I would never say that "ethics are subjective" and are defined by whatever the majority decides at a given moment. For me the essence of ethics is the fact that they are absolute and they transcend everything else (including the will of the majority).

I make a distinction between public and private morality. Public morality is only determinable by opinion polls and is the "current moral sentiment of the crowd". Private morality is what an individual might know or feel is right. In the end public morality is what communities shape and members of the community are influenced by in laws, social consensus, etc, we have public morality which shapes that.

The developers of a technology have to ask themselves "what do my stakeholders think is ethical?" and make their design decisions based on what they think others think is right and wrong. This is because the tool, or the platform, isn't private but is public, and it's no different in my opinion from when a corporation goes public and then must change it's product in order to not upset the shareholders. My point is like with companies, the stakeholders determine what the consensus ethics of a platform is.

I guess your mindset represents the essence of post-modernism: there are no absolute values, everyone is free to interpret the world the way they want (every interpretation is of equal value) and ethics comprises of whatever interpenetration prevails at a given time.

I do not think there is any absolute truth or at least I don't know of any. Science doesn't work on absolute values. It's more you chip away at difficult problems over time by being wrong, failing, and learning from failed attempts until eventually a picture begins to emerge based on that. In a sense, science isn't about absolutes, it's just about being continuously less wrong over time. Absolute truth might not be achievable, but you can approximate by simply being continuously closer to it by ruling out what isn't true. In other words iterative improvement just like in engineering is the process which I think is more important than any rigid adherence to absolutes, whether this be moral absolutism, or if we are talking about software, algorithms, etc, the software is never finished and can always be improved, the algorithms are almost never optimal and most are just the best found fit solution.

And to be clear, my stance does not imply that things like US Constitution should be immutable. Quite the contrary, they should define a way to amend themselves. My point is, they should not be allowed to change its rules retroactively. This is a meta-rule which is kind of sacred and was clearly violated in case of the DAO incident.

So we agree on the Constitution. My point is immutable as you are using it does not mean human beings have to adhere to anything immutable. The blockchain is immutable in the sense that when we agree on that version of reality it's set in stone, recorded for all time, on the blockchain. But then if there is a fork then we can agree to ignore the old chain as a means of correcting our own mistakes, as I see the blockchain only as a means to an end. The chain itself may be immutable but there is no rule we can only have a single immutable chain, when we can have many competing chains (competing versions of reality) which the market selects, or the community chooses.

So Ethereum Core has it's chain and that chain is immutable. Ethereum Classic has a chain and that chain is immutable. The fork simply turned one chain into two, but the only thing which changed was the interpretation on the human side. If we are saying we cannot ever fork because that would break immutability then Bitcoin broke that a long time ago because it has forked many times, had bugs, and I suppose if we think of it like that then the purity of the chain was adulterated too. But I don't view it like that because I don't think the purity of the chain has any meaning without a community behind it.

What's more, the Ethereum webpage still mentions "unstoppable contracts", while according to your interpenetration (which I guess is shared by entire Ethereum community) it is not the case.

Honestly you have a point here. Very naive marketing, and this way of thinking is actually typical in this space. A lot of very naive catch phrases, buzzwords, and even some toxic memes are floating around. I do not endorse these memes. But for people who believe in that they can use Ethereum Classic. It is for that reason why we had the fork and why they have their own chain, but I agree it should be removed from the website because it's false marketing but what else is new? Lots of crypto projects make false promises in the marketing, like come on, world computer? Ethereum is not that, and it's not a super computer, and it's not exactly secure. Unstoppable contracts, okay so if the contract is destroying all life on earth it's unstoppable because Ethereum says we cannot shut it off? No, it's only unstoppable if a community exists willing to continue to mine it whether for economic reasons or others, it's only unstoppable if developers are willing to support the chain it's own, if it's an AI it's only able to be unstoppable if people keep feeding it resources. I'm saying that I endorse the "kill switch" idea as a safety precaution and in the case of The DAO no such safety mechanism was designed, it was threatening the health of the community and the project, not just economic, not just ethical, but legally as well. In the marketing I would hope they learn not to make naive promises which cannot be kept without leading to dystopia and unstoppable contracts is the sort of promise which would lead to that if we are talking about smart contracts completely as code without any arbitration or fail safe or human fail safe.