So, if you now take these concepts to the fields of morality and ethics, for objectivism you would need to break down a complex topic (pick abortion) into individual fragments. Eventually, you will end up at the question "what is good" which gets you into a lot of readings. There is the Platonian discussions of good vs. evil (The Republic), you got the Macchiavellian notion of "good is what is good for the state" (The Prince) all the way over to modern leadership theory. Highly interesting stuff, but no simple final answer at the end. Thus, I do not believe in moral objectivism as I think the two are contradictory in terms.
I was reading out loud to another person from this youth Catholic guide.
The capacity to think and make free choices, we have an important dignity:
Example from the book We see a man walking his dog on a leash and think nothing of it, yet if his wife was on the end of the leash we would become upset. OK I said but the friend said not unless the wife enjoyed the submisiveness and wanted to be on the leash.
(I don't think that was the point Mister)
OK but on with the book saying because we are human beings we have rational "souls" this great capacity for thinking and choosing, whereas animals and plants do not.