Good point. I think I was reluctant to use pedophilia as an example because I'm trying to defend this argument, and claiming it could allow pedophilia is not usually convincing. RAT - 1 for me.

I'll concede that point. But my questions aren't rhetorical, I think. There is no objective morality, and EY seems to be trying to get around that. Concessions must be made.

I'm thinking that the closest thing we could have to CEV is a social contract based on Rawls' veil of ignorance, adjusted with live runoff of supply/demand (i.e. the less people want slavery, the more likely that someone who wants slavery would become a slave, so prospective slaveowners would be less likely to approve of slavery on the grounds that they themselves do not want to be slaves. Meanwhile, people who want to become slaves get what they want as well. By no means is this a rigorous definition or claim.), in a post-scarcity economy, with sharding of some sort (as in CelestAI sharding, where parts of society that contribute negative utility to an individual are effectively invisible to said individual. There was an argument on LW that CEV would be impossible without some elements of separation similar to this).