 
(Deletion)
 
The reference to it's not yet being ethics is dubious. You have used the terms
absolute, objective and others interchangeably. Same with moral values, values,
at all, worth, measuers, and usefulness. You infer from them as if they were
the same.
 
To the IF. When the If is not fulfilled, your intermission is a waste of time.
Assuming that you don't intend this, it is reasonable to conclude that you
want to argue a point.
 
You have made a interesting statement here, namely that of the disinterested
observer. There is no such thing in morals. Probably the shortest proof for
objective and morality being a contradiction.
 
 
 
Fine. And that freedom is valuable is not generally agreed upon. I could
name quite a lot of people who state the opposite. (Not that that wasn't
mentioned before). In other words, you have nothing to fulfill your strong
claims with.
 
 
 
Clutching a straw. I don't believe in mappings into metaphysical sets were
loaded terms are fixpoints. Those who deny the morality of freedom make quite
clear what they say, their practice is telling. Yes, there are even those who
are willingly unfree. It is quite common in religions, by the way. For one,
there is a religion which is named Submission.
 
Don't even try to argue that submission is freedom.
 
 
 
If it were so, it would argue my case. But I am afraid that that is considered
proof.
 
 