I'm wasn't trying to promote any value set in this branch of the conversation. I was trying to via discussion learn more about the arguments for egalitarian vs. non-egalitarian family arrangements.

I've written extensively on my current position on morality elsewhere. Like I said in the other comment I think we're having a misunderstanding but I'm not sure where. I think its most plausible I'm missing some context.

As to moral regress, value drift seems to me obviously bad for any set of values that seeks to impact the world. I think we might mean different things by moral regress. It to me seemed the same thing as values changing from your own, which seemed an obviously bad thing from the perspective of nearly any set of morality because of instrumental reasons in the absence of the assumption of moral progress.

Edit: Oh now I get it!

"From the point of view" elides the central issue. Either there are moral facts or there aren't. If there are not moral facts, moral progress and regress are not well defined concepts. If there are moral facts, the concepts are well defined - although if one believes in conflicts in moral facts, then the concepts are much less impressive.

Just had to read this with a cleared memory cache. I misused moral regress, not keeping with the terminology you established. Now for the sake of argument assuming moral realism moral regress is not surprising, since morality is complex and most possible changes in our understanding of it probably are for the worse, just like most possible changes in our map of other parts of reality would be for the worse so would most possible changes in our understanding of morality. Thus all else being equal with these assumptions I think moral regress to be more likely than moral progress.