Your whole argument keeps assuming morals are subjective, but this means you have to give up the moral high ground in every argument you make.
I am not basing the law ONLY on morality.
Cody Holmes

I will look further into subjective morality because I am willing to see it from your point of view. But from what I know, objective morality calls for universal truths such as murder is wrong. But that is not universal. Using the consensus of a moral majority as the basis of a social construct and developing and enacting laws based on that construct, with the allowance for those laws to be interpreted and changed according to the changes in that society, would seem objective to me. Holding to a personal moral belief and imposing it on everyone else as a universal truth seems very subjective.

As far as giving up the moral high ground in all arguments, if all I am arguing is the validity of my own moral compass, then I really have no argument at all. Explain to me how you can prove one persons morality as being correct over another person’s and how that could possibly be objective. If that sounds mocking at all, it is not intended as such. I truly want to hear the argument for this because it simply makes no sense to me.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.