Accounting vs. Universal Morality

I primarily see morality used as a defection-positive tool which obscures the accounting. 

If something is good-ingroup you should do it regardless of the costs. If something is bad-outgroup you should avoid it even if it costs you and your group nothing. Right? Yeah, right.

As I wrote previously, universal morality is childish. Perhaps someone will tell you a movie is "good" or "bad." If that's all you can get out of them, they are a child, regardless of their chronological age. Their thoughts are nearly as useful as they are sophisticated. The evaluation is almost worth the time you spent hearing about it.

If someone is not a child, see if they use qualifiers. Good for, rather than good per se. "If you want X, then tool/technique Y is useful."

Otherwise, they are trying to cheat you. They don't want you to do the accounting, because if you do the accounting, you will realize they're pulling a scam. At best it's narcissistic ego-fluffing. They feel insecure and need constant flattery. More likely they're trying to snatch your wallet while you're distracted by oughts. (Ref: Hume.) They want you to pay the costs because you're paying the costs to them.

All goals can be evaluated by the costs and benefits. It is not difficult to state. "This game's easy mode will let you complete the game more quickly, but is less satisfying." What you find most valuable is up to you, not them. "This blog author is always concise and correct, but speaks of shallow topics." "This author is highly verbose and often confused, but has occasional deep insights." What do you want? What do you need? There is no author who is inherently canon or specifically not-canon. No author is universally a valuable read.

If they avoid stating costs and benefits, they are trying to trick you. A snow job. A smokescreen. Muddying the waters.

Logic is accounting. If they thought you would genuinely find the author valuable, they could simply list the costs and benefits, you would agree with them, and they would successfully persuade you to read that author. They are using rhetoric like universal morality and camouflaged versions such as a 'canon' precisely because they don't think you find it valuable. It's not merely illogical, it is a confession of deviant motive. If they don't mention the costs, you can safely conclude the costs are the opposite of whatever they're trying to imply.