What is the difference between bioethics and existential ethics

If we realize that there are two ethical orders, we must be amazed that we have been kept in the dark by ourselves. What we have been running so far is the ethics of life, we have covered the ethics of existence with the ethics of life, we thought that to recognize the natural state of existence is to recognize the objective laws of nature, but we did not realize that our ethics of life is different from the original ethics of existence, the objective and natural state is the fact interpreted by our ethics of life, we have unconsciously given it the attributes of the ethics of life. It has been distorted by our bioethical concept, and the whole world has been unconsciously conceptualized by our ethical logic.

We do not perceive any distortion or abnormality in the world under bioethics; we feel that human life and the lives of other creatures are independent of existence as a matter of course, as an objective fact of existence. We divide the things of the world into those that are conducive to the survival of life and those that are not. The things of the world operate according to the properties given by life, such as hot and cold, soft and hard ...... as well as color, shape, sound, smell and knowledge, edible and inedible, poisonous and non-poisonous, etc., all are judged and categorized according to the criteria of life existence. We do not only use life as a choice to classify the world's substances, we also use life as a basis to establish relationships with various things. For example, air and water, stone and soil, sky and earth, and most significantly, space and time, are purely products of the scale of life. The ethics of life not only limits how we see the world but also completely restructures it so that we have only one earthly world of life.

We are completely unaware that existence is not such an existence, nor is the world such a world, nor are we such a self. The world under the original ethics of existence is completely different from the world we recognize, and in another ethical logic the world turns out to be so different from us. Existence is one being, existence is the display of information in the movement of perception, and existence is the embodiment of the movement of the perceiving subject and the perceived body. This perceptual movement cannot be broken down into parts that exist independently, i.e., the association of things is holistic and interactive, and nothing in the world can be separated to exist independently.

This means that the change of anything is not accidental, individual, and isolated, but involves the change of the whole being and that everything and any phenomenon is somehow the embodiment of the whole being. This means that man and the world, man and things are not exploitative relationships, nor is it in any way a relationship of who determines whom. Things and things, people and things, and people and people are all integral relations that cannot be separated. This oneness determines the fundamental relationship of existence, determines that everything is existence itself, and existence is not for us to know and grasp, but existence is our existence.

The original ethics of existence has been around for hundreds of millions of years, but we are blind to it in the ethics of life and can ignore its existence. We force the world to be explained by the ethics of life, and as a result, wherever the logic of life goes, this world is full of contradictions and human flesh and blood. The ethics of existence itself is not contradictory; its wholeness and interaction lead to no contradictions; it is not contradictory to be one with the other and to be infinitely variable; you are me and I am you, as a matter of course. The fact that we use the laws of the weak, the strong, the superior, and the survival of the fittest to look at existence is purely subjective and a typical example of how we use bioethics to understand and judge things. How can we judge the value of the behavior of living creatures by their lives? The grass is born for sheep to eat, and sheep are born for wolves to eat. ...... Biological chain is not a kind of life chain, but a biological chain is a chain of existence, and it has existed for hundreds of millions of years with such ethical logic.

Grass, sheep, and wolves are all part of existence, just like the heart, stomach, and intestines in the human body, can they exist separately and individually? This holistic ethical view determines the rationality of each existent thing. If you split any of them up and let them exist separately, it is anti-existence, a contradictory act that goes against the logic of existence. The operation of this separate existence must be contradictory because it is no longer within the logic of existence, it must be abandoned by existence, that is, it cannot exist for long, otherwise, the existence that has been operating for hundreds of millions of years will collapse by this alienated logic.

The original ethics of existence has existed for hundreds of millions of years, and we are running the ethics of life on top of it. This forced operation is both far-fetched and contradictory, so we generate intelligence and civilization to solve these contradictions and problems, so we pay the price of a miserable life to keep this ethic of life running. Unfortunately, this is not sustainable, and if we remain separated from the original ethics of existence for a long time, we will certainly perish, and there is no doubt that we will become a fleeting moment in existence. We can never change the original ethics of existence, but we can rationally return to the original ethics of existence, and is there any doubt that rational return is the only way out for us humans?

The return to reason is the only way out for us humans.