What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[Lauront]

Venat lowered the life expectancy of everything on Etheirys, including the Souls not yet vested in flesh, by several orders of magnitude. She then split it all into 14 distinct lives, introducing death at 14 times the new life expectancy for everything, down to the smallest insect. In your inane reinvention of the trolley problem, she kept her finger off the button.

As for what you refer to as an absolutist comment that serves no purpose, the entire post I responded to was an absolutist take with regards to social constructs. It pointed out the absolute absurdity inherent in that take. You might want to get your nose checked out.

On top of this, she deliberately attempts to spare Emet, knowing how that will go - and if she thought that might turn out differently, observed reality would inform her otherwise in short order. That, plus all the worlds lost in the time it took to eventually reach the WoL's era, is an immeasurable loss of life and infliction of suffering, and it's not like the sundered (generally) have some deep, abiding respect for other lives - definitely not even the kind the ancients (generally) had for their living creations; they are more prone to vices like war, which even involves life forms similar to themselves, and will use beings such as animals, arcane entities etc. as and when they please, to meet their ends. Certainly, as far as Hermes's "test" was concerned, he considered them to have failed it as well - to the extent that that "test" was worth anything. The best defence Yoshi could advance of her is a desire to try keep the timeline consistent, because it is far from clear that all she did was 'necessary' in any absolute sense, as opposed to necessitated by the pathway she committed herself to. How would things have ended, had she been candid with her people, which is the least she owed them?

Instead, we get lukewarm defences comparing her to SHB Emet-Selch and "I guess she's an ancient huh".