Instigator / Con
3
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#4466

Morality is Objective

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
3
0

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Critical-Tim
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Description

As we begin this debate on the objectivity of morality, I want to express my appreciation for my opponent's willingness to engage in a productive discussion and share their understanding of the world. While we may hold different views, my intention is not to win or lose, but rather to gain a better understanding of this complex topic.

I also want to express my respect to my opponent, and their perspectives. Just as a three-dimensional shape is formed by many two-dimensional images, our individual subjective perspectives are fragments of a larger and more intricate reality. It is only by fitting them together that we can hope to comprehend the full complexity of the world we inhabit.

In this debate, I will argue that morality is not objective, while my opponent will argue the opposite. However, regardless of the outcome, my hope is that we will both leave with a deeper understanding of this topic.

I believe that it is important to approach this debate with an open mind, to filter out biases and focus on the facts, and to engage in calm and rational thinking. It is also important to resist the temptation to only believe what we want, and to be willing to consider and explore ideas that may challenge our existing beliefs.

Ultimately, my goal is to engage in a respectful and productive debate that contributes to our collective understanding of the world.

I accept the disclaimed use of ChatGPT in Con's About Me.

There is an objective punishment for evil 😊

For example, if you steal, people beat you up irrelevant of your belief that theft is not wrong.

If society accepted theft, society would starve, irrelevant of their opinion.

Even if you were alone on the planet, jumping off a tall mountain would kill you even if you believe it wouldnt 😁

-->
@Sir.Lancelot
@YouFound_Lxam

Cast your vote for the candidate whom you believe deserves triumph. When engaging in debates, I personally draft my arguments and then refine them with the assistance of ChatGPT, allowing for a more polished and impactful presentation of my theories and ideas. Were I in your position, I would prioritize my vote by the logic and conclusion of a person's arguments over their writing style, be it formal or otherwise.

Plagiarizing is copying someone else's work without properly referring the source.
Read my About Me for more information.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“I hope this helps.”

What does that have to do with my suicide bomber analogy?

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

If you did. Well done to you, Ixam.

I ran Tim’s arguments through a detector and confirmed my conclusion of it being ChatGPT-generated, but it seems he admits it himself.

If your arguments were authentically written, I’ll give you the win.

If both of you plagiarized, then I’ll just vote on whichever plagiarized side had the better arguments.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

"Did both of you plagiarize in this debate?"

I wrote all of my arguments.
But honestly I wanted to point this out too.

My opponents arguments sound a lot like generated AI. Something I have played with recently.

-->
@Tarik

When a person accepts subjective values, it means they recognize that value is not inherent or universally objective, but rather a product of personal perspectives, beliefs, and preferences. Instead of seeking inherent or universal value, they understand that value is created and assigned by individuals based on their unique experiences, cultural influences, and personal judgments.

Accepting subjective values does not necessarily require the need for inherent ones. It means acknowledging that different people may assign different values to the same thing, and that these values can vary based on individual perspectives. Rather than relying on some inherent or external standard, individuals find value in things based on their own subjective criteria, which can include personal satisfaction, emotional connection, cultural significance, or individual preferences.

By embracing subjective values, individuals are free to define their own meaning and pursue what they find valuable in life, without being constrained by external or predetermined notions of inherent value. This perspective allows for diversity and the appreciation of different perspectives, as well as the recognition that value is a subjective and personal experience.

I hope this helps.

"Suicide bombers".

Are not nihilists,

What can one say,

Other than.

Crazy human mind stuff.

Objective morality?

Blow a raspberry.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“But should you choose to walk alone, without my protection, you will face the perils of a world teeming with malevolence.”

Suicide bombers have no intention of facing anything, so I would say in a case like that no it’s not a good reason.

-->
@Tarik

Tell me if this is not a good enough reason: If you stand by my side and safeguard my possessions, I shall do the same for you. But should you choose to walk alone, without my protection, you will face the perils of a world teeming with malevolence. Remember, strength lies in unity, for safety thrives in the embrace of numbers.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Perhaps if the majority of people were to assign value to something, it would hold greater collective subjective value, but it still does not indicate inherent value.”

