if you believe that morality is subjective

then the logical endpoint is to not hold any moral beliefs at all.
I have spoken to people who say things like "there is no such thing as objective morality" but then I ask them if they hold moral beliefs personally and they say yes.
For you to have a moral belief you must believe it to be objective.
If one says that morality is subjective, but then says that murder is wrong, they are contradicting themselves.
They say that right or wrong doesn't exist but they still believe something is wrong.
It doesn't make sense, you cannot say that you have moral beliefs but don't believe in objective morality

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's as stupid as saying preferences are subjective therefore no one can have preferences.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That actually makes a lot of sense. If morality is in the eye of the beholder, then it just becomes an assortment of preferences as says. Not to mention the fact it's a self-refuting argument. If morality is subjective, why do you care what morals other people have? You can't justify (heh) your argument because you think it's everyone's personal opinion.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If someone has the view their group or themselves comes first then it can be justified.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You don't even need your group or yourself to come first, although egoism is very common. You just need to not adhere to the dumb opinion that everyone's opinions are equally valid, because they are not. Even subjective opinions can be shown to be objectively worse than other subjective opinions.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It wouldn't matter if morality was subjective. If i'm not you or part of your group i have no reason to listen to you.

          >if you believe that morality is subjective
          >then the logical endpoint is to not have an ego or subjective experience at all
          Subjective morality on some level is the same as liking or disliking chocolate chip cookies, except as relating to the concepts of perceived fairness, ethical behavior and social interactions.

          >If morality is subjective, why do you care what morals other people have?
          Because I have preferences that other people's ethical behavior conforms to my preferences.

          >You can't justify (heh) your argument because you think it's everyone's personal opinion.
          Why do you feel entitled to have other people respect your personal opinion? I think your personal opinion is shit.

          >Because I have preferences that other people's ethical behavior conforms to my preferences.
          That is not a moral belief, it's your desire to control other people's thoughts.
          >Why do you feel entitled to have other people respect your personal opinion? I think your personal opinion is shit.
          Exactly, why do you feel entitled to have other people respect your personal opinion? You demonstrated perfectly how the logical endpoint of moral subjectivity is to not hold any moral beliefs at all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Exactly, why do you feel entitled to have other people respect your personal opinion? You demonstrated perfectly how the logical endpoint of moral subjectivity is to not hold any moral beliefs at all.

            If morality is subjective there is no morality telling you that you can't enforce your views or preferences on the world.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly, and there is no morality telling you that you can't change your views or preferences at will. See, OP is right. At that point these beliefs cease to be morals and instead become convenient modes of conduct.
            >That's what people pushing "objective morality" do except they lie to themselves and pretend they aren't.
            Moral objectivists usually hold onto beliefs that might not benefit themselves, which is not the case with subjectivists. The golden rule for example, turning the other cheek, charity, self sacrifice. People pushing subjective morality who hold onto these beliefs have no reason to do so if they think their morals come from the same place as their preference for ice cream flavor.
            >I don't?
            Then subjective morality has no ground to stand on. In your own view, no one is required to hear you out because it's just your opinion.
            >Subjective morality can be pretty easily explained by saying "if you were put in the position of a judge because you were an impartial third party, but were unable to rule on things that would lead to self enrichment" most people would have an opinion and it wouldn't just be "I don't give a frick"
            For what reason is there such a thing as a "judge" in a subjective moral system? What would he rule on? How he feels like today? Having a judge would mean having a moral system everyone must adhere to, implying it comes from outside the individual and therefore not subjective.
            You are all over the place man.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That is not a moral belief, it's your desire to control other people's thoughts.
            That's what people pushing "objective morality" do except they lie to themselves and pretend they aren't.

            >Exactly, why do you feel entitled to have other people respect your personal opinion?
            I don't?

            >You demonstrated perfectly how the logical endpoint of moral subjectivity is to not hold any moral beliefs at all.
            So a moral system is just entitlement?

