Moral relativism

First of all I want to say to the observers that I usually don't result to such angry rhetoric but I take personal offense in being painted as a Nazi, as I was by my opponent in a different debate that he was engaged in. I will outline my personal views later because my opponent asked me about them. To my opponent please, please stop generalizing. First of all, I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. Second of all, atheism is an extremely broad term which has only one requirement; that requirement being that you don't have a belief in God, there is no other unifying characteristic for atheists but that belief. Now that that's out of the way let's get to the argument: You say that... "If there is no such thing as write and wrong then i could do whatever i wanted i could RAPE, KILL, STEEL, SELL DRUGS." You can do that now, there's nothing stopping you from doing it but the possible consequences. You go on to say... "if you say that there is no write and wrong then why do we need jails why does our goverment even need a judicerary section in the goverment. Do you see the chaos that would go on in the earth if if it were like what you just described. You no what would happen if the world had no write or wrong to it everyone would be murdering, stealing, raping all over the place." Not at all. What you miss is that people are innately cooperative because it serves themselves. I don't kill someone or steal from someone because that action could come back to me by retaliation. It is our ability to work together that has made us the most dominant species on the face of the planet. However, some do act out in those aforementioned items and you claim that since there is no right or wrong and since everyone is justified in their actions then why would there be a need for prisons or a penal system? The reason is that justification works retroactively. If everyone is justified for his or her own actions than I am justified in putting you in prison for killing someone. Just as you are for that murder. As to "morals" you asked and I will tell. As I have stated I do not believe in "morals" because ethics and morality are subjective to the best interests of that particular person. I do have ideas though and those ideas say that I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it does not harm others. This idea is based off of my other ideas of individual liberty and compassion. I think that generosity and love and kindness work in the best interest of my self and my community and the world as a whole. "You say that it is ok that Hittler killed 6000000 inoccent jews not just killed them but tortured them and had most of them die creul and unusuall deaths that is what you are saying that when you say "Hitler was not wrong in doing what he did." But this is when you get even more of a moron. YOU ARE AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY." I never said it is "ok" in fact I said it is "despicable" what Hitler did, but that does not mean that it is wrong because there is no right or wrong. Right and wrong are objective terms and unlike others I am not so arrogant as to think that I know what everyone on the earth should do in any case, whether that means murder or charity. My personal idea is that the death penalty shouldn't be used for several reasons, among them being the lack of cost efficiency, the lack of the death penalty to deter murder, and the sometimes inaccuracy of the process resulting in the death of an innocent person. I personally see that as a bad thing; however, I don't assume that I know all. As Socrates would say "I know nothing". So, I do not expect everyone to accept my ideas as I cannot prove that they are the best or absolute fact. My opinion is that my ideas are the best and I will try to persuade people to agree with me, but I do not proclaim that my ideas are absolute, because no ideas are. Finally please, don't call me a moron and an idiot until you learn to use correct grammar and spelling. I mean the spell check button is right there, it's not that hard to use.