> What Chomsky is saying is that if you include only the people who are "healthy" according to some subjective criteria and take a crossection of their moraliti

> What Chomsky is saying is that if you include only the people who are "healthy" according to some subjective criteria and take a crossection of their moralities - the result isn't an empty set. Well duh. Where do you get that statement from? I don't think he says that at all. He says that the idea of morality is bound, i.e. it isn't infinite. I think that is easy to agree. He also says that you can argue morals. So he doesn't argue for a cross section of morals at all, quite the opposite: he hints, in this short video, that you can analyse sets of morals for their consistency. He uses the example of labour under slavery vs labour under a wage contract and how these different arrangements lead to different attitudes to labour. Implied is the idea that Chomsky is against slavery, but considers certain arguments slaveholders made valid. Are you sure you aren't, accidentally, putting up a straw-man?