Hi folks, (I'm new here)

I'm seeking critique of a tentative moral theory.  I haven't much
experience in philosophy (more in engineering), so I'm probably making
a number of mistakes.  If anyone can help, I'm wondering where the
worst of them are.

ABSTRACT

   I outline a theory that morality has a purpose in the immortality
   of rational being.  I ground the theory in physical laws and a
   valuation on reason.  From these, I deduce the broad shape of an
   ethics that promotes a collective end by means of individual
   rights.  Among the physical laws I assume are those enforcing the
   limit of light speed.  I claim this limit is small enough, and the
   interstellar distances large enough, that together they form a
   barrier to extinction events; life can radiate across that barrier
   (just), but death cannot.  A universe so constructed allows three
   alternative fates for rational being as a whole, one of which must
   hold for all time: (e1) endless continuum; (e2) endless extinction
   and recurrence; or (e3) final extinction.  At this juncture, I
   assume a rational, purposeful morality and a supreme valuation on
   reason; under pressure, we will do anything to save reason.  It
   follows that morality must purpose the immortality of rational
   being (e1).  The formal means to this end, I then derive by
   analysis: (m1) that morality relates personal action to a
   universally collective end; and (m2) that it promotes a maximum of
   personal freedom compatible with equal freedoms for all.  Each of
   these two structural members is prudent, I argue, for a formal
   theory that cannot predict an actual, specific conveyance, yet is
   nonetheless charged with bridging a tremendous void of uncertainty
   and risk.  Both of these formal spans, together with the material
   purpose (m0), I put forward as the main outlines of the resulting
   theory.  I relate these briefly to the practices of mythopoeic
   overguidance and human autonomy, and to the ethics of Kant.

FULL DRAFT

   http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/ethics

QUESTION

   Is the theory valid?  Or does anyone see a flaw?


Best to all,

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/