That's not how morality works. moral wrongness is something blameworthy.
We might be arguing word definitions at this point, but if your definition is "blameworthiness", then I think I see what you mean.
If you say that something is wrong, it necessarily follows that the opposite is right.
What? No it doesn't! Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Neither is reversed immorality morality. The foolhardy action in battle is wrong, therefore, the cowardly action is right? The right answer is not the opposite. The courageous action is somewhere in between, but probably closer to foolhardy than cowardly.
The opposite of doing wrong is NOT doing wrong, and is also doing right. If it is wrong to kill to reproduce in the situation under discussion, it is right not to kill -- that is, it is right not to reproduce at all. But this is false, so it is right to kill in that situation.
We might be arguing word definitions at this point,
Indeed. If you say "such and such is morally wrong, but not blameworthy," then you are definitely not speaking of morally wrong as I or any normal person means it.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "