Part III: Applicability & Motivation

        Proving a statement is only one issue in philosophy. The other requirement is establishing the relevance and/or significance of a statement. If a philosopher intends to motivate a rational reader to act a certain way then the philosopher must establish that a certain action satisfies motivations of the reader. If these satisfactions outweigh the possible satisfactions of all the other alternatives then the logical reader will be persuaded.

     The very first page had a logical proof of the following: All people are only motivated for "physical" things/outcomes as non-"physical" outcomes are not attainable.

       The hypothetical philosophers mentioned earlier only established (or claimed) that a given action is right or wrong. Can the urge to do what is right be a physical motivation? Only if the meaning of "right" you are using is physical (see point 2). How does a person who wants to do right know which physical usage of right to use? If you have a desire in you (e.g. to maximize cat life-span) you already know which ideals you seek (whether used in the term "right," "wrong," or whichever other term).
[a technicality]
       
       Attempting to motivate an individual to use a certain moral code because that same moral code compels it, often by calling it "right" or stating one "should" follow it, is circular reasoning. The method of motivating an individual will depend entirely on his/her desires.

       Ethics, because of the above, is only relevant (to logical individuals) as a suggested strategy of satisfying one's own desires. In fact, ethics can be approached as game theory or self-help. Scientific tests can even be used to test such claims.

       It is simple to imagine many hypothetical humans (or aliens) who, if logical, would always kill people, steal, rob, rape, and commit crimes because of their hypothetical motivations. It is simple to show that no moral code is universally relevant because any relevant code must match desires yet we can easily imagine individuals with exactly opposite desires.

If you do not see them already, then the conclusion and summary are hashed out for you.