First, since this is my initial post here, let me say hello and thank you for making such a forum possible.
I've recently been discussing ethics and the theories regarding the possible origins of life (Biogenesis and Abiogenesis). During these discussions with my professors and his colleagues, a book called "Ethics" by Leonardo Polo was utilized. Some of the main contentions raised by Polo seem to be as close to a scientific basis for ethics as humanly possible (pun intended).
The basis for ethics I refer to is grounded in our (the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species) ability to stand up and utilize our hands. This was seen as early as Homo Erectus and Homo Hobilis, when they stood up and began to create tools. With the ability to create tools (technology), we gained infinite radiation. This means that as a species, we were no longer confined to a single geographical location. Our ability to make tools allowed us to bypass Darwinian evolutionary theory; instead of our environment changing us, we changed our environment.
Humans (Homo Erectus/Hobilis, and eventually Sapiens Sapiens), along with their technological advances, had the ability to produce much more than their single survival needs. This is to say, that we gained the ability to choose whether or not to produce more than we need. We have the ability to decide whether or not to care for other humans and provide for them. This is a profound distinction which no other species in history can say they have. It is also the basis for why I believe ethics are requisite for the survival of the species.
Now, as far as the type of ethics I feel best suit us as species, I motion towards Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophies.
If anyone has any insight to this postulation, please respond and let me know what I am doing right or wrong, or if I'm asking the right questions at all.
Thanks
™ Version 4.2