Assuming there is no god, morality is subjective and laws are unnecessary

a.) Congratulations on proving that there’s a scientific reason behind empathy, but that means nothing in regards to morality. They’re two separate things. The biological reactions that causes someone to feel another person’s pain could theoretically deter people from harming another person, thus creating a ‘treat others how you want to be treated’ mentality, but the reactions aren’t strong enough to actually do so. It seems to me that you’re trying to say that an objective morality comes from a general acceptance of the fact that there are negative consequences for some actions. Your example was ‘If one were to see another fall and break their ankles we flinch even if we had never had that exact experience.’ While this may be true, any rational person should be able to see that a flinch is nowhere near as intense as the pain one would experience from breaking one’s ankles. So then, there’s really nothing to keep someone from thinking through the situation and deciding that it is, in fact, worth the flinch to trip that person they don’t like and cause them to fall and break their ankles. b.) Are you claiming that only unhealthy people deviate from these so-called ‘moral standards’? If so then why have prisons at all? Shouldn't those people be given treatments for their conditions instead? Doesn't your objective morality say that helping people is right? If all people who commit ‘crimes’ do so because they’re unhealthy, you can’t expect a potential punishment to stop them from committing ‘crimes’ or an actual punishment to stop them from repeating their actions. However, healthy people do deviate from ‘moral standards’. Take, for example, cheating on a partner (I’m picking this particular act for an example because most people strongly believe that it’s wrong, but there aren’t any legal consequences for it). A lot of healthy individuals cheat on their partners. If they’re caught they’ll often admit that what they did was ‘wrong’, but they clearly don’t believe that, or they wouldn’t have done it in the first place. The only reason they admit to being ‘wrong’ and apologize is because society has shoved the morals of influential people down their throat, and the societally accepted response for breaking those morals is remorse. The aforementioned morals aren’t objective. They’re merely the opinions of people in positions of power. If they were objective, society’s standards of moral behavior would never change. Looking back through history, that is simply not the case. ‘Just because you own a weapon and carry it around does not mean others do. Many important people do not choose to do this. Many are underage and CANNOT do this.’ I understand that many people don’t own a weapon and don’t want one, and that’s entirely up to them. However, I also believe that those who can’t defend themselves should find someone who can defend them and work out some kind of agreement, and I’d suggest that to them now, even with laws. If the reason they don’t have a weapon is that they’re either too lazy to get one or too stupid to use one, good riddance. I’d shoot them myself if it wasn’t for the consequences. As for those who are underage, they wouldn’t be if there were no laws, now would they? ‘…laws that serve to regulate immoral behavior must exist. … If laws regulating immoral behavior did not exist, rates of these immoral behaviors would go up such as child rape, kidnapping, stealing and more.’ I find it interesting how you, someone who claims you ‘don’t know how you feel’ about an objective morality, point out several behaviors that I assume must go against your morals in an attempt to explain why laws are necessary. Did you consider that perhaps not everyone considers those behaviors as immoral as you do?