[no-dr-onboard]

That’s a good question. Assuming a righteous and just government:

The government couldn’t justify the killing of innocent civilians.

The government couldn’t justify the killing of the unborn.

The government couldn’t justify eugenics.

There are objective moral absolutes.

[staticassertion]

Wow, that's just so many assertions and none of them follow from the statement that the government can break the law in order to protect its citizens. In all of those cases I can just say "they can if it is to protect its citizens". Remember, the premise here is that you are performing the act in order to protect constituents. So before all of those statements you have to assume "They are doing this in the genuine believe that it protects constituents".

The argument so far seems to be "They can do anything, but there are moral absolutes that I can personally list out, and in those cases they can't do those things". That is a hilariously stupid view of the world but sadly a common one.

Even if I grant moral objectivity, I reject that you have epistemic access to it so it's moot.

[no-dr-onboard]

I normally don't respond to bad faith responses like this, but I found the following quote pretty funny:

> Even if I grant moral objectivity, I reject that you have epistemic access to it so it's moot.

This is a silly and self refuting statement.

[staticassertion]

> This is a silly and self refuting statement.

No it isn't and it's a pretty standard argument.

Other than insulting you, my response was pretty damn charitable tbh. I tried to state your argument for you as best I could.