<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>gjm wrote</title><author_name>gjm (npub1nv…6z58r)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1nvenfdndqszkyycc8vhrvlrd067xqjt0pf03u2uwllazt0dqnw0q66z58r</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>Just some pushback because I think there is a subtle sleight of hand at play by  using the carpenter&#39;s square metaphor. A carpenter&#39;s square measures objective physical geometry, which anyone (including non carpenters) can test against 90 degrees. A moral square doesn&#39;t measure physical geometry, it measures a chosen value system. If two people hold moral squares that differ by even 1 degree, over time they build completely different lives and societies while both insisting their square is true norma. Calling a chosen value standard a square sounds objective, but it switches a physical measurement system for a personal preference system, which inevitable leads to a circular argument situation. </html></oembed>