This is an extremely uncharitable interpretation of the text. Objective anchors and examples are provided throughout, and the passage you excerpt is obviously and explicitly meant to reflect that any such list of them will incidentally and essentially be incomplete.

▲

joshuamcginnis 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Uncharitable? It's a direct quote. I can agree with the examples cited, but if the underlying guiding philosophy is relativistic, then it is problematic in the long-run when you account for the infinite ways in which the product will be used by humanity.

	▲	riwsky 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The underlying guiding philosophy isn’t relativistic, though! It clearly considers some behaviors better than others. What the quoted passage rejects is not “the existence of objectively correct ethics”, but instead “the possibility of unambiguous, comprehensive specification of such an ethics”—or at least, the specification of such within the constraints of such a document. You’re getting pissed at a product requirements doc for not being enforced by the type system.