I’m not saying everything can be ranked.

I understood your response to my last comment as a rebuttle to the idea that “any moral formula is shit from the perspective of another legit moral framework”

Therefore I assumed you thought that there is some way to objectively say, “killing people is better than not killing people.” Which even though I agree with it, I’ve found I can’t prove it without using an axiom that is just my feelings.

I think as a society we would need to understand consciousness to be able to have any hope of discovering an objective morality.

There is a gray zone, there is an acceptable zone, and there is a line, which always must exist, and when anyone crosses it, they must be removed from society.

I mean yeah I agree. It would be energy intensive to try and allow everything, so obviously we don’t allow anyone to do anything. That would be unstable. But that doesn’t prove that we have objective reasons for where we draw lines. It’s all just power and negotiation.

Preaching hate on innocents is not legally forbidden (well, depends on the country), but it is morally wrong.

I said something similar earlier. Glad we are all sane here.