With this being said if one wanted to destroy something you valued there’s no convincing argument you can make to stop them because you’ve basically admitted yourself that nothing has inherent value.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

In realms of wisdom, we have found our way,
On knowledge's shores, where treasures lay.
Our understanding, not born in isolation,
But nurtured by the world's grand narration.

For we stand on the shoulders of those gone by,
Their consciousness echoes, reaching the sky.
The wisdom they gathered, the stories they told,
Shape the foundation upon which we unfold.

No island of knowledge, we proudly proclaim,
But a tapestry woven, in wisdom's name.
Threads of the past, woven into our being,
A heritage cherished, in our souls, decreeing.

With humble hearts, we embrace the stream,
Of collective wisdom, a shared dream.
From movies to debates, from lessons to lore,
We gather the fragments, seeking to explore.

So let us not claim our understanding's birth,
From within ourselves, as if disconnected from Earth.
But acknowledge the lineage, the seeds sown,
That have shaped our minds, as they've steadily grown.

In this grand symphony, we play our part,
In the grandeur of knowledge, we find our art.
For our understanding, a harmonious blend,
Of wisdom's whispers, that eternally transcend.

Our understanding is built upon a collective foundation, shaped by the knowledge shared throughout the world. It is not solely derived from our own comprehension, but rather intertwined with the consciousness of those who preceded us. Like standing on the shoulders of giants, we acknowledge the vast reservoir of wisdom that guides our perceptions. We humbly recognize that our understanding is a collaborative tapestry, woven by the collective human experience, forever evolving and expanding through the ages.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

I appreciate your acknowledgement of our profound understanding, suggesting that it may appear as if our ideas were copied. While neither of us has directly copied another person's debate or claims, it is worth noting that our understanding is often influenced by the knowledge and information we encounter in various sources. Whether through watching movies, engaging in debates, completing schoolwork, or attending college, we absorb and integrate information from our surroundings into our own comprehension. Therefore, while we can confidently claim that we have not plagiarized, it is important to recognize that our understanding is built upon the collective knowledge shared in the world, and not solely generated from our individual perspectives.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam
@Critical-Tim

Did both of you plagiarize in this debate?

-->
@zedvictor4

I believe that the most challenging aspect to understand, which is often overlooked, is the concept of inherent value. Many people assume that for something to be valuable, it must possess inherent value; otherwise, it would not hold any value at all. However, I find that things without inherent value are valued by individuals all the time.

For instance, consider a person's first painting during their early days in art school. While it may appear visually unappealing to others, the artist may cherish and protect it throughout their life. This act does not demonstrate inherent value but rather subjective value. The saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure" exemplifies how something can hold value for one person but not for another, and vice versa.

My point is that value is not inherent; rather, it is attributed by the person who values it. The object itself possesses no inherent value; its value is created by the individual who assigns meaning to it. This is why one piece of artwork may be considered beautiful by one person but not by another. It is why certain flavors of food, songs, or movies are appreciated differently by different individuals.

If I understand you correctly, you argue that I contradict myself by acknowledging the absence of inherent value but engage myself in this conversation, thereby demonstrating its value. However, this is not a contradiction. By participating in this discussion, I am not asserting its inherent value but rather recognizing its subjective value to myself. To illustrate, I have a friend who would show little interest in this conversation and might say, "If you're so eager for me to know, just tell me the answer later, but I don't really care." This demonstrates that one person may not find value in the same way as another, emphasizing that value is not inherent but user-dependent.

If no one assigns value to something, does it become valueless? Conversely, if someone finds value in something, does it become valuable? In reality, it only becomes valuable to that specific person. Perhaps if the majority of people were to assign value to something, it would hold greater collective subjective value, but it still does not indicate inherent value.

-->
@Critical-Tim

If one is sentient and still alive then nihilism is simply a hypothetical contradiction for the sake of it.

Philosospeak as it were.

