I remember them being funny back in the day, what happened?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memory

What the fuck are you even talking about? You're beyond grasping at straws if you're comparing living life according to a concrete moral code based on nothing with the theoretical existence of the Higgs-bosom, which is absolutely not even remotely treated as sacred, and at this point I have to assume you are simply trying to waste my time, because this is fucking stupid.

Because the only way the alternative exists is if we assume the supernatural, and in lieu of evidence to support that, we are unable to do so.

It's not better, my point is yours doesn't exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism. Period. You're just choosing a premade character instead of going into the character customizer. You are still making a choice of morality based on your preference, period.

And it's not that I'm saying definitively with certainty that morality must be subjective, again my philosophy is that nothing is sacred. But objective morality is the claim and claims must be supported before being accepted. This is how scientific inquiry works. You make a claim, you support that claim, and you invite others to challenge your supporting evidence to see if it holds water. You don't say my claim is true and it's up to you to disprove it. By that rational, I would invite you to disprove my claim that god is a crab's vagina who wants us to eat our own hair.

So it's not that I'm unwaveringly certain in my conviction that morality is inherently subjective, it's just that it is the default assumption until evidence to the contrary proves otherwise. So unless you have evidence to the contrary, we remain in the default understanding, but as always willing to reassess and adapt our understanding as additional knowledge is acquired.

Because my morality of doing what is best for society includes rejecting ignorance, and what is believing in that which lacks evidence if not ignorance?

I see no value in living my life in a constant state of "okay but what if," especially when there is absolutely nothing to suggest or imply that the specific what if in question is any more founded than believing that the universe was created by a giant crab's vagina who only wants just to eat our own hair. It is definitional absurdity, and condoning it would be immoral, in my estimation.

And the important distinction between the case at hand and philosophical arguments is that those are that of theory, not practical application. If you want to talk about god in terms of the abstract, go ahead to your heart's content; that's a fascinating field with no shortage of questions to explore. But when you start to put those ideas in practice the real world with completely unfounded yet still concrete assumptions, that actually becomes a fucking problem for society.

That you present deific morality as some alternative to the uncertain subjectivism of reality when it is not an alternative and it does not live outside of it. It is nothing more than delusion born of hubris because it is easier to reject reality and say "no I'm right!" than it is to accept the complicated nature of existence. You aren't providing an answer to the problem, you're hoping that if you cover your eyes hard enough the problem will stop existing.

I hate to break it to you, but you are also subject to moral subjectivism, you're just less honest about it. Your moral frameworks are just as much a matter of consensus, just of the theocratic. You are not immune or superior, you're just less honest with yourself. You still follow the subjective morality defined by man, just under the guise of higher authority.

And you think if it is preference it cannot be morality? My friend, morality is societal preference, at least in part.

How? Why?

Does it matter in any way beyond semantics?

No offense, but I don't understand how this differs from my summary beyond just that you apparently enjoy pontificating. Like I don't understand what part of what you said was supposed to be revelatory to me, I specifically told you that morality is not sacred; this isn't news and I'm not ignoring or unaware of some secondary truth here. Yes, morality is influenced by society and thus yes it is subject to societal whims... Okay? But it's also informed by generations of evolutionary response and the motivation is almost entirely overwhelmingly pragmatic. Your "bUt WhAt iF rApE sUdDeNlY oKaY" scenario is meaningless because there is no social benefit to that scenario. Morals are still founded a sort of pragmatic empathy; sure sometimes, maybe even often, we get this wrong, but we don't need a guiding hand to teach us the basics of working together for the greater good. The question isn't "will this send me to hell," it's "is this to the benefit of humanity?"

It seems to me that you are saying that the moral imperative I might feel is not ontologically grounded, since there is not higher power. But wouldn’t any morality then be not grounded in anything, if you accept both these criteria for what is legitimately moral and the atheistic worldview?

I'm going to be honest with you, I'm not smart enough to keep up with what you're trying to say here. But if this is the "without god how can we have morality?" argument, I will just extend the standard reply that if you need a cosmic watchdog to prevent you from raping and murdering, perhaps your morality is not as pure as you believe. I believe the social contract and basic understanding that if we work together for the greater good, we all benefit, is basically enough to define morality when coupled with generations of evolutionarily-innate emotional responses that promote said well-being. I also understand that this morality, like all things, is not sacred, and thus capable of being influenced, being swayed, being wrong, and importantly evolving, adapting, and even rationalizing or coping with the difficult quandaries of human society that extend far beyond black and white. Again I don't truly understand your question, but I tried to answer in earnest and hope that satisfies your curiosity.

edit: also I see you have been downvoted and feel compelled to tell you that I have not downvoted anything you've said. I know it doesn't matter, but I think it's relevant to the tone here.

How is he supposed to understand the gravity of his moral offence and regret it if he is lauded for it?

I want to ask a difficult question of you. Why does he need to do this? I'm not being cute, I'm being sincere, because I think this comes down to a sense of sanctimony that just doesn't exist in reality. There is no cosmic scorecard, no universal force or karma, nothing beyond what we have in the world in front of us. So I ask in, with that in mind, what is the actual moral imperative you feel that he must experience this weight and regret? What is different in the world if he does not?

Beyond that, I'd like to state that I'm well aware of the jury's role in determining guilt, not punishment, and stand by my statement that I would be unable to recommend a guilty verdict. It's not out of a desire for him to serve lesser punishment, it's out of an understanding that humanity and murder are nuanced and that not all killing is murder, and sometimes you do in fact need a dragonslayer to keep the village safe.

Damn, it's almost like he actually has no moral integrity and will simply say whatever serves his personal interests in the moment.

Maybe we should start working from that assumption anytime he speaks.

I fully agree that whoever murdered that CEO should be charged and face trial by jury.

That being said, if I was on the jury, based on my current knowledge and understanding, I would not be able to recommend a guilty verdict.

If we are going to live within the framework we've built, the system must have integrity and so he should face trial. But the system and framework was never meant to be apart from humanity, so the difficult nuances of human reality should be present in the verdict.

I mean....

The unfortunate reality is that both parties, the customer and the game company, are culpable and both share blame

Personally I don't play any game with microtransactions.

I'm only interested in games I can purchase outright and then own*. If there's large scale DLC that's fine, great even, but if there's some in-game way to spend money that isn't restricted to a DLC button/section, then I'm not interested.

I want to play games, not be inundated by constant sales opportunities.

*I'm aware I don't "own" most game due to the stupidity of licensing, and while I don't love that, I can acknowledge it's still a different and better thing that games that constantly push microtransactions

Exactly why she's not a leader. A leader understand that you don't have time to lick you wounds when the enemy is at your door. She should be fighting harder now, not sulking.