system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Notions of absolute right and wrong are false and can lead to unnecessary violence

This idea more and more people seem to be getting that they are objectively right, the people they disagree with are objectively wrong, and the universe or God or whatever is on there side is very toxic. It's also either obviously false or cannot be demonstrated to be likely to be true. It's also, and this is the real problem, often a pretext for violence.

There is no verifiable empirical, scientific or objective measure of what is right or wrong. These are just labels we put on things we agree or disagree with. Some people believe their religion reveals an objective morality to them, and many atrocities have been committed in the name of these supposed truths. Other people don't even put much thought into it and just have a sense that they are fundamentally right in what they believe and that people who believe differently are fundamentally wrong, rather than merely having a different point of view.

This is not to negate some things being atrocious or evil from one's own perspective. However, it pays to keep in mind that everyone thinks their own beliefs are correct. The reason is to avoid unnecessary conflict and to be able to compromise.

When one starts to view the other side as absolutely wrong, compromise becomes impossible, because why would you work with someone who is wrong or evil? Any amount you give in to them is giving in to evil. This almost inevitably leads to physical force being used, because evil things need to be stopped, and because you will not compromise and find peace with the opposition.

It's best to keep in mind that well-intentioned people can disagree, and to strive to understand why someone else might think something, and if at all possible accept these differences without hatred or violence.
gpt
We can objectively say that throwing a rock toward a car will make that rock fly and hit that car. Then we can objectively say what kind of damage that rock caused. Both physical and financial. Now we have undeniable connection with an action and damage.

Finally we can make assortment what would happen if that action is not punished. People would start destroying everything how ever they feel like and we would have anarchy. Human society would collapse. We need rules if we intent to survive. We need laws that protect the society from impulses of it's members. We need social contract.

All this is purely objective observation of cause and effect. There is no moral judgement here. And there we have objective morality (or close approximation). If rules and laws protect people, then they are right and any action that breaks these laws is wrong.

Not everything can be solved like this and there are lot of gray areas but there are also many rules that are universally observed to preserve social contract. Murder is illegal everywhere in the world, as is theft or property damage. These are clear examples of objective morality.