Raw LLM Responses

the is-ought gap is not that great of a barrier to a secular (objective) ethic. we can concede that you need a value assumption, or normative intuition, to get ethics off the ground. you need to assume or intuit that human well-being is worth valuing, say, before you can see that killing innocent people is a bad thing, for example. in the same way you need to assume that your physical health is worth caring for before you can see that eating pizza for every meal isn't a great idea as harris notes, every objective paradigm, including science itself, starts with some untestable, say, assumptions or premises. yah know, where do the laws of logic come from, for example? why is contradicting yourself a bad argumentative strategy? all we can do is appeal to intuitions there to answer that question all you need for an "objective" morality, to engage in moral reasoning in other words, is a compassionate, fair-minded, reasoned approach to ethical questions. morality is not arbitrary in the sense that we are certain kinds of creatures, there are going to generally be right and wrong ways to treat a given human being, therefore. most human beings don't enjoy needless pain, to take a trivial example. most human beings enjoy the company of others, given a good-willed community. things like that