Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mustn't goals themselves be good or bad, regardless of whether they're achievable? Or would you say that goals, such as Hitler's, were bad only b/c eugenics ultimately would be bad from an evolutionary point of view? Then, there is a the problem of heroism, which is defined by a person's courage to pursue a noble goal even if its achievement is very unlikely. Finally, by your definition, I could be one of the most mo…
These are just starting points. I do think goals are themselves good or bad, but it's much harder to explain how you can objectively make assertions like that, so I wanted to make the lesser claim, for now: there are ways to explore morality objectively. I'm definitely not claiming consistency of this sort is the only criterion of morality. Only that it's an important and objective one. I don't mean to be a tease, bu…
However, at this point I have to veer into territory considered "religious," because such a claim requires at least an element of non-materialism to make sense of our moral intuitions.
At any rate, my views are not rigorously defined enough, and I'd benefit from critical, constructive discussion. I'll check out your links and see if I can participate.