Raw LLM Responses

The "facts are facts". counter argument does very little for me. How do we "know" it's a "fact" that hurting people for pleasure is wrong? Few answers will do more than tie back at some point to the evolutionary construct of guilt, which is no more an accurate moral compass than the evolutionary construct of hunger. Morality is perhaps not strictly *arbitrary*, but it's definitely socially constructed by the culture in which it's enacted. The rules we construct are usually based on logical consistency, overall social good, and the universifiability of those acts (taking noteworthy pages from both deontology and utilitarianism). There absolutely have been cultures in history where hurting people for pleasure or no reason at all was acceptable. Partially because they can simply avoid defining those victims as "people." I'm always a bit surprised when people tell me morality is objective, since I've never heard an argument for it that makes any sense. EDIT: In a response below, it became clear that I was *not* optimal in my wording, and I'll quote the relevant passage below for those interested: > At the end of the day, if we can agree that morality is contextual, I think we're on the same page, and that anything else is semantics about the definition of "subjective" vs. "objective." To that end, I should have been more clear in my OP that I think it's absurd when people think there is a universal standard of acting independent of situations, concerns, and states of being, and that given our inability to know everything, we are doomed to act only in approximation with what is best for everyone.