            Subjective morality can be pretty easily explained by saying "if you were put in the position of a judge because you were an impartial third party, but were unable to rule on things that would lead to self enrichment" most people would have an opinion and it wouldn't just be "I don't give a frick". Most people have a preference in how they want the world to be even if it does not directly impact them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >most people would have an opinion and it wouldn't just be "I don't give a frick".
            Why would you give a frick about shit that doesn't involve you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not that guy

            Are you asking why my preferences are my preferences?
            It's just gonna bottom out in that, because they are my preferences
            Not everything will have a further explanations

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly, and there is no morality telling you that you can't change your views or preferences at will. See, OP is right. At that point these beliefs cease to be morals and instead become convenient modes of conduct.
            >That's what people pushing "objective morality" do except they lie to themselves and pretend they aren't.
            Moral objectivists usually hold onto beliefs that might not benefit themselves, which is not the case with subjectivists. The golden rule for example, turning the other cheek, charity, self sacrifice. People pushing subjective morality who hold onto these beliefs have no reason to do so if they think their morals come from the same place as their preference for ice cream flavor.
            >I don't?
            Then subjective morality has no ground to stand on. In your own view, no one is required to hear you out because it's just your opinion.
            >Subjective morality can be pretty easily explained by saying "if you were put in the position of a judge because you were an impartial third party, but were unable to rule on things that would lead to self enrichment" most people would have an opinion and it wouldn't just be "I don't give a frick"
            For what reason is there such a thing as a "judge" in a subjective moral system? What would he rule on? How he feels like today? Having a judge would mean having a moral system everyone must adhere to, implying it comes from outside the individual and therefore not subjective.
            You are all over the place man.

            goes to you after the greentext

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if you believe that morality is subjective
        >then the logical endpoint is to not have an ego or subjective experience at all
        Subjective morality on some level is the same as liking or disliking chocolate chip cookies, except as relating to the concepts of perceived fairness, ethical behavior and social interactions.

        >If morality is subjective, why do you care what morals other people have?
        Because I have preferences that other people's ethical behavior conforms to my preferences.

        >You can't justify (heh) your argument because you think it's everyone's personal opinion.
        Why do you feel entitled to have other people respect your personal opinion? I think your personal opinion is shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      FPBP

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      FPBP

      its not saying you can not 'have' a morality or a preference, it is saying your morality and preference are foolish, therefore going to war over the holocaust is like going to war over a flavor of ice cream.
      to be anything but self serving is silly

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So what? People are silly all the time
        This seems to perfectly describe what we see happening in reality.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >so what
          answering "so what" to a dictator is not a viable strategy.
          You personally may not have to handle the problem of moral collapse, but someone will, and the veil of illusion that secular society has lifted has removed a tool which in a basic and rudimentary sense was good for creating common ground between the powerful and the powerless.

          Being self serving is serving the self, and the self has a preference for chocolate ice cream.

          and?
          >people have preferences
          right and?
          Their preferences are just that, there is no reason to shame or condemn someone based on disliking a certain flavor of icecream therefore there is no reason to shame or condemn someone for appreciating the virtues of the holocaust.

          Isn't this just proof that religion is subjective? Going to war for your preference of one magic skydaddy versus another magic skydaddy?

          no? Religion is self contained and if it was true it would mean objectivity exists.
          Religion isnt subjective - but that isnt the relevant question - is "religion" true? that's what matters here.
          >skydaddy
          go to bed, you have school tomorrow.

          Because you, subjectively, feel like it's foolish?
          Nothing wrong with that

          >you subjectively
          nope.
          I didnt make a moral statement. I make a practical and objective statement.

          Secular morality and to an extent all morality (various religious beliefs can postpone the question with divine commands and 'the good') is subjective in a way that statements about input and output are not.

          You are foolish for being "moral" because you may come to a point where your morality demands you do something entirely detrimental to yourself for moral reasons - which is a poor survival strategy.
          I know what you're thinking
          >Ill just change my morality whenever I want
          Thus highlighting the absurdity of having a "morality".

          In fact you yourself probably do not even have a morality, you have social intuitions but you yourself are not a philosopher of ethics nor have you put great thought into constructing a moral system you could put into a handbook and then consult when you arrive at a moral dispute in your life.

          You, like most everyone, play it by ear.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I make a practical and objective statement.
            Practical, in what sense?

            If my only goal and desire is to go to war,, about ice cream. I would be irrational not to do so.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            practical for the coded drives humans have built into them.
            >If my only goal and desire is to go to war,, about ice cream. I would be irrational not to do so.
            This is obviously moronic and we do not live in a world of abstractions, we can look at humans as distinct animals with an aim and inborn goals.

