+ Address the objection that, for any end E, our existence is a mere *premise*
      as opposed to a *necessary condition*.
        : see notebook:2021-9-27c,d,e
        + Defeat it by what the macrocosmic fit suggests.
            : see notebook:2021-10-2f,g
            - It would be unreasonable to assume that our moral obligations (including M)
              are owed to each other or each other alone.  We have reason to suspect
                a) a positive obligation for action on my part
                    !! How could I act after I am dead?
                b) in regard to (or owed to) someone or something else.
            - In sum, the macrocosmic fit gives a (default) reason for us to exist in the first place.
            - So M cannot be assumed as relative to us; the critic’s implication that M merely serves
              *us* is shown to be unwarranted.
        !! How can H possibly hold against this objection?  How can the principle that grounds C
          possibly warrant H beyond my life span?
            | No H is necessary to infer rights.
                : see notebook:2021-11-9a
                - H is wanted only for motivation in respect of those rights.
                - This requires no H entailment by duty, only by reason or desire,
                  both of which the first file could supply.
                    : see a_failure_of_reason.brec
                + Go with this for a solution.
            | A postulate might be warranted by the macrocosmic fit.
            | Practical reason unravels should our extinction be foretold.