How preposterous!!
Structurally, morality is always rooted genetically and memetically out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. In some regards, we can all agree on what is in fact true for everyone, but in other regards we cannot. But to speak of moral values changing at anytime for any reason has little to do with the actual human condition down through the ages. People do give reasons for what they do. People on both sides of any particular conflict. And people change their minds for reasons too. It doesn’t just all unfold or happen out of the blue.
That’s why we need to focus in on a particular context: to sort out [to the best of our ability] what can be agreed upon and what cannot.
And, yes, given new experiences, “I” can be radically reconfigured. That’s what troubles the objectivists the most. For example, many want to believe that however dramatically their own reality changes if the coronavirus explodes into a particularly deadly worldwide pandemic, there is still the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do” that remains intact.
And who knows how each of us as individuals will react if that does become the reality. That’s the part I attribute to dasein. But how likely are we to all agree on what ought to done in order to be deemed rational human beings?
Just look at the complex reactions to the AIDS virus. And imagine those reactions if AIDS had been a far more easily transmitted, air born pathogen.
That’s precisely why I focused in my post above on how Buddhists themselves might react to the coronavirus in their own lives. What does it mean to be enlightened then? When the context that you are in literally revolves around life and death?