>>212376818
>No I haven't.
Yes you have. You've decided "this is useful to me, so I will take this action." It's no different than choosing to blink or choosing to murder your neighbor's ferret. Your willingness to take the action proves its value, its "usefulness" to you, that makes it inherently justified. A "right" action to take (or not take).
>I'm not placing any moral weight to any action.
Be careful not to get to wrapped up in the semantics of "right" or "ethics" or "evil;" the idea is that you are, EXPLICITLY, defining "this is useful to me, therefore I will enact it." It's a very personal perspective. Even if you decide to take an action that ISN'T "useful" to you, for the sake of others perhaps, you've STILL wrapped your action in morality; you've decided it's a better action to take... and perhaps everyone agrees! Or not!

The problem with your stance on "Star Trek teleporters" being a completely justifiable action with irrefutable anti-use argument is you refuse to acknowledge any outside perspective of identity. Only YOU get to define what reality is, and any disagreement is untenable.
We call this "naïve."