How Is The Humanity Principle Derived From The Principle Of Universality

What is humanity's goal?

This existential question is an hard one to solve and the answer could be the purpose of life itself.In my view, human kind being only another living form, our goal cannot differs from the goal of all living things which is to survive, master its environment and conquer new ones, all that through adaptation.For those who will argue that humans are a superior specie entirely different from all others (for religious or philosophical reasons), I will just present the fact that our life (as for most of the animals) mainly depends on billions of bacteria and micro-organisms living in us, which as an example enhance our immune system, our digestion and many other vital functions. Therefore to consider human as a unique and autonomous individual is kind of a commonly accepted mistake.Another point of view, for which I had a deep debate with a friend, is that humanity acts as a virus. Therefore its goal as an infectious agent would be to use living forms in order to duplicate (and spread) until both die. The final extreme result being the extinction of all life on earth to bring it back to its original inorganic form. Even if some of the latest actions of humanity, as leading 70% of the biodiversity to disappear or be severely endangered (which has only occurs once, 65 millions year ago), tend to support this opinion, I definitely can't agree with it. First, viruses (except for Pandoravirus) are not consider as a living form. Second, viruses duplicate when humans reproduce, reproduction being the process used by life to adapt and evolve. By extension we also present all of the other characteristics of the living. Those arguments against this quite pessimistic view comfort my optimistic perspective that humanity is a way for the universe to experience itself. Thus we can hope for space conquest and the spreading of life throughout the universe. Parallely an extension of our knowledge and wisdom until we get a closer and closer answer to the ultimate question: why are we here ?

Is there a moral principle that is universal amongst humans?

The Dharmaśāstras describe a system of universal moral principles for humans.

What are the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross/ Red Crescent movement?

The principles provide every volunteer and staff member with a guide of what we should do and remind us of the aims of our organisation.HumanityThe International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, co-operation and lasting peace amongst all peoples. ImpartialityIt makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress. NeutralityIn order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature. IndependenceThe Movement is independent. The National Societies, whilst auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement. Voluntary serviceIt is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain. UnityThere can only be one Red Cross or Red Crescent Society in any one country. It must be open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory. UniversalityThe International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all Societies have equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide.Edit

What is the difference between principles and morals?

lets look at each word’s meaning in dept firstprinciple : a nouna fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."the basic principles of justice"synonyms: truth, proposition, concept, idea, theory and postulatea general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.moral : a nouna lesson that can be derived from a story or experience."the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"synonyms:lesson, message, meaning, significance, signification, import, point, precept, teaching"the moral of the story"standards of behavior; principles of right and wrong."the corruption of public morals" synonyms : moral code, code of ethics, moral standards, moral values, principles, principles of right and wrong, rules of conduct, standards/principles of behavior, standards, morality, sense of morality, scruples, idealsnow i get you are talking about the second definition of Morals .they are quite similar however, if one was to look at the meaning of the two words in depth they would realize that there is a difference.which is that morals only cover what is right and wrong of Principles where as principles covers not only right and wrong but also other."he has no morals and cannot be trusted”or"he has no principles and cannot be trusted”which one makes more sceneanother point would be lets say“it not one of my principle to take money from others”or“it is not one of my morals to take money from others”which one makes more scenebe free to correct me if i am wrong

What problem did Shafer-Landau see with the principle of universality and with the principle of humanity?

Shafer-Landau is alive and still working.  He is an atheist philosopher whose work sometimes focuses on a simple argument supporting a universal morality.  Most arguments that support a universal morality involve God.  Shafer-Landau makes a point of creating such arguments without any need for a God in the argument.I am not sure what you mean by "the priciple of humanity"- I have seen some reference to an argument he makes "anti-humeanism""HumEanism" and "humanism" (no letter e in the middle) are two very different, and quite confusing terms.  Humeanism (with an e) is also sometimes spelled Humianism (which I find less confusing) and means something like, "Of or pertaining to the philisophocal views of David Hume".