[exmarine]

He probably cared about his own social grouping (his immediate circle); I, on the other hand, place a very low value on Uncle Joe's life. And that is what it all boils down to -- value is arbitrary and what we assign it.

Uncle Joe could care less about what you think, he's busy murdering people. And you now have to admit that Uncle Joe was not wrong, and that torturing babies is not wrong - as long as someone in their subjective thinking believes it to be right. If value is what we assign it, then so are morals. You can't observe morals - they are arbitrary personal prefernce in your system. Social grouping and natural selection have nothing to do with right and wrong and you admit as much above. Indeed, cruelty and non-cruelty are equal in the objective sense (Marquis de Sade doesn't care about your opinion - his is of equal value). Just be intellectually honest enough to admit it - you have already said the same thing using different words.

[Junior]

One more time, it is not a matter of right and wrong. We are simply debating whether human value is subjective or objective. Every case you bring up indicates that human value is subjective (i.e., some folks hold people to be more valuable than others) and not objective. You have not made a case for the objectivity of value. Discussing right and wrong is simply moving off topic.

I do not think we are communicating here.