Just as a note to others (I'm sure you are careful!) , even stones are traditionally a lead compound - galena is typical, and is a lead sulfide.

The ancient egyptians seem to have used galena to make kohl, which is lead(II) sulfide.

To anyone thinking of picking up some kohl, do look out for lead content;

see https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/kohl-kajal-al-kahal-surma-tiro-tozali-or-kwalli-any-name-beware-lead-poisoning

Sure, but changing your mind about scenarios they are acceptable in counts.

How is changing your answer to a moral question distinct from your morality changing? Per your own definition, your sense of right and wrong has shifted to give you a different answer.

I used to believe making others happy as a priority was the moral choice, now I think people should generally be more self centered. I used to oppose any sort of violence; now I believe it is sometimes necessary or justified. By what definition are these not a change in morality?

I suppose I wouldn't infer that, but I see how you are reading it; if I say "Look, this blender can't make a perfect smoothie that everyone would like", to me that doesn't imply that I think a perfect smoothie liked by everyone can exist; I'm just clarifying that such a concept isn't the goal.

I think what they are really trying to say is that the method constrains morality such that there only a few local maxima of stability - only some moral systems can be stable. It's not that it says that these systems are or are not morally good; in fact it doesn't assign them any sort of "goodness" score - it only tells us what is socially stable enough to be perpetuated as a moral system.

So, if our goal is to arrive at a moral system, this method theoretically lets us discard many unstable possibilities.

In this way, this method can reject a common set of suboptimal ("non-ideal") solutions, even if "ideal" solutions are totally unique for each person as you suggest, so long as we all agree with the premise that stability is good. It relies on that common criterion, even if all other criteria are totally unique.

That's how some "non-ideal" solutions can be consistently identified even if "ideal" is highly personal - it cannot identify ALL non-ideal solutions for all people; that can't be done without asking literally every human what they'd prefer - but it CAN identify a consistent subset of those solutions that will not be functional, regardless of personal views (unless you disagree with the basic premise of stability!)

Yep. So, that being the case, I'm not sure I understand who your question was directed to?

They just specifically said that this wouldn't tell us an "ideal" set of morals.

Huh? You've never changed your mind on what you think is morally acceptable??

A small role in an off-broadway musical. It won't be much, but it's a start.

There's always a chance for mutations.