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

I'm going to reorganize this a bit and start here, as this is the most relevant part I think ""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." Social conditioning is one of many methods. But social conditioning is effectively changing brain chemistry through social means which is very much subject to variability (which means unpredictability) and is pretty much a more socially acceptable method to changing brain chemistry. Drugs directly delivered to their target will always be better than anything social provided its dont correctly. "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)." I think youre trying to make a quantitative statement about something in which there is simply 0 data to back up. However, I will still entertain this idea. This objective layer changes in an attempt to maintain homeostasis. Scientifically, this is why stress, calmness, joy and all emotions exist. They exist to maintain homeostasis and reproduce. The thing is, one of these layers can exist without the other. If you deprive a human of ALL senses, touch, pain, smell, burning, cold, vision, depth of field, etc these objective layers still exist. These objective layers are crucial for things like making your heart beat. Corticosteroids for example are crucial to stress physiology because of this. 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. This objective layer servers more than just morality. It is fundamental to your physiology and MUST exist without any context. You can remove a LARGE amount of the brain and deprive people of thoughts and this physiology exists. This means, essentially and half-hypothetically (cortical knock-out studies are out there that examine some aspects of this) you can remove things such as the capability to hear and have touch sensations and bare witness to a murder and still have this physiology carry out. My point is, you start eliminating variability in the context and you get a baseline. This baseline exists without context meaning; this subjective layer could be entirely eliminated and you still have morals. Does this mean this baseline is more important than the subjective layer? Absolutely not. As I stand by; context is everything. But without this objective layer to start with and continuously use (thats the key here, its constantly used) than you have no subjective layer. This is not a deterioration of this objective layer when contexts change, its actually just minor adjustments (and when I say minor, I mean minor. Youre not gonna pump out even a picoliter more testosterone in a gunfight just if you suddenly change which side youre shooting for). The fact that you provided 9 different definitions of guilt (im including your definition of guilty) is evidence that definitions are subjective which is why I asked you to define what you mean. For your paragraph about apes and humans, I find it difficult to say morality is either objective or subjective. We will always be stuck within the limitations of our human biology. There is an objective framework that this species is dealt with. 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. Its like saying all pencils are subjective because they have different designs.. well, a pencil is a writing tool that you can also erase with and thats your objective base. A pencil is not a dishwasher. A pencil is not a pen. Just because there are some minor variations doesnt mean its totally subjective and this also does not mean its totally objective. " 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." you are making a major assumption. 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. And this brings my attention to another point, that, the only way people would want to die for science is if the people theyre risking their lives for HAVE DONE something. What about all the Einsteins in the making who have not yet sprouted and made leaps for mankind? Nobody will protect an undergrad student who is potentially the next Einstein if he isnt already famous or producing results. Yet, hes extinguished from existence and his ideas will never come to fruition because of a barbaric meathead wanted to let some steam off with his AR (note, im not against guns either. Ive been shooting many times). " 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." YOU HAVE. 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. Throughout this entire time you speak on your personal behalf. I have a lot of science that needs to be done that will progress humanity, not comparable to einstein obviously, but nonetheless Im here to contribute. Even if Im confident in my skills theres always someone with a better shot than me out there and going to the store is a gamble not just for my life but for my lifes works. Youre not just talking about lives, youre talking about ideas.