It would seem that a presciptive conditional ethic about what is good for an organism is available as we become more aware of who and what we are as humans and what best facilitates interpersonal actions.
Why is that the goal? What about those individuals for whom this is not their goal?
If people want to cure a broken leg by praying for it to heal then by all means - but they would be foolish to do so.
Yes, but that’s talking to the second part - how to achieve the goal. I’m questioning the goals themselves - If people want… What if what people want is something like to kill all members of group X?
I would say and think they are free to do so - nothing is stopping them in an obligatory absolute sense (all things are literally permissable - that seems to be the reality). I mean where is God - it would seem we are the authority (I just do not mean our reason and will but what our subconscious and biology has dealt to us as what we seek as means and ends). What would stop them is either reason (wouldn’t God have these same reasons?) and the fact that the majority of people will not tolerate such sensibilities - why has nature given us such sensibilities? It would seem that only abnormal people have such goals as wanting to kill group X - unless power has given them the abiltiy to resist the majority and go with thier risky behavior. But we can inofrm them, not just on personal preferences, that cooperation is actually better off in long term for BOTH parties - not only do we emotionally gravitate toward this as individuals but socially this is true. But like I said getting people to agree and accept this, even if they are the minority, is another thing but that is just the point even if they do not it’s not what the majority of humanity seek as a goal therefore it is not and will not be something that is normal - even if, as history has dealt us, people like a Hitler gain mass control - at least for awhile. Even Hitler did not think it right to kill just to kill or because he felt like it - he rationalized the Jews and others to a lower status than that of human - his mind and emotions repelled the idea that you can just kill and want to go and kill someone. But his power and idealism increased his risk taking - he took the chance and lost - precisely because it is so risky for humans to act this way - we were not made (in a natural sense) to do so. He was a fool and he knew that if he had similar feelings about Germans that would be wrong - why? Because Jews and others were not human or worthy of those actions. Furthermore, as a human he would not ascent to being treated as such therefore if the Jews were human he would have a conflict with himself. Reason is both a helper and a hinderer in this regard. That is why methodologies (scientific method for example) coupled with reason go alot farther than just reason or feelings. People may choose to ignore them but that does not mean they have no ‘moral’ weight or content, regarding means and ends, which can be shown to have a better way and a better goal.
Also, Are you a non-cognitivist?? Do you grant that ‘morality’ is about what is right in an absolute Philosophical sense but do not accept that it is real or worth trying to figure out? Do I read you right? I am open to that - I am just playing with the ideas about how nature (particularly our own) can inform us to an appoximation of ubiqutious objective ‘morals’ (disregarding the special metaphysical definitions) about our goals and the means to achive them. If our sense of morality is below the cognitive and social construct levels then there is something human nature + reason can inform us (by using methodologies that minimize rational error and bias) about human actions particularly how we act toward one another and their consequences. Which is better and more efficient - even for an individual who decides to take a chance. A basic law of economics would teach that person that he would be better off if he did not act that way. Cooperation is not a zero sum game and since he is a outlier in a society that does not think about taking such a risk he himself is taking a huge risk - and usually this is true - most people are not better off to act in such a way - not to mention all those who get caught-up in the middle of his attempts. Certainly it is fair to say that it is wrong in a conditional sense whether he gets it or not or gets it and does not care. There are neurobiological, social, economic, and other reasons why such an action as ‘kill group X’ whould be stupid not just because we repel the idea of Group X getting anililated but because it is objectively (conditionally speaking) foolish for him to do so - even if we fail to convince him otherwise. The reason is in the way we arrived at that conclusion - not just a cognitive methodology but a scientific one, not just a social convention (the majority vs minority rule) but but a biologiclly/emotionally driven sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actions - actions that have been instantiated into are very genes and nervous system (conscious and non-conscious).
I just order a new Book on Phiosophy of the mind - I am going to go over it intensely - soon I will have all the answers :)
P.s - I forgot ot briefly comment on this point of yours - ‘However, we get back to the problem of the initial goals. The above here assumes everyone has the same goals.’
I would say it shows that although people have different goals there are goals that people can be genuinely informed about as to what they should (not in a categorical but conditonal sense) have and what the best means is to obtain them - goals that entail things that we call morals.