Ok .. (largely agree).Not one of your better comments, but ultimately, it is a short term solution to spreading your morality until you run out of virgins and then we go back to how to we as social beings continue when this particular authorities missives are no longer work.
Science doesn't include 'morality' and is thus often hijacked by self-proclaimed 'Supreme authorities' (eg: WW2 Nazi Germany, etc).
I saw ambiguity in @Estrid's conclusion. I should have asked what was meant by 'a statement of facts not in evidence'.
I took it as meaning: 'facts' are concluded by inference which may/may not be drawn from objectively untestable, assumed posits and 'evidence' can also be subjective/circumstantial and not necessarily objectively determined 'evidence'.
I think I agree with @Estrid's overall general direction there, nonetheless. One group's realisation of the need for rules from some (self-proclaimed) supreme authority, will always be met by those willing to test them, and thus 'supreme authority' there, is still relative to the mind of whoever is proclaiming it. The test however, is all important .. because that's what ultimately resolves the matter.
Upvote
0