. It was still racist to treat black people as property, even if they were threated well. Now it is still speciesist to treat non-human sentient beings as property.

I think it's extremely offensive that you compare my eating of a hamburger to the subjugation of an entire race of people.

actually, I don't respect the choice of eating meat, just like I don't respect the choice of raping a woman or treating a black person as a slave or using a mentally disabled person in painful experiments... In summary, I don't respect violations of fundamental rights.

Again, same thing.
The right to not be eaten is not a "fundamental right" if you're not at the top of the food chain.

Responses in bold.
I didn't answer everything because it was getting a bit too much for me.
Maybe someone can help me out here. I have to take on all three of you at once, you know!

In summary, though, I have only this to say:
You're right in some respects, but that won't make me stop eating the flesh of my fellow animal. I know that this animal, if it had the chance, would do the exact same thing to me, without a moment's hesitation.

 

[Deepeco]

I'm averse to cannibalism, that's all. I think eating a member of your own species if a bigger sin than eating a member of another species.

why do you not say: eating member of your own family (great apes), order (primates), class (mammals) or whatever? What's so special about species?

And of course mentally ill people are still people!

and they are still primates, still mammals,...
Do you mean homo sapiens when you use the word people?

Should we stop animals from eating each other?

no (see thing between brackets in third basic principle). There are reasons why we should not stop them. If we would adopt the rule to stop predation, and we universalize this rule, than all predators should go extinct. This has other ecological side effects, and biodiversity will be lost to a high degree. So this huge amount of biodiversity then trumps the rights of prey animals.
Another option is to look at the intuitions that i and most other people have (including animal rights activists). This intuition can be translated in an ethical principle, that sounds something like: "if a sentient being is by nature adapted to and dependent on the use of other sentient beings for its survival, then it is allowed to use others. we don't have a duty to interfere as long as no feasible alternatives exist. And the victims are allowed to defend themselves."

Healthy? Yes. But that's not all I want.

you want taste? Well, try some of the 10.000 vegan recipies...

I think it's extremely offensive that you compare my eating of a hamburger to the subjugation of an entire race of people.

well, in both cases it is a subjugation of entire groups of sentient beings...

Again, same thing.
The right to not be eaten is not a "fundamental right" if you're not at the top of the food chain.

oh, but we are not at the top of the food chain. Lions are. Lions hunt primates...
And it is a naturalistic fallacy. The fact that you can kill someone, does not give you the right to do it. Also the position in the food chain is no guarantee for basic rights.
Suppose you have an alien race that came to earth, and they are smarter than us, and they like our flesh. They claim to be higher in the food chain then us, because they can eat us. what would we argue against their consumption of us, if we use the argument of the food chain that way?

In summary, though, I have only this to say:
You're right in some respects, but that won't make me stop eating the flesh of my fellow animal. I know that this animal, if it had the chance, would do the exact same thing to me, without a moment's hesitation.

are you sure that a chicken or a pig would eat you if it had the chance? How do you guess that? And is that really a justification for meat consumption? Perhaps mentally disabled humans would eat us if they'd have the chance.

 

[Koldo]

You don't, do you? Do you grow and harvest your own food 100%?

No, i don't.
What are you talking about exactly?

Responses in bold.
You're right in some respects, but that won't make me stop eating the flesh of my fellow animal. I know that this animal, if it had the chance, would do the exact same thing to me, without a moment's hesitation.

Do you eat solely carnivores?

 

[doppelganger]

Ah, an Arne Naess fan. I took a class on him many years ago. I wrote a paper on how ethical systems that posit human goals as their object are not really ecological and that harmonious living is beyond ethics or notions that conduct can or should be judged "good" or "evil."

 

[Bob Dixon]

No, i don't.
What are you talking about exactly?

Those huge harvesting combines are harmless, are they?

Do you eat solely carnivores?
No, but if the chicken was me and I was the chicken, the chicken would eat me.

What's so special about people? Well, inherently, nothing, really. But they're members of my own species. Is it wrong to feel attached to members of your own species?

 

[Me Myself]

As human beings we have the evolutionary tools to be both the best and the worst of the species.

We can feel compassion and avoid eating that causes inecesary suffering.

It is true, vegetarianism can be a healthy form of living.

to the very least, people should cut down the meat. Eating it every day is absolutely unnesesary.

 

[bobhikes]

1) A just distribution of quality of life. Maximize the qualities of life (values of well-being) of all sentient beings, giving a strong priority on increasing the lowest values of well being. I.e. maximize the qualities of life of the worst off individuals, unless this is at the expense of much more well-being of others. Sentient beings are all beings who have a functioning complex nervous system (they developed the capacity to feel and have not yet permanently lost this capacity). These include future generations, vertebrate animals, some squids,.. )

Who and how is this decided.

2) The basic right of living beings (plants and all beings with complex interests, such as staying alive). Never allow the killing or injuring a non-sentient living being for luxury needs. (We are allowed to use plants for basic needs.))

How is this policed for example my son picks a flower to give to his mom on mothers day.

3) The basic right of sentient beings (beings with complex interests and the capacity to subjectively experience their needs). Never allow the use of sentient beings as merely means to someone else’s ends (including both luxury, basic and vital needs). One exception: sentient beings who became dependent (by evolution) on other animals in order to survive, are allowed to hunt for their vital needs, until feasible alternatives exist (but we are allowed to defend the prey, if we feel compassion). .

What are the penalties for not complying and how are they enforced. For example I am going to eat meat no matter as long as I am free. Are you willing to lock me away somewhere to stop me.

4) The intrinsic value of biodiversity. Protect the biodiversity, because the biodiversity for ecosystems is analogous to well-being for sentient beings: both are intrinsically valuable properties of an entity (ecosystem, sentient being) that is unique and irreplaceable.

Nature itself does not alway's protect the biodiversity. So if nature decides to eliminate a species do we intercede.

5) Restorative justice. Strive for reconciliation, forgiveness, non-violence, and moral growth, instead of retributions and punishment.

And when this is not possible what do you do.

6) Universal love. Develop a feeling of universal love, a solidarity and compassion with all life, even with humans doing highly immoral things. Never regard someone as an enemy. This love is like the unconditional care of a mother for her children: Even when her son does the most terrible things, the mother still loves him deeply, she has no hatred or disdain but empathy and respect, but she’ll do whatever she can to stop his immoral behavior. She will not trust her son, and she may use violence, as long as the violence is accompanied with love. .

Love has so many meanings and definitions, even mothers kill there own children or sell them into salvery. My mother never had empathy for me and I was a good child. I do hope she at least respects me.

7) Just caring. When helping others, you are allowed to give (to some level) priority to those with whom you feel a personal or emotional concern or involvement, on the condition that you should tolerate the choice of other caregivers to give priority to whom they prefer. So you should tolerate the choice of other helpers.

Not an issue.

8 ) The golden rule. Abide by those principles which we would like that everyone abides them. Give the good example and do that what every moral being should have to do, even if no-one else does so. This is an unconditional commitment and we should, if need be, swim up against the stream. We should abide by those principles which are generalizable, which means that if every moral being should follow those principles and consequently apply them, there will be no undesirable consequences that violate one of the above principles.

While I like this concept, it has many flaws for example I can see it morally good not to wear clothes at all in some climates but I would still not agree with it.