My rational basis for being pro-fork is that to be never-fork or anti-fork has much worse long term potential consequences.
Scenario 1) A smart contract is written which cannot be shut down by it's creators, which violates the three laws of robotics. Under the paradigm that smart contracts are intelligent agents then this scenario is possible.
Scenario 2) A smart contract is written which cannot be shut down by it's creators, which violates the non-aggression principle. This would be similar to the situation we have today with The DAO. Theft violates the non-aggression principle.
Scenario 3) A smart contract is written which violates or promotes the violation of human rights. The creators either can't be found, won't shut it down, or can't if they wanted to.
In any of these three scenarios it now becomes an opportunity for a new blockchain to offer all the same functionality, but with morals. For this reason I do not think the amoral blockchain can work because human beings tend to like staying alive. If a smart contract (intelligent agent) were to begin killing people then people would want to shut it down by hard fork and should be able to do it. If people can't then they'll dump the token down to oblivion.
In the scenario where the laws of robotics are violated or where smart contracts are weaponized against the blockchain itself then what is the blockchain supposed to do?
In scenario 2 which is the scenario most libertarians can understand, a smart contract which violates NAP violates the core principle that many libertarians follow. On an amoral blockchain where anything goes you will find smart contracts which violate the NAP and at that point libertairans might not want to be associated with the chain. For example if a smart contract on Ethereum somehow was able to hack the bank accounts of the rich and powerful libertarians and redistribtue the wealth as basic income I would guess most libertarians would get upset and want to fork.
The final scenario, human rights? In near future where people are cyborgs with brain chips, implants, and the like, do you think it is possible for a smart contract to literally start enslaving people? I think in theory it is possible and for this reason you might need to consider human rights.
These would be features which attract humans to blockchains. The blockchain best able to protect human rights, adhere to the 3 laws of robotics, and or follow the NAP, will get the majority of humans on that chain. If Ethereum is the amoral chain I do not see how Ethereum will ever be mainstream.
Unfortunately Gavin Wood defined Ethereum as amoral. Maybe that was a mistake?