system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How do I deal with people who refuse to acknowledge their existing notions of morality?

Hello, I'm an undergrad who recently (past several years) has been interested in moral philosophy. What I'm coming here to ask is, how should I discuss moral philosophy with people who don't want to admit that their moral views rest on preconcieved ideas. For example, I recently got into a discussion with another undergrad about utilitarianism. He was supporting an objective utilitarian moral law's existence, I am of the opinion that morality isn't a hard reality but rather that we should support a utilitarian system based on our emotions/empathy (sorry if that was horribly explained I'm not used to writing my thoughts out). He asked the inevitable question of "So you think rape isn't objectively wrong?" I responded by saying that it doesn't make sense to use an action as an example of an immoral deed when debating what moral framework we should follow, because it's circular (This moral system is bad because rape is bad, and this moral system doesn't call it bad.) He got upset, called me a rape apologist, and left.

&#x200B;

My question is, how do I respond to this tactic without automatically alienating anyone I discuss it with? I get why he was upset and I don't blame him, but how do I phrase my point in a less harsh way for the future?
gpt
His argument was that a moral theory needs to be ‘grounded’ in something commonly accepted. Rape and murder are fairly common grounding principles (within the context of in-group it is a universal). If your moral theory has no ground to stand on, it is likely more of an entertaining distraction or excuse generator.  (“Likely” is the key word here. Grounding might not be necessary whatsoever, but that would be the position you are up against).

> but rather that we *should* support a utilitarian system based...  

By saying “*should*” in this sentence, you’ve done exactly what you’re complaining about. By stating that there is a “should” or “ought”, you’ve already conceded that there is some standard of moral valuations, and then circularly reason back to utilitarian rationale to justify utilizing utilitarian ethics.   

I think the way to deal with the problem you’re facing is to simply make the interaction more of a conversation and less focus on winning them over. Be genuinely curious about their beliefs, or else you’ll just be building a straw man.