Really not sure where you are coming from here but here is my attempt at responding.
means are desirable, ends are desired (or valuable/valued), this is not assumed but is a description of how things already work.
Sorry, I don’t quite understand this. “Edns are desired” makes sense as a simple description of what a desire is-an internal impetus to obtain a goal state or some such. By “means are desirable” do you mean just that the system you propose is about evaluating the desirability of means, or is there something else I’m missing?
No that is correct but, of course, this treats anyone’s ends as means too in this analysis.
Remember this is not done on an act by act basis, if you are thinking in terms of acts then it is better to think that “the right act is the act that a person with good desire would perform”. The context of desires or as I like to say desire-desire interactions is more important that the content, I am unsure if one can always analyse this without knowing the actual desire content but possibly. This certainly helps remove bias (relative or otherwise) over different desire contents.
I’m finding this hard to reconcile with your previous statements. It seems as if your claim to epistemic objectivity for DU was based on not evaluating internal states but their objective effects,
Epistemic Objectivity is how we know in a neutral sense about anything, odd to bring it up here. Not sure what you mean by “internal state” as am only looking at these states externally - a desire is defined in terms of its conditions of fulfilment, these might contain knowledge and satisfaction conditions but if do hey these are still objective facts about such states.
by which I assume you mean actions of agents and their effects on the fulfillment or thwarting of the desires of others.
which is one way to infer what the conditions of fulfilment of the desire under examination are.
Here you seem to be saying that the approach focuses exclusively on internal desires as good or bad and judges acts based on the evaluation of the desires they stem from.
Where does this “internal state” come from? Desire exist and we are examining them externally. Now remember “good” and “bad” are optional or redundant terms a desire is evaluated as to whether it tends to fulfil or thwart other desires, tending to fulfil them is a reason to promote it, tending to thwart them is a reason to inhibit it. Without desires causing actions there is nothing to examine so this does not “focus exclusively” on them, rather this is just the “evaluation focus” - in the jargon - of this approach (compared to rules, actions or decision procedures for example).
Isn ‘t this inconsistent, even contradictory?
Sorry what is inconsistent or contradictory?
And if we are evaluating only the presence or absence of a desire in terms of its effects on the fulfillment or thwarting of other desire
regardless of whether the desire is enacted by an agent,
Where on earth do you get this idea from? Makes no sense to me.
how can we ever apply the system to real interactions?
I completely fail to see how you have arrived at such a conclusion. Please explain.