>You seem to be deliberately trying to not understand my clear points. You imagine you speak in pure axiomatic terms, and that I am incapable of reason. It's

>You seem to be deliberately trying to not understand my clear points. You imagine you speak in pure axiomatic terms, and that I am incapable of reason. It's not the case. You make baseless assertions, one after the other. Consider this: > it is paramount to consider just the facts and understand quantitatively how those facts would relate to measurable outcome changes society would value. Maybe pick this apart. Why is it paramount? I agree that it is important, but you offer no reasoning for your opinion - built not on facts, but your moral standing. And how does one 'understand quantitatively'? These are rhetorical questions for you to answer. I think you're right that our views of the world are at odds with one another. I believe that appeals to emotion are unavoidable, and part and parcel of unpacking the social compact, and coming to consensus on what is morally important - and that consensus will endlessly shift. Whereas you have some notion of moral realism, where moral facts emerge - 'ought' becomes 'is' - and are quantifiable. You'd probably be a fan of Sam Harris' Moral Landscape. But even Sam admits their can be equal peaks and valleys, and here we enter the world of subjectivity. I suggest you dig deeper into the rabbit hole of philosophy and get out of the scientism local maxima you've caught yourself in.