Alright, since it's not 3am any more (Though it did take me a lot longer than I planned to be free), I'll try a bit more of the refutation of Kreia's points. I am not remotely saying that I'm right with this, just that I'd have loved the ability to actually argue the philosophy of her stance as philosophy with no counterarguments is kinda dull. I've not got a degree in philosophy, just an interest in it.>Basic Premise
Kreia's morality is a lot of consequentialism (The end result of any action is what judges if it is good or evil) with a good chunk of negative responsibility (We are only responsible for our actions, choosing not to do something has no moral weight regardless of the consequences) and a bit of standard issue fictional Social Darwinist(Suffering builds strength, so by making people's lives easier you've prevented them growing in ways that would allow them to overcome future suffering).>consequentialism
The core of Kreia's morality is based on consequentialism but has some rather unexamined part that her consequentialism hinges on. Consequentialism asks for the Ideal Observer with two main aspects.
The primary aspect is that of impartiality, that you cannot allow emotional bias to weigh decisions. This is heavily criticised as too demanding to be practical (Slote 1985). For example, if you are trying to impartially judge if something is good or evil...you cannot put yourself above any other. If your own death would benefit people more than your life, it is the moral thing to do. By the same token, weighing things towards your own friends and family does not line up with consequentialism. Humans simply do not work this way and expecting them to do so is not going to be functional, so as a general use philosophy it is incredibly difficult to apply in practical circumstances rather than philosophical arguments with no emotional weight on the judge.