Likewise, in the case of many of the moral divisions that exist within societies today (say, about abortion), it is not immediately clear what “respectful, tolerant, and generous treatment of fellow beings, of all descriptions” would constitute. How do you deal with conflicting claims between different beings?

Either the universe’s moral calculator would have to be so complex that some of its operations would be non-obvious, or it would risk trivializing the complex nature of many moral choices.

The point was meant to be turning religious ethics on its head. Usually, the source of disagreement has to do with what kind of morality actually exists out there. By stripping away that requirement, it seems possible to think about moral systems in different terms.

In short, it’s a mechanism for identifying, firstly, what kind of moral framework a particular person thinks they would be happiest in and, more importantly, whether the answers people give vary a great deal, or not very much at all.

The meta problem is the question of why? Why reflect on these possibilities? Such a priori analyses are only seemingly useful when they confirm the reality that already exists (i.e. Rawls) and makes slight suggestions for actions. But, why reflect on having the ability to redefine existence such that it might be “ethical”. Ethics are, remember, merely an idea that we’ve developed given the conditions to which we have been subject. If you change the conditions, as your reflection presupposes, why would we expect to have the same ethical impulses, the same notion of fairness etc…? In short, the power of granting ontological status seems to undermine the purpose of moral reflection.