I’d be foolish to think GJM wouldn’t give a fair critique. 😂. Fair hit though, and you're right that a moral square can't be held against a wall and checked in five seconds. But I'd argue it still gets tested, just slower. A carpenter's square proves itself in the house that stands, and moral standards prove themselves the same way, in the marriages, families and towns that hold up over generations versus the ones that crack. That's why traditions that never met each other keep landing on the same core: keep your word, don't betray your spouse, raise your kids, care for the weak. When separate builders on separate continents keep arriving at the same angle, that looks less like preference and more like something they ran into. And your one degree point is exactly why I want a fixed square in the first place. Small errors compound over a long wall, which is the whole danger of letting the standard drift with the crowd. If it's all preference, there's nothing to measure the drift against, and that's the circle I'm trying to get us out of.

Moral relativism is real. Your body doesn't care about abstract geometry, only whether the food fits your evolutionary design. Cut the philosophy debate and just eat clean.