For me, these questions create a tangle of conflicts between the real and the hypothetical. This is my best attempt to untangle, so far. First, if there were a tablet that could actually somehow be shown to reveal objective morality, I suspect that I might never have had any qualms about committing atrocities in the first place, since I would be steeped in a culture that unanimously approved. We already see this in the real world, merely as a result of controversial tablets that only some agree on! If you mean, what if I suddenly discovered the tablet just now, then I find I am unable even to imagine how the present real me could be convinced of the authenticity of the tablet. I don’t believe in (do not find evidence for) objective morality, so what possible argument could pursuade me that the tablet was it? And if, purely for the sake of the thought experiment, I grant the possibility that I could be convinced, even though I cannot imagine it, my conception of what it must mean to be convinced seems to imply surrender to that morality by definition. For if I hold out and continue not to murder, then I have not truly conceded that the morality of the tablet is objective. In short, the full implication of true belief in the objectivity of the tablet IS commitment to do its will, but I don’t believe in any such thing, so to me there is no question.
As to what I would want the tablet to say: Minimize physical and psychological pain in the individual. Maximize happiness in the individual (in a way that is not vulnerable to silly arguments about “pegging the bliss-o-meter”). I say, “in the individual”, in strong opposition to dust specks. I remain puzzled by why the “shut up and multiply” maxim would not be accompanied by “shut up and divide”. (That is, 3^^^3 specks / 3^^^3 individuals = no pain.) I remain open to good arguments to the contrary—I haven’t read one yet. I note that my tablet would be made completely obsolete if we ever engineered the capacities for pain and pleasure out of ourselves. I wonder what moralities, if there were even a use for them, would look like then?
For me, these questions create a tangle of conflicts between the real and the hypothetical. This is my best attempt to untangle, so far. First, if there were a tablet that could actually somehow be shown to reveal objective morality, I suspect that I might never have had any qualms about committing atrocities in the first place, since I would be steeped in a culture that unanimously approved. We already see this in the real world, merely as a result of controversial tablets that only some agree on! If you mean, what if I suddenly discovered the tablet just now, then I find I am unable even to imagine how the present real me could be convinced of the authenticity of the tablet. I don’t believe in (do not find evidence for) objective morality, so what possible argument could pursuade me that the tablet was it? And if, purely for the sake of the thought experiment, I grant the possibility that I could be convinced, even though I cannot imagine it, my conception of what it must mean to be convinced seems to imply surrender to that morality by definition. For if I hold out and continue not to murder, then I have not truly conceded that the morality of the tablet is objective. In short, the full implication of true belief in the objectivity of the tablet IS commitment to do its will, but I don’t believe in any such thing, so to me there is no question.
As to what I would want the tablet to say: Minimize physical and psychological pain in the individual. Maximize happiness in the individual (in a way that is not vulnerable to silly arguments about “pegging the bliss-o-meter”). I say, “in the individual”, in strong opposition to dust specks. I remain puzzled by why the “shut up and multiply” maxim would not be accompanied by “shut up and divide”. (That is, 3^^^3 specks / 3^^^3 individuals = no pain.) I remain open to good arguments to the contrary—I haven’t read one yet. I note that my tablet would be made completely obsolete if we ever engineered the capacities for pain and pleasure out of ourselves. I wonder what moralities, if there were even a use for them, would look like then?