> The moral claims I make are innately true to all individuals. You need to convince me and ethicists, first because I could introduce you to some error theori

> The moral claims I make are innately true to all individuals. You need to convince me and ethicists, first because I could introduce you to some error theorists who would say otherwise. It's literal he-said, she-said with people choosing to believe what they want to believe in. Whether they base this in the categorical imperative or the bible. To make it 100% clear what point I'm trying to make is this: you can't just make a normative statement or that your morals are globally valid. When you do so, you say X ought do Y. So you need to prove that "ought". Why ought X do Y? And what makes that normative claim applicable outside X? > You can pretend that government has the right to do that which you cannot do to another individual, but you would be wrong. I was never interested in doing so, just in saying that anything you consider to be a moral fact isn't verified. > You can do what you like as long as you are not harming another. Andrey Chikatilo would expand this a bit. So would Dahmer.