Quote:And you're going to need to defend the claim that there is no objective right and wrong.
Given that objective right and wrong does not appear to exist, and certainly does not exist in the practice of human affairs, would the burden not lie upon the person claiming it does?
Also, how are we defining 'objective' here, anyway? Even if a set of morals applied to all humans, that's still subjective on the basis of species. Does the definition of right and wrong change, depending on the mental capacity of the being? That's usually how we apply it in practice. We don't hold children to the same standards as adults. We don't hold animals to the human standard. Christians, perhaps the most vocal proponents of "objective morality", invalidate their own claim by holding their God to lower moral standards than they do other people, shrugging off behavior in him that they would never permit from humans (when, you would expect that a god with omnimax abilities should have the bar raised all the way to the top).
