Tell you what. Instead of typing out the answer to that,* I'm going to respond with a question: how do you think people who join the military justify the fact that they will probably either kill or aid others in killing?

*(I do have an answer in mind, and I will post it, even if your response refutes it.)

Are you accusing me of somehow discriminating against agents that implement other utility functions?

Yes, here's your last reply to me on just that topic:

Except that humans share a utility function, which doesn't change. (...) Cached thoughts can result in actions that, objectively, are wrong. They are not wrong because this is some essential property of these actions, morality is in our minds, but we can still meaningfully say "this is wrong" just was we can say "this is a chair" or "there are five apples".

Also:

The fact that morality is acted upon in different ways (due to your "layers" or simply mistaken beliefs about the world) doesn't change the fact that it is there, underneath [emphasis mine], and that this is the standard we work by to declare something "good" or "bad". We aren't perfect at it, but we can make a reasonable attempt.

It is bizarre to me how you believe there is some shared objective morality - "underneath" - that is correct because it is "typical" (hello fallacious appeal to majority), and that outliers that have a different utility function have false values.

Even if there are shared elements (even across e.g. large vague categories such as Chinese values and Western values), such as surmised by CEV_humankind (probably an almost empty set), that does not make anyone's own morality/value function wrong, it merely makes it incongruent with the current cultural majority views. Hence the "tyranny of some supposedly existing elusive majority".