            You can not "yeah but I personally would do this absurd thing" with this because we know how humans should and should not be due to evolutionary psychology.
            While not exact it does not need to be exact at the moment, all we lack presently are the tools, otherwise, in principle, we can make an objective metric for how every human should be just as we can make an objective metric for what the most successful tree is by tree standards or the most successful amoeba.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know why are telling me stuff about evolution and survival strategies. I don't subjectively care about that.
            You subjectively care about those things.

            (Look, of course I don't actually mean that.
            I 'm just trying to make a point that your 'objective' and 'practical' nonsense is silly. It's still bottoms out in your subjectivity
            saying that something is foolish, independent of how literally anyone feels about it, that's just nonsense to me.
            It's foolish because a person, some persons, or all persons, subjectively thinks it foolish
            There's nothing such as foolishness without people.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't subjectively care about that.
            >You subjectively care about those things.
            This is just patently false because "You" are not an independent agent but a subject of the material world and thus are bound by certain things within the material world, you would be 'defective' if you 'didnt care'.
            This is an objective fact, it does not matter how you subjectively feel about it.
            >objective and practical nonsense is silly
            It is the direction in which things are moving. There is no coherent argument against determinism, you may call it silly but you can not put together a coherent case against it, it is a logically sound juggernaut.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >answering "so what" to a dictator is not a viable strategy.
            why are you telling me this?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            continue reading to the next line

            I get the sense a lot of these posters are women or feminine spirited.
            Men understand morality very easily and instinctually know 'the game' is better when everyone pretends to play it.

            whereas women are always trying to break out of this and do something absolutely moronic and shortsighted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no reason to shame or condemn someone based on disliking a certain flavor of icecream
            You are wrong

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Being self serving is serving the self, and the self has a preference for chocolate ice cream.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't this just proof that religion is subjective? Going to war for your preference of one magic skydaddy versus another magic skydaddy?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because you, subjectively, feel like it's foolish?
        Nothing wrong with that

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      OP here. I'm surprised that this thread got this many responses.
      It is not the same as having a preference because people aren't making true normative claims when they have preferences. When you say that you enjoy a certain color you aren't saying that it is a normative statement. For you to say that your ethical beliefs are a preference doesn't make sense because you believe it to be true. If you say that morality is your preference and then you say something like murder is wrong you are essentially saying, it is neither right nor wrong that murder is wrong. You don't see your ethical beliefs as preferences because you believe them to be right or wrong, if you didn't then it would not be an ethical belief.

      The point of this post wasn't to prove whether objective morality exists or not so I don't know why people are making such responses, or accusing me of being religious when im agnostic and think this is just a good contradiction brought up.

      The point I'm trying to make simply is that if you have any moral beliefs, you believe that they are objective truths, even if you claim to be a moral subjectivist.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They aren't making normative claims. When a relativist says X is right wrong that's equivalent to saying they see X as right or wrong. It's the same as saying "blue is the best color." That isn't actually an objective statement or an attempt at an objective statement even though it seems like it is, but just a statement of preference for blue.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >murder is wrong
          Why?
          >uhhh because I don't like it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God and bad are words humans made-up, for stuff they like and dislike

            how is this hard?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God and bad are words humans made-up, for stuff they like and dislike
            >I dislike murder

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Most people do

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Murder is by definition killing someone when it’s wrong to do so, simple

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >when it’s wrong
            and when is that

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          An essential concept of right or wrong is that it lies outside of preference or desires. When someone makes a statement of something being right or wrong they are absolutely making an attempt at an objective statement.

          >murder is wrong
          Why?
          >uhhh because I don't like it

          Also this. No one would ever respond to being asked why x is wrong with this. This is because morality doesn't fall under one's preference like a color, and they believe it to be an objective truth.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Alright, suppose objective morality is true, and there exist facts about what we should and shouldn't do.
        Make a normative claim, now explain how it's supposed to make sense that I *should* do it, even if I don't, subjectively care about doing it.

        I've never understood how that works. Sounds like gibberish,

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >why arent moral laws like physical laws
          you are very likely being dishonest because you instinctually by definition of being a human have an impulse to align yourself in a certain way congruent to certain principles that can be seen as objective morality.

          You are not asking a coherent question.
          >explain why I 'should'
          you are programmed to, you are defective otherwise, you may be defective and nature will remove you.
          Thats the end of it, no further meaning, either you conform to reality or reality kills you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're a gibberish generator.

            Suppose it's objectively immoral to lie.
            But I have certain goals and desires that can be achieved by lying. And I subjectivity don't care about me, myself, being immoral and telling lies, I'm fine with that.

