My definition of non-arbitrary would be, can we derive your principle from facts on which everyone agrees? I can propose two such principles: a) liberty—in the absence of moral absolutes, the only thing you can say is live and let live, as to do otherwise is to presuppose the existence of some kind of moral authority; or b) survival of the fittest—there is no moral truth, and even liberty is arbitrary—why should I respect someone else’s liberty? If I am stronger, I should feel free to take what I can.
That said, I think there could also be an argument for some sort of virtue ethics—e.g. you could argue that perhaps there is absolute truth, and there are certain virtues that will help us discover it. But you’d need to be smarter than me to make a convincing argument in this line of thought.
Thanks for your comment!
My definition of non-arbitrary would be, can we derive your principle from facts on which everyone agrees? I can propose two such principles: a) liberty—in the absence of moral absolutes, the only thing you can say is live and let live, as to do otherwise is to presuppose the existence of some kind of moral authority; or b) survival of the fittest—there is no moral truth, and even liberty is arbitrary—why should I respect someone else’s liberty? If I am stronger, I should feel free to take what I can.
That said, I think there could also be an argument for some sort of virtue ethics—e.g. you could argue that perhaps there is absolute truth, and there are certain virtues that will help us discover it. But you’d need to be smarter than me to make a convincing argument in this line of thought.