Metaethical Moral Relativism versus Sam Harris

Thank you for that post. You present a very interesting theory, and I feel this will be an interesting discussion. I will now make some refutations to your post: You make two requirements for concession in your first point. You are not wrong in these statements being necessary for your argument. However, I would like to know how we substantially know what is universally good or bad? It would obviously be easy if there was a standard among all humans, because it would then be considered natural and consideration otherwise would not be feasible. However, in the book Will to Power, Friedrich Nietzsche writes, "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one"s shoulder to the plough; one destroys." This is just a conflicting view to the status quo. So how do we judge this? How does one decide which wins? There are several questions that contradict a solution in a process of trying to find the solution. They're primarily summed up in the question "why?" When we look to the actions themselves, the deontological approach doesn't work because there is no universal system to impose the standards, therefore making the actions themselves impossible to determine the morality of. When we look to classify their consequences as good or bad, we run into a problem with what good and bad is. Good and bad are perceptions. One might see something to be good while another may consider it to be evil. Again, who's right? We move to long term consequences of this action upheld in society. We run into the problem of good or bad again. So what's the ultimate end? Nothing lasts forever and the ultimate end is destruction and death. This can't even in itself be proven good or bad. When we look at the good life bad life argument, in this situation, each of the good lives has a corresponding bad life and each of the bad lives has a corresponding good life. For the first example, the woman who has never known anything but what we would consider Hell. First of all she has no perception of a better life since she has not experienced it, so is that life truly bad to her or is it normal and unmoving to her? Then there are the people who consider it atrocious because of their personal experiences. For the argument under The Bad Life, it's still a matter of perception. Some would consider it very good to have an arguably perfect life. Others would consider it bad to be so ignorant to what most would consider a very bad life. Ultimately with the effort to solve this, we end up back at the attempt to determine what is good and bad aside from perceptions. In the end the good and bad are perceptions. Since nothing is of ultimate consequence, good and bad cannot be determined, and the effort to create the best world to live in is ultimately to no avail. To address your question, "Why value sentient being?" There are people who would ask that in accordance with a lack of value placed on sentient beings. Sentient beings have a shorter existence than non-sentient, and what does maximizing their existence anything but delaying the inevitable death? Any joy or pain felt by that person is gone in the coffin, and the world moves on. Thank you for reading, and I will be eagerly awaiting for your response.