I might.. Might vote on this when it ends if I can find the time.
I was expecting a bit of a different response as I feel some arguments made no contraction except helping me better understand the opposing side.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”

Maybe you should utilize those search engines and look up appeal of emotion fallacy while you’re at it, because this isn’t something I just made up, you’re obliviousness is beyond me.

-->
@Tarik

“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”

-->
@Critical-Tim

“I entirely agree.”

Then what is nihilism?

-->
@zedvictor4

I entirely agree.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Morals can be subjective, representing personal beliefs or values, or they can be collectively subjective, known as ethics, which are moral standards accepted by society as a whole.”

Did it ever occur to you that maybe those standards are accepted by society as a whole because society happens to share the same “emotions”.

“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”

Maybe you should utilize those search engines and look up appeal of emotion fallacy while you’re at it, because this isn’t something I just made up, you’re obliviousness is beyond me.

-->
@Critical-Tim

1. Repeating facts is the subjective repetition of facts.

2. Utilising facts in one's reasoning is the subjective inclusion of facts as subjective reasoning.

3. Morality is a variable concept relative to human behaviour and expectations.

All three are individual bits of subjective processing, relative to an individual processing unit's assessment of acquired data.

I would suggest that to hold that morality is objective is to assume that we are connected to and governed by a greater data source. I would further suggest that this is what underpins Tarik's reasoning and their somewhat obsessive adherence to a the idea of an objective morality.

Which is not to be able to hypothesise that we are all connected to a greater matrix of absolute data. Though from a general position of assumed disconnection, hypothesising is the epitome of subjectivity.

-->
@Tarik

I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in engaging in this debate, and I have gained valuable insights into your perspective and understanding of morality. However, I have come to realize that our fundamental philosophical approaches differ to such an extent that finding a mutually satisfactory resolution in this discussion seems highly unlikely. I value the points you have presented and the explanations you have provided, and I would like to shift our focus to other topics where we may have a greater chance of reaching a more conclusive and fruitful outcome in our conversations.

-->
@Tarik

"The flaw in the appeal of emotion fallacy is using emotional appeal to manipulate."

There are several issues with the previous statement that need to be addressed. Firstly, it attempts to categorize morals solely as emotional judgments, which is not entirely accurate. Morals can be subjective, representing personal beliefs or values, or they can be collectively subjective, known as ethics, which are moral standards accepted by society as a whole.

Secondly, the statement implies that it is inherently wrong to use emotional appeals in moral arguments. However, I would disagree with this notion. Determining right or wrong is subjective, and individuals may have different interpretations. It is important to recognize that one's personal sense of right and wrong may differ from others'. Therefore, justifying one's feelings of morality over another's requires an understanding of the subjective nature of moral judgments and a respect for diverse perspectives.

Your example ultimately lacks validity because it assumes that your personal conviction of what is right overrides another person's belief, and it also oversimplifies the concept of morals by categorizing them solely as emotional appeals.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Fallacious" refers to an argument or reasoning that is flawed, misleading, or deceptive.”

The flaw in the appeal of emotion fallacy is using emotional appeal to manipulate, for example if someone says to give a child ice cream soon before bedtime because the child will cry if they don’t. Same difference for those who argue in favor of “morality”.

-->
@Tarik

"None of your examples fit the category of what I meant"
Nonetheless, they are all subjective and understood. My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing. Instead, I'm here to assist you in unraveling intricate philosophical inquiries that the internet may not have definitive answers to. To delve into these complex questions, it is crucial to grasp the foundational principles that surpass the surface-level understanding offered by a simple online search. Please research simple questions such as "is music a subjective experience," and "is music understood by science." I prefer to avoid revisiting basic knowledge when exploring philosophical concepts. It feels redundant, akin to reinventing the wheel while attempting to create a new car. This process can be time-consuming, and in my opinion, a quite distasteful waste of time.

As for your question, the deatils are very complex, but here is the summary of the concept:
Personal preferences in music are influenced by a combination of various factors, including individual experiences, cultural background, cognitive processes, and emotional responses. While it is challenging to pinpoint exactly why certain music resonates with one person but not with another, there are several key elements that contribute to this phenomenon.

