The Premise

The Premise of my argument and inquiry is this:

I do not intend to investigate deeply metaphysics or epistemology. I will assume a stable reality, independent of any particular observer, knowable through the senses, and discoverable through science.

In ethics, I will take on a candidate belief system based on genetic success and evolution as the determinants of morality. I will argue for this system and explore its potential implications. I will endeavor to extend the system to politics, the economy, and other fields of human action.

What is the nature of the ethical premise? It is not intended to be deontological, virtue-ethical, or impose fictitious "side constraints". It is a work of pure consequentialist theory, accepting the manipulations that such a theory is subject to and arguing that they are the best alternative.

My ethical premise is also not a "rule" consequentialist system, at least not on an a priori or assumptive basis. I will assume at the onset that the individual action which most closely produces an ethical result is morally correct, rather than the action which comports to some rule generally producing a desired result.

To state the ethical imperative succinctly: Among possible actions, that which most increases the duration and number of one's genes is the moral action.