morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Edwardo Piet]

Here is the problem, you and I and 99% of people might agree right now, today, that it is wrong to yell at a random person because you are having a bad day (again, my sincerest apologies about that), but that does not make it objectively wrong.
Under some circumstance, at some point in history, I'm sure that most people would have agreed it was acceptable.

For instance, what if the person yelling at you has autism?  Like severe autism, but they are still an adult.
Would you still call it objectively wrong for them to yell at a stranger because they are upset? Or is it suddenly more understandable, and therefore more acceptable, with that one little change?

If the person yelling at an innocent bystander has some kind of mental illness, I would say the act of yelling is still objectively wrong, but the yeller's culpability is lessened (if not entirely gone) due to his mental illness.

Hehe.

And here's me believing in objective morals but not even relative moral responsibility

I do believe in practical, social and legal responsibility, however.

---

Hehe...CL: does that mean that if you stopped believing in free will then you'd start believing that all criminals were insane because they had no control over their crimes?

Yeah, probably. I don't see how someone can rape and murder a child, for example, and not have chosen to do so unless the person was seriously insane. Unless someone was holding a gun up to his head and making him do it or something.

What about more minor harms? Like yelling at someone?

If you stopped believing in free will would you start believing that yelling at someone when you're having a bad day but still shouldn't yell at them... meant you were insane?