            I want you to parse out what the heck it means that I *shouldn't* tell lies. That's just nonsense.
            What I *should* do, is act in a way that achieves my goals and desires. Anything else would be irrational.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your inability to grasp year three ethical philosophy does not make it gibberish.
            It makes you a monkey.
            >I’m fine with that
            Ok and? What does this change about the factual statements I made?
            >it’s just nonsense that I shouldn’t tell lies
            You not caring does not remove your moral obligation.
            Also “you” obviously don’t have a desire to tell lies and you are literally lying when you say “I don’t care if I’m immoral”.
            I am not trying to argue you into accepting some position I myself hold. I am making the objective statement that you are a moron for thinking humans, which live in an objective quantifiable world, do not also exhibit objective and quantifiable behaviors. From these we can derive moral standards conducive to social harmony to various peoples and places.

            >what I should do is whatever achieves my goals
            “You” are not a sentient being. “You” do not have actual goals. You are a deterministic being subject to many quantifiable factors.

            You have no free will. You can not escape the judgement of nature, either you are imperfect working toward perfection because this is just what we do, this ain’t even prescriptive this is DESCRIPTIVE, or you get wiped for being a lying ape.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have a disagreement with you.
            You don't seem to believe in objective moral facts.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your inability to grasp year three ethical philosophy does not make it gibberish.
            It makes you a monkey.
            >I’m fine with that
            Ok and? What does this change about the factual statements I made?
            >it’s just nonsense that I shouldn’t tell lies
            You not caring does not remove your moral obligation.
            Also “you” obviously don’t have a desire to tell lies and you are literally lying when you say “I don’t care if I’m immoral”.
            I am not trying to argue you into accepting some position I myself hold. I am making the objective statement that you are a moron for thinking humans, which live in an objective quantifiable world, do not also exhibit objective and quantifiable behaviors. From these we can derive moral standards conducive to social harmony to various peoples and places.

            >what I should do is whatever achieves my goals
            “You” are not a sentient being. “You” do not have actual goals. You are a deterministic being subject to many quantifiable factors.

            You have no free will. You can not escape the judgement of nature, either you are imperfect working toward perfection because this is just what we do, this ain’t even prescriptive this is DESCRIPTIVE, or you get wiped for being a lying ape.

            to be clear, I have a disagreement with people who believe there are stance-independent normative facts regarding what we should, and shouldn't, do

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Morality aren't preferences. Your society will rise or fall based not them, but not preferences. People need at least some baseline to agree on to move forward on much of anything.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is just restating that what your position is (morality is objective)
        You're not bringing anything to the table, as to why we should think that's the case

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's my first post in the thread. Who do you think I am?
          You can't even conduct the most of simple transactions or have safe communities on the smallest village level or relations not breaking apart every day if it all was just based on people's whims. They'd constantly get rugpulled at every c**t who wanted to change any decorum or sense of fairness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't see how any of that follow from moral anti-realism being true
            You kinda just asserted that if it was, people would do all kinds of bad things

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People who argue against moral antirealism tend to have this weird view where if there is no objective right and wrong, people's preferences for things like stable high trust societies somehow poof out of existence.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is your view on circumcision? Checkmate Christian

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Circumcision is a israeli ritual dumb ass

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Google "not one jot." Repent now and mutilate your wiener or suffer eternal damnation.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >For you to have a moral belief you must believe it to be objective.

    Non sequitur. It very much is possible to have personal beliefs without thinking they are universal

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >For you to have a moral belief you must believe it to be objective.
    moron. Also your "objective morality" on the basis of the holy scriptures includes things like slavery, not combining milk and cheese, not working on Sunday, not wearing clothes made of more than 1 material, stoning to death adulterers, etc. Oh wait you don't practice those things? So your objective morality contradicts God... weird I thought that was the only way you could get an objective morality?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >then the logical endpoint is to not hold any moral beliefs at all.
    How does that follow? We can easily say
    "moral behavior" is beneficial for people to follow

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the logical endpoint is to not hold any moral beliefs at all
    That is only in case I want everything to be objective, which I do not.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >For you to have a moral belief you must believe it to be objective.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What is your morality based on? Your feelings?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, sure, feelings, values, preferences. It's all subjective.

        What's your morality based on? God's feelings?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "Subjective morality" is no morality at all.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Only white people have morals.
    That rules you out then.

    Yeah, sure, feelings, values, preferences. It's all subjective.

