I think psy-kosh’s “karma” idea is worth considering, but your rhetoric is much better here than the previous two attempts, as far as I’m concerned. It’s important—especially for a lay audience like me that doesn’t already know what kind of argument you’re trying to make—to distinguish between contingent advice and absolute imperatives. (It may be that the second category can properly never be demonstrated, but a lot of people make those kinds of claims anyway, so it’s a poor interpretive strategy to assume that that’s not what people are saying.)
I think psy-kosh’s “karma” idea is worth considering, but your rhetoric is much better here than the previous two attempts, as far as I’m concerned. It’s important—especially for a lay audience like me that doesn’t already know what kind of argument you’re trying to make—to distinguish between contingent advice and absolute imperatives. (It may be that the second category can properly never be demonstrated, but a lot of people make those kinds of claims anyway, so it’s a poor interpretive strategy to assume that that’s not what people are saying.)