Taboo compelling and restate. If compelling does not mean persuasive then what does it mean to you? Also taboo "committed" and "rational" - I think there's a namespace conflict over your use of rational and the common Less Wrong usage, so restate using different terms. As a hint, try and imagine what a universally compelling argument would look like. What properties does it have? How do different minds react to understanding it, assuming they are capable of doing so? For bonus points explain what it means to be rationally committed to something (without using those words or synonyms).
Also worth noting: P1 is a generalization over statements about minds, not minds.
Well, we have two options in tabooing 'compelling'. On the one hand, we could mean 'persuasive' where this means something like 'If I sat down with someone, and presented the moral argument to them, they would end up accepting it regardless of their starting view'. This seems to be a bad option, because the claim that 'there are no universally persuasive moral arguments' is trivial. No one (of significance) has ever held the contrary view.
So our other option is to take 'compelling' as something like what Kantians say about the CI, namely that every mind is... (read more)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.