Ben, you're probably among the handful of clearest witers on 'difficult topics' I've run across. It may be that your comments here (and elsewherein the past) re 'non-God Derived' ethics and the problems of clarifying same are about as close as anyone gets, including exhaustive (and most often exhausting) academic make-work for Grades.

Alas, I don't think a paradigm may be devised: just as re the rather Infinite categary we label 'metaphysics'. 'Morality' - the concept itself; implies not only some reasonable determinant of The Good -- but also the real possession of that determinant, within the speaker. And we all know how Spock demonstrated, in fiction; our most powerful illustrative instrument? re "the good of the many outweighing the good of the few" - and the lengthy path that leads onto.

In brief: IMhO, that which determines The Good in any actual moment / event - is inherently an inextricable combination of, say "clear seeing" across many scales of meaning + "The Being" (in metaphysical sense, not to be susceptible of hierarchical parsing) of the person observing.

Wise persons then.. seem to Get It Right - their decisions being reviewed later on..
Less-than-wise ever have rationales, (excuses?) 'reasoning' etc. All fitted to That Event. Which is, close-enough how I [try to] 'see' every event too, from the trivial to the Nuclear Armageddon NOW! Because We Know They Will Do It To Us - So Let's Do It FIRST! doggerel which governs the missiles in those silos Right Now.

(This BTW is the Same Problem I see with 'bibles' and 'scriptures' and other no-brainer, How-To-Settle-[Everything]-God's-Way -- Without Worrying Pretty-little Head With Difficult Contemplation ..)

I'd suggest that this might be a proven Insoluble-algorithm, as in,

For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong.
H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw

Except..

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein

.. so the 'proof' would disqualify itself. If it's Honest.


Ashton