[bobthechef]

> If you are looking for a proven moral system, there are none.

What do you mean by "prove"? You can easily extend your skepticism to any body of knowledge. The empirical sciences ought not be given a free pass merely because of some unexamined (and incoherent) prejudice like scientism.

Everything can be said to be a matter of opinion, so that does nothing to clarify the subject.

[marginalia_nu]

This loops back to the question of what we mean when we say a moral statement is true, which is really the heart of what we are investigating.

[ratww]

A moral statement can be said to be true in a certain societal context, but not in absolute. To understand this truth you have to take into account the body of knowledge and collective experience of a certain society. In this case it's pretty much the entire world. If you ignore it, then yeah, the statement doesn't make sense, but it only doesn't make sense if you choose to ignore the most important part of the discussion and all its participants.

The bigger question here is: why does a moral statement can only be valid when it's valid in absolute? Why does it have to have a proof that's easy enough for a person that's willingly choosing to ignore knowledge?