>>81972941The implausibility of discovering a final end, a summum bonum, in my eyes, is one motivation. It is an end in itself. Of course, I cannot discount it is a means to an end. As you know, some current cosmological theories predict heat death, big rip, etc. It would necessarily be a means to an end, as I understand it. There are also hypothetical concepts that purportedly break it, such as an absolute infinite amount of x value, although it is unclear to me how this could be different from the absolute. But I do not know. The following two motivations is my view on the implausibility of general certainty, and the incommensurability of values. Building on this, it is supposed to take the maximum, the limits, of various conceptual frameworks. Infinity is one example, in quantity. Or the old ontological triad being-nothing-becoming, it takes the horn of becoming. Etc. An intuition of it might be gardening an ecology of worlds- that is its purview. Nostalgically, and ironically, I call the end the absolute good- nostalgically, as it is working in the tradition of thought that aims at the infinite, ironically, because it is silly to me to think humans are the peak in any sense. You are from dust, to dust you shall return... If they come to exist, or already exist, I suspect more intelligent beings aren't bound by that kind of ethics of end vs. means, even I am not.
So it is a pretty enormous mandate, and I am serious when I say yes, to the question of sacrifice, and monstrosity. Of course, in a way, we all are, since there are many things in this world considered horrible, that we all perpetuate. In some religions, like Christianity, there God's plan, that everything is ultimately redeemed. That is also one notion I find interesting. Not because I have any attachment to religion, or moral dualism, or providence (at least on this level of analysis), but because it's another thing that fits the idea, resolves the limits. Discardable if necessary, or wrong, etc.
