Morality on an island

Well, I haven't had many viewers and, hence, no comments. Anyways, the purpose of this blog is me. So here's where I contradict some of the things mentioned in my previous post...
I've effectively said in the previous posts that morality or ethics are for social interactions, and that living alone on an island needs no concept of right and wrong.

Error. It's alone on an island that one would need morality the most. Why, you say? Because right and wrong make the difference between life and death. It's now totally up to you to find your own means for survival. To avoid that which spells death. And this cannot be done without your own system of gauging what promotes existence. So the pro-existence, anti-existence holds here as definition of right and wrong. Except, we are still talking of the existence of human life. That is, you would kill animals if they threatened to prey on you, or if you had to prey on them. Yet, if you're not careful in either, that is, if you're not the "fittest", you won't survive.

But morality has to be chosen. Man has volition. He can choose whether to live or die. Therefore, he can choose whether he follows a code of existence or a code of destruction. And this holds relevance even for a man alone on an island.

Right and Wrong...

The most fundamental question to be asked when the topic of ethics arises - What are right and wrong?
At one level, right and wrong tend to be treated as relative concepts(dependent on perspective). What is right for one person may be wrong for another. However, certain things are a matter of social concern. To understand that concern, we have to make a platform for analysing correctness of action. I say "action" here, because thoughts are a personal matter and how the individual deals with them does not need to be apparent to society. They still make a difference at some level - to the individual. Hence, what an individual considers "appropriate" need not necessarily overlap or coincide with what society considers "appropriate". He/she can do as he/she wants as long as he/she is not interacting with any other individual with a different view on what is "appropriate". Once such an interaction occurs, he/she must give respect and consideration to the social concern. This is essentially a demarcation of what is public and private.
Broadly, what promotes existence may be taken as "right". What demotes, hinders or suppresses existence may be taken as "wrong". This is still too vague. If an animal feeds on another animal, do we consider it "right" or "wrong"? If microbes are killed when we boil milk, do we take that as bad? Hence we have to define a field within which the definition applies. Let us take the relatively small field of "humans". This is only an attempt to observe things at a simple level before moving into something more complex. It is clear that the initial definition would not suffice beyond the field of humans. And I shall try to keep refining the definition as I write more posts.
Let us examine whether the field I have chosen is valid... Definitely, society agrees that it is not appropriate for one human to consume another human! It follows, step by step, to the level of saying society does not consider it right to physically harm anyone. So we may say that society considers "non-initiation of force" essential. None should initiate physical force against another. (If all followed that, there would never be any fights!).
I shall continue in my next post. Do comment on where the definition becomes invalid within the field defined. I shall like to see the response before formulating my next post!

Motive for the blog

I tried to get ethics.blogspot.com but It's already taken.Not for what I would have expected there. Ethics is a topic avoided by most people for reasons of their own. I'll mention why I want to highlight the topic...
Life... does it have a meaning? If you can't find that it already has a meaning, you could set one. Maybe a goal to strive for. Something you want to achieve by the end of the journey.
How do you get there? How do you reach your goal? In other words, does it matter how you reach your goal? Or should you follow a certain path? Do you need to have a certain way of life?
If you answered with a yes to the last question, this blog is meant for you. Not to show you a path. I'm not qualified enough to do that. But to put before you certain things to think about in refining your path...