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

a.) Biological reactions like empathy and sympathy are key to morality. Without them you cannot physically identify if a behavior falls under the sets of either "right" or "wrong" behavior. The reason they are key to morality is because they aid in analyzing context. Without context identification via empathy morality does not exist. For example; without empathy/sympathy consider the "on paper" version of this moral "right", where, helping the poor through currency funding is good. Without context identification you would fund poor terrorist organizations, murderers, rapists, charities, missionaries, food drives, and police all the same. Theres a very obvious problem that exists without proper context here as giving each group money results in a different amount of stress induction such as murder or stress relief such as food for those who struggle. It is impossible to separate empathy from morality. EVEN if god existed and an objective morality was undisputable without empathy proper context identification wouldnt exist and morality could not function. 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*. Also, just because one can indulge in the set of "wrong" behaviors does not somehow destroy the idea of morality. Its literally indulging in one half of morality. b.) Yes unhealthy people have a major problem with several areas of morality; context identification, behavior inhibition, and engaging in behavior to name a few. And yes, in pedophiles there are biomarkers that show there are disorders in the brains of these individuals and of those with similar disorders. *This is not an argument to relieve judicial punishment of these individuals, it is simply stating the fact that ideas come from the brain, and outlier behaviors like pedophilia have been proven to have biomarkers indicating a pathology exists within these people* However, as you seem to understand this does raise a major question in bioethics; do we explore treatments for "wrong" behavior? Who is to say what is a "right" behavior if this contextual layer exists on top of this base objective layer? With your cheating partner example, again you dont seem to understand just because a behavior exists in the "wrong" set, this does not destroy morality and it does not mean the person committing the behavior does not recognize it as "wrong". People can do "wrong" things and recognize it and feel guilty about it (or not). I would not say their response is a result of societal pressures as they can see a person is in stress after they are caught. The person under influence of societal pressure is the person upset about the cheating as society deems monogamy to be ultimate or "right". They experience stress, the cheater understands this and their body mimics the stress response (again, to varying degrees and almost never to equal amounts). Morals CAN change because contexts constantly change. As mentioned earlier even if a god created 100% objective morals you cannot just blanket these ideas over everything as context is EVERYTHING. Because contexts change, MORALS change giving the illusion that they cannot be objective. As mentioned earlier healthy humans with very little societal influence have objective morals, they see stress, consider context, and determine if a behavior is "right or wrong". This happens in apes and is the best example as contexts hardly change since they have inferior PFCs'. You say good riddance to those who dont want to protect themselves 100% of the time? Good riddance to Plank? Einstein? Sapolsky? Newton? Good riddance to millions of people who have made a major impact on your life and humanities? Good riddance to millions who have accomplished more than you or I ever could because you think everyone should carry a gun or hire people to protect them? And you would shoot these people? Many of who are responsible for the creation of firearms? You must think youre some kind of hardass. "As for those who are underage, they wouldn"t be if there were no laws, now would they?" This thought has sickening consequences. No laws mean people would happily take advantage of children and you seem to be okay with that. Yes child rape, kidnapping, stealing and more do go against my morals because if people were free to do that humanity would grind to a halt and devour itself like the dark ages and before. It doesnt matter how you view them, right or wrong, these behaviors result in regression and not progression and they are why humanity spent so long fighting in the mud with sticks and stones thinking fire and lightning were signs of angry gods. They result in elimination of humans. 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.