Samvega

It is an objective fact that a harmful act harms someone. That one observer likes that outcome does not alter the objective moral weight of the act. Harmful acts are objectively wrong, regardless of preference.

From a basic empirical observation of the effects of harm, one can arrive at a moral system based on objective reasoning. In this way, ideology can be avoided.

Two different people can disagree on whether a table is a table: this does not alter objective fact.

The idea that objectivity requires a God figure would seem to me to be Berkeleyan idealism.

There is no inherent objective truth to these value questions.

I disagree. These values are based on objective observations.

I'm a simple person. I take people at their word, until it doesn't work, and then I hate them.

I, too, take Trump at his word, which is how I know he's sexually interested in his own daughter.

I'm autistic.

The dictionary definition.

I'm open to trying a non-Capitalist system, but I'm pretty sure hierarchical bullshit will happen and the majority will end up being exploited.

Whether anyone else is open to it before humans extinguish themselves, I don't know.

I'm not a fan of ideology.

You can explore stuff without leaving your room.