That's a nice sentiment, but life isn't so simple.  For instance, the natural world creates animals made of flesh, but it also creates other animals that eat flesh.  If the world is meant for our harmonious existence, why does the world create groups that are empirically opposed to one another and threaten one's another existence?  But perhaps nature doesn't see that as "opposition" or "threat," but a way to enrich one another and life itself.  Humans eat animals so they can survive, animals eat worms, worms eat bacteria, and bacteria eat our bodies (cancer, diseases, etc.).  When we are dead and buried in the ground, our bodies decompose into nutrients that plants can absorb.  That is the circle of life that keeps everything in balance.  Every species is "being excellent" to the one above them in the food chain.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. You make a great point about the complexity of life and the natural balance inherent in ecosystems. I think the first postulate of my 'be excellent to each other' philosophy would be to focus on being excellent to members of our own species. It is clear that we have evolved to eat other creatures, and I agree that nature is full of complex relationships, not simple divisions.

As an animal lover, I do hope that one day science can create alternatives, like a lab-grown steak that tastes as good as the real thing, so animals do not have to suffer for our sustenance. Until that day comes, I have to say that if nature did not want us to eat steak, it would not have made cows so delicious. Of course, that is just a bit of humor, but it reflects the reality of our biological history.

'Be excellent to each other' is meant as an overall general philosophy, a guiding principle for how we treat one another. Of course, it needs more specifics, because not everyone will follow that philosophy willingly, and that is where laws come in to ensure compliance. Just as the Constitution gives us a broad framework for how government should function, lawmakers at various levels create more specific rules for people to follow. Despite the specifics, I think the overall message remains the same: be excellent to each other.

What if there was a scientific way to prove that "cow meat" really tastes bad, and that we've evolved to like a bad taste?
Another take on the this: Is your red my red?
I love when science can get to the root of these things.
I recently read an article on which came first, the chicken or the egg, but I forget what the answer was (quite complicated).
I think it was the egg, but don't quote me on that. Happy hunting.

Final comment, I have a doctor friend that tells me he read an article that claims that thinking too hard on something can actually destroy brain neurons, but he's quick to qualify that the study as possibly needing more peer investigation.

So, I'm back to my five-dimensional chess game with user permissions in the ADS (I'm on the fourth iteration of rewrite). Destroying my neurons so you don't have too.
Now, how is that for being "excellent to others"? ;)

Hi Richard, I think we get what you're saying, but "be good to one another" or any similar variations of it is just too general a phrase, and we all know the devil is in the detail.  Sometimes, detail IS the devil -- good to some, evil to others, somewhere in between for the rest.  Hence the saying, "The road to hell is often paved with good intentions."  This debate has existed since the days of Plato or Aristotle, and is unlikely to end as long as humans rule this planet.  And who knows what kind of philosophies exist in other planets?

Thomas: I'd say that the egg came first. The creature that laid it was 99.9999999% the same, but due to a slight genetic mutation, that egg was different. Then again, it's still technically the same species. Funny how evolution works. You can line up 100,000 generations of a species and generation 1 is incompatible with generation 100,000, but there's no single place along the line where you can say THIS is where the species changed. So... chicken/egg... it's a big long chain of change. Although, I believe the current scientific consensus is that lizards were laying eggs LONG before chickens existed. So... again... the egg came first.

Kevin: Agreed. Like I said, it's a generalization. You cannot be compelled to "be excellent" to someone you don't like or who has done you wrong. It's just an overarching philosophy.

@ Richard, you got the basic idea, but in the article, they went much deeper into the different DNAs, progression and the fossil record. If I recall correctly, I think there was even mention of lizards (or the Latin name for the branch).