"Who give a shit what happens? and "meh, people do as they please" are the stock of those who reject morality, not those who acknowledge the subjective nature of morality.
The only difference between the two sides of this argument is that one side wants to think that their morals come from someone more powerful than themselves, so that they can feel that their moral code is more legitimate than everyone else's. The idea of objective morality is horseshit, naturally, but that doesn't mean morality isn't a real thing, it just means that its legitimacy relies on human consensus.
The only difference between the two sides of this argument is that one side wants to think that their morals come from someone more powerful than themselves, so that they can feel that their moral code is more legitimate than everyone else's. The idea of objective morality is horseshit, naturally, but that doesn't mean morality isn't a real thing, it just means that its legitimacy relies on human consensus.
