@Ace
‘So you say that laws prohibiting murder are not moral in nature and the whole concept of that boils down to self-interest.’
The origin of the law is self-interest and for most of the people it is self-interest, not ethic. Just take a look when a society fall apart because of a crisis like ethnic tensions, war: self-interest start to work again, but results the opposite: the so-called right of self-defense by any tools. Or just think about laws let you defend your property by lethal force: in what ‘ethic’ a property worth more than a life?
It is almost pure self-interest at the end. Same reason we send soldiers to foreign countries to kill other people.
‘Using that logic, one can say that one can be justified to kill a friend or a neighbor (without any consequence) because he is either perceived as worthless to society or is a danger to it (if only this scientifically correct world order takes control).’
It is funny some way that people always get to these results with fearing alternative futures and not fearing (accepting) the current system:))))
The facts: you could kill your neighbor if he/she is a threat to society without punishment, if the threat fulfills some criteria. It is accepted by the people, by the community. In typical societies there is a separate group of specialists for that called police, what involves specialists (trained gun-experts, psychologists, etc.) to do that job instead of you, but you as a citizen could do that if they are not around and the laws justify your act.
Of course this act could not be justifiable when someone is simple worthless (this is where we could use moral, but not without forgetting our limits). In this case - depending on the situation and the cultures we examine the case - there are many practices, depending on the local definition of worthless, the local moral and the level of poverty. If a society is not balanced related to the resources it need, it will collapse. Simple.
‘Based on your previous posts, I can kind of get the idea that you might be thinking that anything is justifiable if it serves to ‘elevate’ human society (such as creating a caste system where freedoms and rights depend on IQ level).’
I never said that, but:The current system has castes by wealth. Even funnier :(, people born to these castes and for the most of them they don’t have a chance to change castes. So we live in a system what separates people by a factor which has nothing to do with real values.Also, we live a system where the mentally retarded does not have the right to vote (as an example), live under conservatorship and you support it (me, too).
So you do not have the problem with limitations by IQ at all. 
What I say:
- limitations by competence (which means both IQ and profession/knowledge-related limitations like bakermen has right to vote about how to make bread, but limited (weighted) right to decide how to perform a heart-surgery). Also heart-surgeons do not have the right about how to break bread if they do not have a competence.
‘I’m not sure where you get that from, as the definition of career titles are well known and do not give much in the way of room for any kind of subjective opinion.’
Career titles (and the status they offer) depend on IQ, the level of education and accessibility (not involving the distortion by some paid education which results idiots with degrees).Careers depend heavily on social relations.This is the current system.
‘Meanwhile, what people define and perceive as a ‘fact’ can very much be impacted by what they believe is true about the world and society in general. For instance, the two of us would diverge greatly in terms of what the facts are, the requirements a person must meet to be seen as factual, the requirements a society must meet to be seen as based on those facts, and the commands the world must follow to elevate society to a higher level.’
Technically facts are facts an ‘data’ side. What could make differences is the explanation of the data, which could be raised to fact level with scientific methods.
