Well, the common name for this X is something being "moral" or "right" but it appears a lot of people in this thread like to use those words in non-standard ways.
If you mean what I think you mean, then I agree... I'm disregarding the commonly-referenced "morality" or "rightness" of acts that somehow exists independent of the values that various value-having systems have.
If it turns out that such a thing is important, then I'm importantly mistaken.
Do you believe such a thing is important?
If so, why?
There seems to be a widespread impression that the metaethics sequence was not very successful as an explanation of Eliezer Yudkowsky's views. It even says so on the wiki. And frankly, I'm puzzled by this... hence the "apparently" in this post's title. When I read the metaethics sequence, it seemed to make perfect sense to me. I can think of a couple things that may have made me different from the average OB/LW reader in this regard: