[Question] What do the baby eaters tell us about ethics?

I just finished the baby eater se­quence ( https://​​www.less­wrong.com/​​posts/​​HawFh7RvDM4RyoJ2d/​​three-wor­lds-col­lide-0-8 ) and aside from it be­ing an in­cred­ibly en­gag­ing story I feel like there is a deeper mes­sage about eth­i­cal sys­tems I don’t fully un­der­stand yet.

In the se­quence in­tro­duc­tion Eliezer says it makes points about “nat­u­ral­is­tic metaethics” but I won­der what points are these speci­fi­cally, since af­ter read­ing the SEP page on moral nat­u­ral­ism https://​​plato.stan­ford.edu/​​en­tries/​​nat­u­ral­ism-moral/​​ I can’t re­ally figure out what the mind-in­de­pen­dent moral facts are in the story.

Another thought I’ve had since I read the story is that it seems like a lot of hu­man-hu­man in­ter­ac­tions are re­ally hu­man-babyeater in­ter­ac­tions. If you’re re­li­gious and talk­ing to an athe­ist about God, both of you will look like baby eaters to the other. Like­wise if you watch Fox News ev­ery­one on CNN or MSNBC will look like baby eaters but the same is true in re­verse, ev­ery­one watch­ing CNN will think Fox News are the baby eaters.

I have to say, this feels like some kind of eth­i­cal nihilism, but I would be cu­ri­ous to know if there are any canon­i­cal meta-eth­i­cal or eth­i­cal the­o­ries that cor­re­spond to the _mes­sage_ of the baby eater se­quence, be­cause if there is one, I think I agree with it.