Personal experiences: Our unique life experiences shape our preferences and perception of music. Positive associations with specific genres, songs, or artists can lead to a preference for similar styles in the future. For example, if a person associates a particular song with a happy memory, they are more likely to enjoy that song in the future.

Emotional resonance: Music has the power to evoke emotions and create a deep emotional connection. People often gravitate towards music that elicits emotions they can relate to or desire to experience. Different individuals have varying emotional needs and sensitivities, and music that aligns with their emotional state or aspirations will have a stronger appeal.

Cognitive processes: The brain processes music in intricate ways, and different individuals may have distinct cognitive patterns or preferences. This includes how the brain recognizes and interprets patterns, rhythms, melodies, and harmonies. Some people may prefer complex and intellectually stimulating compositions, while others may prefer simpler and more accessible musical structures.

Cultural background: Culture plays a significant role in shaping musical preferences. Musical genres and styles are deeply embedded in cultural traditions and norms. Individuals tend to develop a preference for the music that is prevalent within their cultural environment or that resonates with their cultural identity. Cultural exposure and familiarity with certain genres can significantly influence personal preferences.

Neurological and physiological responses: Research suggests that the brain's response to music is complex and varies among individuals. Neurologically, music stimulates various regions of the brain associated with reward, memory, and emotion. Physiological factors such as heart rate, breathing patterns, and hormone release can also be influenced by music, leading to unique individual reactions.

It is important to note that personal preferences in music are highly subjective and can evolve over time. Different people have diverse tastes and may find meaning and enjoyment in contrasting musical elements. Ultimately, the intricate interplay between personal experiences, emotional responses, cognitive processes, cultural background, and neurological factors contributes to the formation of personal preferences in music.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Different individuals may derive different meanings and emotions from the same piece of art, but there can still be shared understanding and appreciation of the artistic expression.”

None of your examples fit the category of what I meant so let me help you by posing this question, explain to me why rhythm & blues music sounds better than country music.

-->
@Tarik

Your response is perfect as it effectively challenges my logic, potentially highlighting any flaws, while refraining from deliberate disagreement. This approach ensures that even if I happen to be correct, it doesn't automatically render you incorrect.

Here are a few examples of things that are subjective but generally understood:

Taste in food: Different people have different preferences when it comes to taste. While specific foods may be enjoyed by some and disliked by others, there is a general understanding that taste can vary from person to person.

Beauty: The concept of beauty is subjective, and what one person finds attractive, another person may not. However, there are often commonalities and societal standards that shape our understanding of beauty.

Emotional experiences: Emotions are subjective experiences, and how individuals interpret and express them can differ. However, there is a general understanding of basic emotions like happiness, sadness, anger, and fear, which allows for communication and empathy.

Artistic interpretation: Art, including paintings, literature, and music, is often open to subjective interpretation. Different individuals may derive different meanings and emotions from the same piece of art, but there can still be shared understanding and appreciation of the artistic expression.

Personal preferences: Preferences for activities, hobbies, and entertainment can vary widely between individuals. While someone may enjoy sports, another person may prefer reading books. Though subjective, these preferences are generally understood and respected as personal choices.

These are just a few examples of concepts or ideas that are understood, and subjectively varying between individuals.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“It can be likened to someone using a similar logic to claim, "cows are white, and we consume cows, so we only consume white things."

So what subjective thing other than “morality” is understood?

-->
@Tarik

I now comprehend your line of reasoning, and allow me to illustrate its fundamental flaws. From what I gather, your argument suggests that since we understand facts and facts are objective, all things we understand must be objective. Consequently, you attempt to establish the notion that if we understand morals, they must also be objective.

However, your assertion that "we understand facts, and facts are objective, so all things understood are objective" is fundamentally flawed. This line of reasoning lacks reasonable coherence. It can be likened to someone using a similar logic to claim, "cows are white, and we consume cows, so we only consume white things." This statement appears nonsensical on the surface. Regardless of whether this was your intention or not, the logic presented in this argument is implausible and difficult to accept.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“If you have any concerns or objections, please clearly state your case without implicit implications.”

