[albatruss]

I'm guessing your questions are facetious, but in case you seriously care, the nature of morality has been the subject of intensive research for thousands of years, including today. It predates even the concept of measurement, in fact.

[Dracophoenix]

A bit of both facetiousness and seriousness. I bring those questions up because your claim of there being a moral end to technical goals is vague and lacking in substance. Technology has no more of moral charge than atoms or stars do. In almost all cases, morality or lack thereof is incidental to the technology itself, not a direct consequence. If morality was the end of technological goal, then it could be measured. That morality predates measurement is irrelevant. Astronomy and agriculture predate human civilization by thousands of years and yet humanity today has been able to measure interstellar distances and complicated logistics of food production. If morality has yet to be discerned through an adequate metric, that is a failure of morality itself.

[shkkmo]

I don't see how you can possibly justify that view. That atoms and stars are not human creations, technology is.

Denying the existence of things because you can't measure them objectively is lunacy that if you follow to it's logical conclusion will take you to nihilism and epistemic surrender.

[albatruss]

Astronomy and agriculture are celebrated because their advances make the world better in some broader sense. That broader sense, good as such, is the scope of morality.