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

a.) If stress is the difference between right and wrong, then I guess those people who procrastinate because they work better under stress must be pretty awful people. That brings me to the biggest flaw in your argument for an objective morality: your argument keeps coming back to negative consequences, and not everyone considers the same results to be negative consequences. For example, a member of a terrorist organization might donate money to said organization, and will likely not consider the acts of terrorism that it funds to be negative at all. As long as the consequences are viewed subjectively, morality will be as well. ‘I never claimed you would an equal or near equal amount of pain when witnessing such an event nor do the papers I cited suggest that. *You made a rebuttal against an argument I never made*.’ I did no such thing. I know that neither you nor the papers you cited (or at least what I could read of them without paying (that’s fighting dirty if I’ve ever seen it, and I’m pretty sure fighting dirty goes against most people’s morals. If it’s not against yours, well, I guess it must be subjective, unless you’re going to admit that your morals are wrong.)) said that. I was merely pointing out that the consequences of your supposed ‘wrongs’ aren’t remotely proportionate to the other person’s pain. b.) ‘…in pedophiles there are biomarkers that show there are disorders in the brains of these individuals and of those with similar disorders.’ Really? Were you aware that they treat pedophilia by reconditioning the individual to have socially acceptable sexual preferences? A disorder in their brains would be better treated with medication, would it not? ‘Who is to say what is a "right" behavior if this contextual layer exists on top of this base objective layer?’ Are you trying to say that morality is objective and subjective? ‘People can do "wrong" things and recognize it and feel guilty about it (or not).’ The definition of ‘guilty’ is ‘culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing’. So then, if someone recognizes that they did a ‘wrong’ thing, they must feel responsible for it, at which point there’s no chance of them not feeling guilty. It follows that if someone does not feel guilty for something that they do not believe that it’s wrong. Since people feel guilty for different things, they must believe that different things are wrong. ‘This happens in apes and is the best example as contexts hardly change since they have inferior PFCs'.’ Apes are nowhere near as intelligent at humans. Maybe they can’t comprehend a different morality? I can’t say I’ve studied the thought processes of apes, so I don’t really know, but I’m inclined to think there's a rather large difference between the morality of apes and that of humans. I didn’t say ‘good riddance to those who dont want to protect themselves 100% of the time’. I said good riddance to people who are lazy and/or stupid, and I will stand by that statement. Three of your examples of people you think I said good riddance to are already dead, so it’s aside the point whether or not I would say good riddance to them. As for Sapolsky, if I could find a way to get away with killing him I wouldn't think twice about doing so. However, in the case of people I don’t actually dislike, upon thinking through my previous statement I realized that I probably shouldn’t actually shoot them, as they do make good distractions for the people who are looking to harm others. By the way, if my statement makes me a hardass, does the fact that you don’t agree with it make you a softass? I think I’d rather be a hardass. ‘…millions who have accomplished more than you or I ever could…’ Excuse me, but just because you believe that you can’t accomplish much doesn’t mean that I can’t. I happen to think that my brain is just as good as anyone else’s, and there are quite a lot of things that I intend to accomplish, thank you very much. ‘No laws mean people would happily take advantage of children and you seem to be okay with that.’ Maybe I am. I won’t confirm or deny it, as my personal opinion is completely irrelevant to this debate. Not to mention, confirming it would tip the debate in your favor due to the majority opinion, while denying it would make me look like a hypocrite. The way I see it, it’s a lose-lose situation if I reply to that. It wouldn't send humanity back to the dark ages if there were no laws. Most people still wouldn’t do things that are against the law, unless the law is entirely out of sync with the morality of the majority (the closest we can get to an objective morality), at which point we need to do away with it, anyway. Our society is stable enough that it can sustain itself without anyone telling anyone else what they ought to consider acceptable behavior. There would possibly be a slight regression if all laws were done away with at once, but as long as it was done slowly there wouldn’t be any problem at all. ‘They result in more time spent thinking of how to protect yourself than thinking of algebra or quantum physics or how to build computers or rockets or music or therapeutical drugs or predicting ecosystem crashes or how to farm or how to make light bulbs.’ Actually, there's not much thought required to protect oneself. There’s this incredible machine called a gun. When you pull the trigger, a bullet comes out and lodges itself in whatever you’re pointing it at. I would suggest pointing it at the head of the person you need to protect yourself from. It works wonders.