Objective morality

[FallentoReason]

So only when everyone within that race has given their permission? Would you ever agree to that?

Refer to the content. I never said anything about permissions.

it would be right to end your race is when your race has given up its right to live.

I would call this giving permission.

---

Bollocks;we have no evidence that life is ubiquitous in the universe/multiverse.

Look around you! Life everywhere. The universe definitely has the capabilities to support life.

Just because we are lucky enough in our neighborhood to be at the optimal distance from the sun doesn't mean we are an exception in the universe, unless you have already visited every last solar system in the universe and haven't found anything.

There are no innate rights of any kind,only legal one,which are actually privileges,as they can be (and are) taken away at the whim of the powerful.

Hmm pretty trivial. So if the powerful say it was ok to massacre the people then you have no choice but to accept that? Even if you thought that was morally wrong? I.e. Tiananmen Square massacre?

Of course. I just finished saying morality is pragmatic. "The ends justifies the means" is the basis of behaviour of the human species, as far as I can tell.

I throw a ball at a wall and it rebounds and hits you. Did I do that on purpose or did I not mean for it to rebound back and hit you? The ends don't tell you anything about the intentions or the means for that matter.

A bald assertion unsupported by credible evidence;we have not even agreed on the nature of morality.

Fair enough.

I have reached the end of my interest in this topic,and have nothing further to say. I agree to differ.

...

---

This doesn't contradict what I put. The picture is always growing, it is impossible to predict all consequences.
We can't always control the consequences of our actions but we can control our actions. These actions are what defines us therefore every action should be as informed as humanly possible, that is our responsibility as intelligent beings granted with the gift of choice.

Ok, let's apply this to something big like you wanted to, say starvation. Hypothetically if we knew that being able to feed everyone on the planet would mean that we would overpopulate and therefore society would collapse, then let's say we decide it's morally good that we don't solve this problem. So essentially the consequences are controlling your actions. Isn't this a contradiction to what you said?