Interestingly I was having a conversation with myself about this. That ethics, law, and other normative systems are just sets of rules, just like how physical reality follows laws of nature.

The difference is that the "metric" of reality is existence itself — the measure is that something exists, or it doesn't: there isn't anything that violates the laws of nature that exists.

But in the human realm, there must be some metric ("good" vs "bad" ) that drives measures (ethical/legal/profitable/etc. vs not). But also there are indeterminates (neither moral nor immoral) or disputes, because there are many systems under existence (your moral vs my moral).

I also don't know what I was trying to say tbh, someone started screaming on the bus at that point. I guess basically just that humans tend to silo their conceptions of things which don't match up with each other perfectly already, let alone realizing that the ultimate reality of things doesn't give a fuck about our conventions.

Building a perfect system or even a minimally common-to-all system seems like a fool's errand, like liberalism "we just need to declare human rights that no one can disagree with, and then no one will violate them" fucking Kant and Rawls