I think the crux of my issue is that, as a meta-ethical anti-realist, I don't see any reason for ethics to try to model anything objective. So failing at modell

I think the crux of my issue is that, as a meta-ethical anti-realist, I don't see any reason for ethics to try to model anything objective. So failing at modelling the world is not a problem. I don't even consider it a goal. Ethical rules demonstrably "fail" (as in the attached article) when they don't match someone's intuition about ethics (not about the world; the world at large doesn't care, unless you consider it a spiritual entity). So all ethics has to do is model someone's intuitions. Which is a completely different task than modelling the world. This is why I am susprised at your line of thinking. There's no nonsense or foolishness in trying to model one's own intuitions about justice, virtue, etc.