    What's your morality based on? God's feelings?

    >What's your morality based on?
    Objective truth as revealed by God

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's objectively true that my preference, is my preference. That's just a fact about reality.
      So in that sense, I'm like God.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >So in that sense, I'm like God.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't really understand what's the major difference between my preference, and God's
          Sometimes it just seems to boil down to God having a superpower that makes it so he cannot change his mind about what he prefers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have the fricking patience to explain it to you right now

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you gonna reply again later, or are you ending the discussion?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'll see how I feel in 2 hours

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God knows everything, you don't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So what?
            If I knew everything, would my preference become objective morality? Of course not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            depens, are you also all powerful and present everywhere?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If I become stronger, and bigger, will my preference become moral truths?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            if you hold those abilities mention before, yes, if you are a bit more strong and a bit more big, I doubt it but it can give you frame, I guess

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cool. There we have it. God makes morality objective cuz he's big and strong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            not big and strong, the biggest and stronger (in reality, an all powerful and knowing ever-present being)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Amazing how you never went beyond morality "merely being God's opinion".
            Just felt like telling me about how big skydaddy is

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Objective truth as revealed by God
      Genuine question: Why *should* I care about the moral truths?

      I mean, without appealing to my subjective goals or desires.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A better question is why should I care if you care about truth? Just go frick off in LaLa land with the rest of the dopes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Come dude. Morality concerns what we should and shouldn't do
          If you can't tell me, even in principle, why I should be moral, the word has no meaning

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >For you to have a moral belief you must believe it to be objective.
    Having morals is an objective human trait, what is considered moral however is subjective.

    It doesn’t matter either way. Why do IQ challenged people care so much about things being “objective or subjective” anyways?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >For you to have a moral belief you must believe it to be objective.
    Pure. Fricking. Cope.

    My morals are not objective. They come from my mind. I need no justification for them, they just exist. Things are bad because I say so. Things are good because I say so. Period.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Something I've always found weird about objective moral facts
    For every actions I can do, it's always going to be true that it's either immoral, or it isn't. True dichotomy, right?

    So, like, downloading a videogame by a defunct developer, from a p2p file sharing site, which I own a copy of on CD, but my computer got no CD drive. (it's against US law, but not my local law) Or whatever, the point is to make it trifling, but convoluted.
    Would this be immoral?
    Keep in mind, there IS a fact of the matter. Either written into the fabric of reality, hinging on the platonic form of the good, or in the mind of God, etc

    I just find it so baffling, that objective morality enjoyers, thinks that messes like this, that there actually is a fact of the matter.
    If it's immoral or not. (even if we can't know that, lol)

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Biology and culture dictates morality even if you know morality is subjective. The entire argument is moronic unless you are psychopath who believes in hell.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >logical endpoint
    reductio ad absurdum
    why can't theists argue for shit?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      these are not theistic arguments, these are people who are just more intelligent than you bullying you for being low IQ, the fact you are an atheist and theists used to bully you has nothing to do with it.
      really, it is racist atheists who are justifying their instincts vs liberal atheists who are trying to justify their maladaptive behavior.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's all value judgements in the end.
    What is conducive in upholding those values.
    This is how it ends up being subjective, because depending on person to person, their values may differ.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I can rigorously and mathemaitcally prove that certain outcomes are better than others using objectively defined utility functions.
    People don't understand that it's materialism, not idealism, which leads to objective morality. Or at least some sort of property dualistic materialism or whatever I dont actually care about this

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Baseline ground truth for morality is reduction in suffering. Be it for themselves or others they care in their immediacy or their neighbors or their society or the conscious life we all share, whatever the boundary is. Thats largely based upon death, fear of and the loss of loved ones.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Universe caring about your actions is moronic. A magical israeli fairy creating the universe to observe hairless monkeys jerking off on a random planet is just too silly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But anon, how can there be solid grounds for morality other than "what I believe the magical israeli fairy thinks is good"? Anything else is either circular or subjective and will totally lead to what Christianity has historically led to!

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is a moronic christcuck stance.
    1-What determines objective truth of morality that isn't ultimately interpreted by man subjectively? Moreover, how is it falsifiable as objective?
    2-Just because morality is not objective doesn't mean you cannot reason out which value systems are best through comparison and argumentation to be as close to as objectively best as possible.
    If your best argument is an appeal to authority you either are bad at debating or have a weak value system

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *