For actually making decisions, use Awesomeness or something as your moral proxy, because it more or less just works.

Given that we don't have a good explicit theory of what morality really is, how do you know (and how could you confidently claim in that earlier post) that Awesomeness is a good moral proxy?

So we are better off just using our current buggy procedural morality.

I think I understand what you're saying now, thanks for the clarification. However, my current buggy procedural morality is not "maximize awesomeness" but more like an instinctive version of Bostrom and Ord's moral parliament.