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

I don’t know why you chose what you did as the most relevant point, because I would say it’s the least relevant. The issue of treating things like pedophilia hinges on the issue of whether morality is objective of subjective. If morality is objective, it should be clear whether or not these things should be treated. If morality is subjective, while some people may prefer that they always be treated, it should ultimately be left up to the individual whether they want treatment. ‘If you deprive a human of ALL senses, touch, pain, smell, burning, cold, vision, depth of field, etc these objective layers still exist.’ They exist, but they don’t function. You claim ‘This is why you see raised corticosteroid levels while being screamed at or while in a gunfight as well as when you go for a jog.’ but that begs the question, if one did deprive a human of all senses, how would that human know that they were being screamed at, how would they know they were in a gunfight, and how would they know if they were jogging? They wouldn’t. As soon as you add some form of perception, it can and will be interpreted subjectively, and that subjective interpretation of context will control the previously objective layer, turning it into something subjective. The only way to avoid subjectivity in the interpretation of context would be to severely diminish the intelligence of the human in question so that they would be incapable of interpreting context at all. The biggest difference between humans and apes is that of intelligence, so if one diminished the intelligence of a human being that much, said human would be more like an ape than a human, and therefore irrelevant to this debate. ‘This is not a deterioration of this objective layer when contexts change…’ When I said the objective layer is deteriorating I didn’t mean that it deteriorates in each individual, I meant that it’s deteriorating as humanity evolves. ‘To say that it is either here or there is not considering this objective irreplaceable starting point that this "subjective" layer constantly references in decision making.’ The problem is that the subjective layer references the objective layer and then changes it to match what the individual wants it to say. There are at least two ways it can do that. For example, you said: ‘...a pencil is a writing tool that you can also erase with and thats your objective base.’ Here are two cases in which that would most likely be modified: 1. The first way would be to introduce something that fits the statement made in the objective base but shouldn’t (in the opinion of the individual examining the thing against the objective base). Are erasable crayons pencils? I wouldn’t say so, but they do fit the statement made in the objective base. In order to avoid having these classified as pencils, the objective base needs to be modified. 2. The second way would be to introduce something that should fit the statement in the objective base (once again, in the opinion of the individual) but doesn’t. Are drawing pencils without erasers pencils? Not according to the statement in the objective base. This is another case where the supposedly objective base would need to be modified. These types of situations also apply to morality. 1. Suppose the objective layer of morality says that murder is wrong. Now suppose Person A murders Person B’s mother. Person B knows that Person A is the culprit, and they know that they could kill Person A without being caught. If Person B breaks into Person A’s house and kills them in their sleep, Person B has murdered Person A. However, Person B probably doesn’t believe that they’ve done anything wrong, because their subjective perception of context has modified the objective layer of morality so that it now says ‘murder is wrong, unless the person I want to murder has murdered someone I care about’. 2. This is more like social reconditioning, and as such it can come from outside the individual. It’s where someone is repeatedly told, by their self or by others, that something is morally wrong, and they hear it so many times that they start to believe it. Once they believe it, the subjective layer modifies the objective layer so that it matches the individual’s new perception of context. This kind of thing can be observed in religious settings, where everyone is expected to share the same morality. ‘The man who invented the standard we use now for sequencing DNA (invented the "shotgun method") was a f*cking *sshole. This man shouldve won many Nobel prizes but never did. Very few people enjoyed working with this man and the only reason so many have is because he is just too smart not to give resources to. I find it hard to believe that at the start of this mans career that people would be willing to die for him.’ I find it hard to believe that people would work with this man. If he’s as bad as you say, it would make more sense for the people who were supposed to be working with him to refuse to do so until he made himself a tolerable companion. He would either learn to be pleasant, or he would work alone. One way makes him a more likeable person, at which point people would be willing to defend him, and the other way makes him unproductive, at which point he does society no good and he may as well spend all his time defending himself. ‘…the only way people would want to die for science is if the people theyre risking their lives for HAVE DONE something.’ Most people have parents, and parents have parental instincts that tell them to protect their children. In the case of children without parents, relatives will step in and protect them, out of a sense of responsibility if nothing else. There are children with no relatives who are willing to take them in, and those children are either adopted, left in orphanages, or just told ‘tough luck’ and left to fend for themselves. Anyone who wouldn’t be considered a child should have already gotten to work on whatever they plan on doing, in my opinion, so there shouldn’t be any more of an issue than there is now. ‘The whole point of this is that youre spending time thinking about how to survive and not how to understand reality and explore the universe.’ Not much time. I spend more time thinking about eating than I do taking care of my gun, honestly. ‘Throughout this entire time you speak on your personal behalf.’ I can’t speak on anyone else’s behalf. ‘Youre not just talking about lives, youre talking about ideas.’ Ideas aren’t worth anything until they’ve been realized.