Is objective synonymous with just?

-->
@Tarik

I don't find any logical issues with my previous statements as they still make sense to me. I have explicitly stated the reasons behind my viewpoint. It appears to me that you are implying there is a problem, but you haven't explicitly stated what it is. If you have any concerns or objections, please clearly state your case without implicit implications.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“If you have a dispute, provide your case with referential proof and set aside your convictions.”

I’ll “refer” back to this quote “Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect.” The mere fact that you replied yes to both my questions contradicts this quote from you, do you need to see the questions again or you’ve got them on lock and key?

-->
@Tarik

I already replied yes, and in detail. If you have a dispute, provide your case with referential proof and set aside your convictions.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“You're correct, the simplified conclusion remains that facts are objective, while opinions are subjective.”

Do you understand facts?

I would suggest that all such debates arise from basic a lack of understanding; in so much as we do not know why we exist.
Therefore, we also do not know how we should conduct ourselves within the context of the greater unknown.
That is not to confuse the greater unknown with the World of people.
Not forgetting that there are others here who we tend to disregard or consider less worthy; who nonetheless as separate species have varied approaches to what we might consider to be basic moral principles, but who's actions remain inherently consistent.
One of the problems that I have with human intellect especially with regard to constructs such as morality, is ongoing conscious inconsistency and changeability.

As far as I am aware there is no evidence other than species bias, to suggest that hominid intellect is any more special than what it basically is....A species speciality.
So acquired functions and processes afford us a connection of sorts to other people, though our thoughts and responses still remain wholly self contained.
So for me, irrespective of the shared veracity of data (fact), all individual data analysis is still a self contained process. (Subjective)

Also, as far as I am aware, we are not subliminally programmed with universal knowledge from a greater and indisputable universal source; though some might argue this.
Though such hypotheses are wholly internal and subjective.....In my opinion.
Shared hypothetical subjectivity can create a standard, but does not validate the claim, especially in the absence of total agreement or physical evidence.

-->
@Tarik

I apologize if I may have made it overly complex in an attempt to ensure your complete understanding of the reasoning.
You're correct, the simplified conclusion remains that facts are objective, while opinions are subjective.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Facts provide objective information about the world and can be supported by evidence.”

So in other shorter and simpler words the answer is yes.

-->
@Tarik

Facts are pieces of information or statements that are based on evidence, observation, or reality and are considered to be true. They are verifiable and independent of personal opinions or beliefs. Facts provide objective information about the world and can be supported by evidence.

Objective facts are those that are universally agreed upon and can be verified through empirical evidence. These facts are not influenced by personal feelings, biases, or perspectives. For example, stating that "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level" is an objective fact because it can be tested and confirmed by anyone under the same conditions.

However, it's important to note that not all statements are factual or objective. Some statements may be subjective, meaning they are influenced by personal opinions, beliefs, or interpretations. Subjective statements are based on personal experiences, preferences, or feelings and may vary from person to person. For example, saying "chocolate ice cream is the best flavor" is a subjective statement because it reflects personal taste and preference.

While facts themselves are objective, the interpretation and presentation of facts can be influenced by subjective factors. People may have different perspectives or biases that affect how they perceive and communicate facts. It's essential to distinguish between facts and opinions, and to critically evaluate the sources and evidence supporting a claim to determine its factual basis.

Additionally, please respond to the previous comment.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect.”

Are facts objective? Do you understand facts?

-->
@Tarik

I find your comment confusing. How does the concept of consistently being wrong relate to the subjectivity or objectivity of morality? Moreover, if individuals are consistently wrong, doesn't that suggest some level of objectivity since objectivity involves consistency among individuals? It seems that your thought was left unfinished, and I would appreciate further clarification.

To assert that something is incorrect, you must possess a system of reference. The term "wrong" itself does not inherently indicate error, but rather signifies a lack of alignment with a different structure or inconsistency. If you claim that individuals can be consistently wrong, you must have a framework or standard against which you deem their actions as incorrect. Without such a reference, your statement lacks substantiation.

