I think it’s fine to advocate for our own points of view, but not to force them on people violently or kill them if they disagree. It’s possible to do the former without the latter. Do you really think that all persuasive writers on Medium would like to see re-education camps to convince the world of their perspectives? I think you can make a better argument than that.

I agree that there are no “objectively good” values that are universally constant. Values are a construction of society. “Right” and “wrong” are abstract concepts. It should go without saying; the purpose of this piece wasn’t to explain the philosophy of ethics.

When I say that something is “wrong”, I’m using it in more of a utilitarian sense. What seems readily apparent to me is that people exist as conscious beings, and that we have choices about how we set up the systems that we live in, and suffering is an undeniable outcome, so we might as well do as good of a job as we can to create healthy systems that will lead to a happier future.

I recognize the “equality, inclusivity, and social justice” faction you’re talking about. I actually feel a bit distant from that, for exactly the reason you mentioned — there can be too much dogma involved, to the point that it’s like a different type of religion.

It’s still possible to care about the welfare of humanity as a whole without subscribing to some dogmatic faction or another.