Not the parent, but as I understand it the post is saying that morality is not defined by outcome, but rather by consistency of the object's purpose. A sentient chair choosing to fall apart when you sit on it is being "immoral", opposed to its purpose.
> I'd argue that Scholasticism, that is, the marriage of Middle-Ages Christianity to the truthy-sounding gobbledygook of Aristotle, set the case for the moral authority of the church back a thousand years.
a) maybe the Roman church; I don't think the Eastern Orthodox embraced that. And the Protestants more or less junked it, too.
b) "truthy-sounding" is awful dismissive for something that took Europe by storm when Aristotle was re-discovered. Modern thought has rejected Plato and Aristotle, and especially Post-modern thought, but does Aristotle sound "truthy" because you've bought into modern/post-modernity or because he's poor quality? We might have reject Plato/Aristotle because us moderns are so much more enlightened than the ancients. Or we could have a serious case of hubris. Given that large segments of the West are espousing that gender and even species--previously seen as immutable--are mutable, we're either seriously wrong and headed for disaster, or we've discovered something seriously novel.
c) I'm not an expert on Scholasticsm, but as far as telos goes, the Christian telos for humanity is to become like God--to love each other sacrificially as Christ loved us, and to participate with God in creating/stewarding the material world. It's the most expansive telos I'm aware of, and I don't think I've even properly grasped or expressed it.