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

a.) ‘Context + certain "mixes" of hormones/neurotransmitters + reaction to the previous two defines what is negative or positive and this is objective in healthy people/animals.’ Healthy people/animals should probably have an objective reaction to hormones and neurotransmitters, but, at least in the case of humans, reactions to context can and should vary. They don’t have to be proportionate (obviously, since they aren’t), but wouldn’t it make more sense if they were? You said at the beginning of the debate that these reactions are a result of evolution, but I think the opposite is true. The reactions that cause what you call a baseline objective morality are deteriorating. The greatest civilizations in history have accepted more and more behavior that other civilizations would have called morally wrong. The only reason these civilizations collapsed is that their governments made bad choices. The way towards societal progression is away from government and laws, and toward freedom for the people, including freedom to follow their own view of morality. If we were to allow natural selection to take it’s course, I believe these stress reactions would fade further, and eventually disappear. b.) ‘..."fixing" "wrong" behaviors is highly ethically controversial.’ If morality was objective there would be no controversy. It would either be right or wrong, period. ‘…medication would be the best option to "fix" any behavior but legally getting to that point is probably not possible.’ It would be possible if there were no laws. ‘Just because a problem exists in the brain doesnt mean it starts there btw, which means you might not always want a drug to target the brain if you can fix the behavior elsewhere.’ Indeed, and that’s the idea behind the reconditioning I mentioned. However, it doesn’t account for the fact that ‘problems’ like pedophilia might not always start outside the brain. Someone could be born a pedophile, you know. It’s not too far-fetched. You claim there are two layers of morality: an objective, biological reaction as the base, and a subjective, contextual reaction that modifies the base. In that case, morality as a whole is controlled by subjective reactions to context, and is therefore effectively subjective, despite your so-called objective layer (which cannot actually be objective, as it changes to match the subjective layer, by your own admission). ‘…"a definition of guilty is.." is what you mean.’ No, actually it’s not. However, I can specify further what I meant. I meant the definition of ‘guilty’ as it applies to someone who has just committed an action. Survivor’s guilt is completely different, as the people who experience it usually didn’t do anything to contribute to the other people’s deaths. If you want more definitions of guilty, I’ll have to give you definitions of guilt instead, since most definitions of guilty are something along the lines of ‘experiencing a feeling of guilt’. Guilt: 1. a feeling of having done wrong or failed in an obligation. 2. a feeling of deserving blame for offenses 3. a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined. 4. Guilt is also a feeling of anxiety or unhappiness that you have done something immoral or wrong, such as causing harm to another person 5. a feeling that you have done something wrong or bad or let someone down, or the state of having broken a law. 6. a painful feeling of self-reproach resulting from a belief that one has done something wrong or immoral. 7. A painful emotion experienced when one believes one's actions or thoughts have violated a moral or personal standard. 8. A feeling of having committed wrong or failed in an obligation. There you go. Now you have plenty of definitions. It’s true that apes come much closer to an objective morality than humans. It actually helps to prove my point: we evolved from something with an objective morality into something with a subjective morality. The contextual level of morality developed further in humans than it has in apes, giving us a subjective morality as opposed to their objective morality. ‘So if there arent laws to defend these highly resourceful, impactful, and progressive individuals and they refuse to carry weapons themselves than what do you suggest we do to ensure they stay alive?’ Nothing. There are people who are concerned about the welfare of these people (you clearly are), and some of these concerned parties will undoubtedly be willing and able to protect them from harm. ‘…youre probably missing ammo.’ Nope. As I said at the beginning of the debate, I keep my gun in plain sight. Most people don’t mess with me, so I haven’t had many occasions where I actually needed to use any ammo. ‘And you probably havent cleaned your weapon.’ I have. Probably not as often as I should, but that’s just because I hate cleaning in general. ‘Or taken it apart to know how it works.’ I most likely wouldn’t be able to put it back together. ‘Or studied it to further your knowledge of how it works.’ Not overly in-depth, but I know the basics. ‘Or tested it.’ Of course I tested it. I’d be dead if I hadn’t. ‘Or trained yourself so you can efficiently operate it in high stress situations.’ Is there another kind of situation to operate it in? It doesn't take as much training as you seem to think it does. ‘Or have thought of a career that allows you the time and money to support your training and purchases.’ Like I said, it doesn’t require much training, and I don’t have to make many purchases. ‘Or where to store your weapons and ammo.’ Suffice it to say I keep them close. ‘Or how you will transport them.’ In a holster, attached to my belt. I don’t generally carry extra ammo with me. I didn’t mean that I don’t put any more thought than point and shoot into having a gun. I meant that to actively protect yourself that’s all that’s required. ‘You also must now be paranoid of those around you so instead of walks thinking about mass spectroscopy and fluorescence detection for a drug you developed that cures a popular strain of cancer you must keep your eyes peeled and be ready to fight.’ You’ve never carried a weapon, have you? If you’re armed and you know you can use your weapon well, you won’t be paranoid. You won’t be paranoid because you won’t be afraid of anyone. You won’t be afraid of anyone because you’ll be prepared to put an end to any threat. However, I wouldn’t suggest giving paranoid people guns as a way to help them with their paranoia, as they will most likely just be paranoid people with guns, and paranoid people are more likely to shoot at any potential threat, rather than wait for them to become actual threats. In other words, there’s a good possibility they’ll shoot whoever’s trying to teach them to use their guns, and then there will be a lot of people who have guns, but don’t know how to use them.