Man, I do appreciate your comments. Right to the point and very elucidating. Indeed the primordial nature of this ought what I've tried to substantiate. Chapter 2 is entirely devoted to this effort. Perhaps I've not done it well enough.

I get your point, I'm pretty sure I can remove the few parts on meaning and purpose, which are only meant to support the ought anyway. I wonder though:
- Is the selection of an ethical theory influenced by one's answer to meaning and purpose?
- Do the theories themselves sometimes or always assume some answers on existential questions?
I will need to think a bit about these.

There's another point that's not that important, but I need to consider it as well. Religious dogmata provide answers to both existential and ethical questions, with ordinary people probably not easily distinguishing between them. If the consensus baseline I'm proposing excludes any existential answers, perhaps it will be at a great disadvantage.

There is no absolute meaning or purpose of human life.
Or to any life. — Blue Lux

This is a view, for sure. Not a candidate for widespread consensus though. Tell someone their life is meaningless and they'll invent meaning.

Moralism is obsolete. All there is is ethics. — Blue Lux

I'd like to understand this statement. Can you point me to something available online?

I view all other candidates as absurd myself. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can convince me. Can you suggest an alternative candidate that fits the following criteria?

- Doesn't derive from a characteristic that was necessary for the survival of our species this far. e.g. happiness, pleasure.

- Can't be explained as a fairy tale created to address fear of death* and/or the sense of powerlessness.
* Specific example: Does not include any sense of immortality (immortal souls or merging with an immortal supreme being)

When 'the thing' = human, no amount of diversity stops it from being 'the thing', the homogeneity you're talking about is in the very definition of 'our kind'. But a thing is not necessarily defined by a single property. Within the big group you want to have 'african Muslims of neighborhood X', 'holocaust deniers', whatever. They make the bigger group stronger actually.

Thank you all for these first comments. I saw them all come in at once (probably stuck for approval), so I'll do my best to address all points made. I know that in complex topics it's easy to have multiple parallel discussions in a single thread, so I'll do my best to keep it together.

@gloaming: Agreed 100%

@Christoffer: I think that you'll find answers to all the points you raised in the document. It even contains a specific example on how personal immortality is impossible without conscious entities to support it. For the definition of 'our kind' as 'myself' I'm not talking about fictional inability to die or get killed, but life extension ad infitinum, which is practically impossible without others. Survival ad infinitum of 'our kind' is set as a moral 'ought' replacing happiness etc. Some of the expected prescriptions are really nothing new, others are uncomfortable and some very contentious. I think you'll provide some great feedback if you manage to devote the time to read the whole thing. The point about the change in culture is very significant and I probably need to add something about it. Cultures are quite dynamic of course, but actual personal immortality would definitely change quite a bit. I do need to say though that I don't expect 'immortality for all' ever, which is something I mention in the text.

@texaskersh: I really appreciate the effort. The best possible outcome for me would be for someone to find the arguments so intriguing that s/he would be willing to improve and co-author it. Ideally that person would be interesting on helping make a decent paper or book out of it. In the less ideal situation, feedback like what you found especially dense and incomprehensible, or what annoyed you would be invaluable. These thoughts have been with me for several years now, I tried several formats but this is the one I feel more comfortable with, due to my scientific and engineering background. I basically want to get it to be as tight as possible, cater to any glaring omissions or contradictions, put it out there and go on with the next project, whatever that may be.

@andrewk: Spot on on the consequentialist point, it's not like there's much to be said at that level of abstraction. If you go through Appendix A you'll see that I describe normative moral theories in more or less consequentialist terms, though I am careful about leaving room for deontological prescriptions, as I'm describing moral theories in general. Consequentialism is definitely more suited to synergies with science, which I consider indispensable for any rational consensus. However, Ayn Rand would cringe at most of what I wrote though, especially the parts about limiting individual wealth and power. I am diametrically opposed to her views and everything she stood for. wrt to prescriptions coming from religious dogma, of course they can't all be wrong. But I strongly argue against senseless addition of more mouths to feed, without the sustainable policies that will support those numbers. Furthermore, the very title of the text is "the end of dogma" and I don't hide my atheism or disgust at dogma (religious or other)

@gurugeorge: You'll need to read at least "Versions of 'our kind'" in Chapter 3 to see that there's no contradiction and Chapter 2 on why I think you're dead wrong regarding homogeneity. Diversity is not PC crap, it's an absolute must for complex, robust systems. I can give countless examples and I will add a lot more to the text, if you think that the point is not covered adequately.

Cooperation is self-serving though. It wouldn't have evolved and still be around otherwise. It's very widespread in nature, because it's a great survival strategy.

It's not hopeless to criticise a set of rules built on a simplistic understanding of the world. In Quantum Mechanics, A is not necessarily just true OR false, it can be both at the same time. Physicists had to create new language (read logic) to work with it. It's also very likely that non-locality will win as the most likely interpretation of QM. Even causality is not secure in QM interpretations. So the classic logic rules may be shown to be very situational.