An attempt in layman's language to explain the metaethics sequence in a single post.

Bound_up

All of this is why Eliezer's morality sequence is wrong. Version 2 is basically right. The Baby-Eaters were not immoral, but moral, but according to a different morals. That is not subjectivism, because it is an objective fact that Baby-Eaters are what they are, and are obligated by Baby-Eater morality, and humans are humans, and are obligated by human morality.

But Eliezer (and Bound-Up) do not admit this, nonsensically asserting that non-humans should be obligated by human morality.

To be honest, Eliezer made a slightly different argument:
1) humans share (because of evolution) a psychological unity that is not affected by regional or temporal distinctions;
2) this unity entails a set of values that is inescapable for every human beings, its collective effect on human cognition and actions we dub "morality";
3) Clippy, Elves and Pebblesorters, being fundamentally different, share a different set of values that guide their actions and what they care about;
4) those are perfectly coherent and sound for those who entertain them, we... (read more)

0Bound_up10y

They eat innocent, sentient beings who suffer and are terrified because of it. That's wrong, no matter who does it. It may not be un-baby-eater-ey, but it's wrong. Likewise, not eating babies is un-baby-eater-ey, no matter who does it. It might not be wrong, but it is un-baby-eater-ey. We have two species who agree on the physical effects of certain actions. One species likes the effects of the action, and the other doesn't. The difference between them is what they value. "Right" just means "in harmony with this set of values." Baby-eater-ey means "in harmony with this other set of values." There's no contradiction in saying that something can be in harmony with one set of values and not in harmony with another set of values. Hence, there's no contradiction in saying that eating babies is wrong, and is also baby-eater-ey. You can also note that the action is found compelling by one species and not compelling by another, and there is no contradiction in this, either. What could "right" mean if we have "right according to these morals" AND "right according to these other, contradictory morals?" I see one possibility: "right" is taken to mean " in harmony with any set of values." Which, of course, makes it meaningless. Do you see another possibility?