I fear many readers will confuse this argument for the moral anti-realist argument. The moral anti-realist argument doesn't mean you shouldn't consider your goals superior to those of the pebble sorters or babyeaters, just that if they ran the same process you did to arrive at this conclusion they would likely get a different result.

What is this "moral anti-realist argument"? Every argument against moral realism I've seen boils down to: "there are on universally compelling moral arguments, therefore morality is not objective". Well, as the linked article points out, there are no universally compelling physical arguments either.

This suggests that morality is more like your particular taste in yummy foods and aversion to snakes than the speed of light.

The difference between morality and taste in food is that I'm ok with you believing that chocolate is tasty even if I don't, but I'm not ok with you believing that it's moral to eat babies.