What specific aspect are you asserting people consistently get wrong? Is it your belief that their actions consistently deviate from your subjective viewpoint, and if so, how can you justify the superiority of your opinion over theirs? It is prudent to exercise caution when asserting the correctness of one's claim in contrast to the collective opinions of others. Doing so is an audacious step, as there exists a clear distinction between being above average and below average.

In summary, claiming something to be wrong necessitates a system of reference, as the term itself does not inherently denote error. Careful consideration should be given before asserting one's claim as superior to the multitude of other perspectives, recognizing the fine line between subjective opinion and broader consensus.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Objectivity refers to the consistency among all individuals, not simply whether something can be understood.”

Individuals can all be consistently wrong, there’s nothing objective about that.

-->
@Tarik

Fallacious refers to something that is misleading or deceptive. When a person feels misled, it is often because they lacked understanding and therefore perceive it as misleading. Conversely, if a person is not misled, they won't consider it to be misleading since they were not deceived. Essentially, it is not the thing itself that is fallacious, but rather the person who fails to interpret it correctly and thus regards it as fallacious. Ultimately, my definition does not necessarily result in a fallacious nature for morality.

Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect. Objectivity refers to the consistency among all individuals, not simply whether something can be understood.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Rather, it is a person's ignorance or misunderstanding of them that can lead to misguided actions, which can make the morals appear fallacious to them.”

There is no understanding necessary in regards to emotions, you either have them or you don’t. The mere fact that you associate morals with a degree of understanding demonstrates the objective nature of it.

-->
@Tarik

I apologize if my question was unclear earlier. I understand that you have previously stated that morals are not emotionally based because they would be fallacious if they were. However, I was hoping for a more logical and well-supported explanation for why you believe morals are not emotionally based. I am seeking an argument or evidence that supports this viewpoint, rather than a mere conviction or personal belief. Your current reasoning does not seem to address the question at hand and is not convincing to me. I want to understand the foundation of your belief that morals are inherent or not emotionally based, and I am open to hearing any other reasoning or arguments you may have to support this viewpoint.

I want to clarify that my argument is that morals themselves are not inherently fallacious. Rather, it is a person's ignorance or misunderstanding of them that can lead to misguided actions, which can make the morals appear fallacious to them. Therefore, the fallacy of morals is subjective and dependent on the individual's understanding of what constitutes a moral.

Moving on to the topic of values, they are emotionally based because they are created by humans through their emotional attachment to things. Things do not inherently have value, but rather people assign value based on their emotional attachment to them. This is illustrated by the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure," which shows that value is subjective and varies from person to person.

Given this understanding, I am curious as to why you believe that values are not emotionally based but rather objective. Objectivity implies that something does not change between people, but value varies from person to person, making it a subjective concept. I would like to understand your perspective on this matter.

You are correct, I did ask a question you already answered. It has been a while since we started this debate, and I have other commitments like work and other discussions, so it would be helpful to have a recap of our discussions to avoid losing track of our conclusions. I want to ensure that we are on the same page and have a clear understanding of each other's viewpoints.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Why do you not believe that values are emotionally based?”

Because arguing in favor of those values would be inherently fallacious, but I’ve told you this. So why ask if I said this already before?

-->
@Tarik

I have been engaging in this debate with you because I want to understand the foundation and basis for your beliefs. My own understanding is clear and evidenced by widely accepted principles that have been established in society for generations. However, I am seeking to gain a better understanding of your perspective.

What I'm really interested in knowing is:
What is the foundation in which you hold morals to be inherent?
Why do you not believe that values are emotionally based?
Why don't you believe that morals are chosen for us by our consciences' but rather that we choose them, what leads you to believe so?

-->
@Tarik

I don't understand what I missed, and if you insist on skipping over points, then how can one come to a solid conclusion? I readdressed the same points since they were applicable to the question. What points are you referring to? If I readdressed them then I probably did not recognize your answer as the solution.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Back to my point, morals are judged by society's overall emotional values.”

Well I don’t know why you insist on using the same tired talking points over and over again, but I addressed all of this already so I assume you have nothing more to add.