You know something odd. I find the faults of methodology much more interesting then whether Ethan is right or wrong. This whole counter argument seems to be predicated on the idea that human freedom should also progress humanity in some way. That the morality of something should show a quantifiable benefit. But when is that ever true. I mean strictly speaking Democracies as a whole are not a terribly beneficial structure. Has anyone at all pointed out to Ethan that by simply voicing his opinion and making this group's consensus more pluralist he is also contradicting it? In other words he is breaking his professed morality to try and impress it on others? It all seems rather duplicitous to me. Perhaps an education in the proper application of metaphysical arguments is in order.

He may not be aware of it but that is what he is trying to invoke. Not that metaphysical arguments are necessarily bad, they are just easy to shoot yourself in the foot with. Metaphysics requires a very sharp mind and a morality that is entirely internally consistent and externally applicable. That's why I prefer not to use it. Its an argument for geniuses or very practiced practitioners. Not for people who aren't ready to quit while they are ahead.

I think its time to stop now before I start rambling.