Objective Morals+

[John V]

...or that some people are amoral.

If there are people completely without morality, you now have to prove that your morality is better than no morality, as well as any other moral system. Or did you mean immoral?

You do realize, I hope, that the absence of X isn't an alternative version of X, right?

Er, yes.

Bald isn't an alternative hairstyle. Clear isn't an alternative color. Amorality isn't an alternative moral code.

See above. If people can be amoral, you must prove morality is superior to morality.

I mean what I wrote.

Is it immoral to eat meat, and kill ants and such? Why or why not?

Actually it is relevant, considering it relates to my entire point of religion's conflict of interest.

I thought the point was for you to prove that one system of morality was the correct one.

The count for the 10 Commandments is 6/10 or 60% relate to victimless crimes.

I asked about the count for the entire Bible. Were you just making that up? How does that fit into your morality?