There are several flaws in the above argument. The most obvious (though perhaps least significant) is that the analogy is inapt. A human being has worth on their own, while an individual human cell (generally) only has worth in aggregate. You can't draw direct parallels between cells in a human body and human beings in a society and expect them to be valid.

The second that stands out to me is that it suggests that punishment should not be relative to the crime, but rather the success of a society. I don't see at all how this follows. At best it's a poorly explained causal chain, and at worst it's just a flatly untrue statement.

What I find to be the most significant flaw, is the following:

[T]he basic problem of morality [is] the alignment of individual incentives with the global needs of the structure.

This, frankly, I find to be nonsense. It suggests that the needs of the individual are totally supplanted by the needs of the state/society. This is exactly the "morality" practiced by the global elite, where whatever propagates the state is right, and whether that displaces or destroys the citizens (subjects, really), of that state is of no moral concern.

Now, I'm not shitting on you for posting this (though if it gets downvoted and you delete it again, I will definitely shit on you then.) But if you think this is some deep philosophy, and poorly founded moral reasoning wrapped in flowery writing, then I think you might need to find some better sources of philosophy and literature than Destiny lore.

There are several flaws in the above argument. The most obvious (though perhaps least significant) is that the analogy is inapt. A human being has worth on their own, while an individual human cell (generally) only has worth in aggregate. You can't draw direct parallels between cells in a human body and human beings in a society and expect them to be valid.

The second that stands out to me is that it suggests that punishment should not be relative to the crime, but rather the success of a society. I don't see at all how this follows. At best it's a poorly explained causal chain, and at worst it's just a flatly untrue statement.

What I find to be the most significant flaw, is the following:

[T]he basic problem of morality [is] the alignment of individual incentives with the global needs of the structure.

This, frankly, I find to be nonsense. It suggests that the needs of the individual are totally supplanted by the needs of the state/society. This is exactly the "morality" practiced by the global elite, where whatever propagates the state is right, and whether that displaces or destroys the citizens (subjects, really), of that state is of no moral concern.

Now, I'm not shitting on you for posting this (though if it gets downvoted and you delete it again, I will definitely shit on you then.) But if you think this is some deep philosophy, and poorly founded moral reasoning wrapped in flowery writing, then I think you might need to find some sources for philosophy and literature than Destiny lore.