is there any way to establish an ethical code on logical terms? I came up with an Idea but I don't know if anyone else has had it.
Lots of people have asked the question, "Why are we here?" I thought about it and immediately came up with the simplest answer. We are here because our parents had sex. This is rather unsatisfying so I thought, "Why did our parents have us?" That lead me to "Why do any animals have children?" Parents have children because they want to pass on their genes. That means that the reason we exist is to have children. The purpose of life is to continue life. The best way to do that is to evolve. But nowadays humans are evolving in different directions in different parts of the world, both culturally and physically. We must examine which evolutions are for mankind's benefit and encourage those within those groups to procreate massively because the world would never accept eugenesis.

As always, think!

Another Musing

What kind of person are you?
I have always wondered what category I fit into. I know I am marginally unique but I knew there had to be a name for the kind of person I am. Today I found out a possible group of people I might be like-minded to: Objectivists. But I don't think I qualify as a complete objectivist. I am wondering if my personal philosophy would have to be put into a subgroup with a name like Pragmatic Objectivist or Realistic Objectivist. More information is needed. More information is forthcoming. I will have to return to this concept.

Here I begin

So we begin,

I was just reading some stuff and began wondering. Is there such a thing as permanent uniqueness? People say that a person is unique. You can clone a person. People say art is unique. It can be forged well enough to fool the eye and, with enough care, to fool a computer. So is it possible to make something or do something that cannot lose its uniqueness?
One could argue that the original has greater uniqueness because it was the first. What is somewhat of a sub-meaning of this is that it is unique because it is the only first. The problem is that the copy is equally unique because it is the only object that can be the second object. The same logic can be applied down the numerical line.
Another could argue that in the case of art that the first holds its uniqueness because it comes from the imagination of its creator. (same could be said of a person according to some) But the second one is no less based on its creators imagination. The person who creates the copy creates it based on their perception of the original.