Argue within his parameters for the sake of the discussion. Logically, he should win the argument because his argument is correct according to a worldview based on absolute morality assigned by authority, which is the worldview he is holding. And he wins the argument. So what? He is limiting it to his own absolutist definition of morality. It's an argument he has been predispositioned to win. However, his argument does not stand much ground in a scenario in which relativistic morals are applied. Since he has won his argument, present your new terms, move on to the next tangent of this discussion, and see if he will argue with you then. Until you can get him to agree to debate on relativistic (or non-absolute-morals-decided-by-authority) terms, you guys will go in more circles than the 100+ page long Creation vs. Evolution threads between creationists and athiests who just don't get how to debate. What is more interesting (but not relevant to Runescape) is discussing the effects of authority superseding other authorities in a contradictary motion, according to an absolute morality decided by authority worldview. Also, if morality is absolute according to authority, and the authority is replaced with a newer authority that eradicates the old law, by which morality should we uphold to? If we obey the old law, we are immoral according to the new law. If we obey the new law, the old law's morality was not absolute. This scenario, when thought through, provokes the idea that an absolutist morality governed by authority is only reliant if authority is either constant, or changing authority holds constant morality. - I probably should have posted this in Off Topic, and at a time other than 12:51AM. - Honestly, stop calling him a troll. Whether he is or is not does not matter. If he is trying to be troublesome and cause misdirection and communication, argue on his terms. Let him win. Then move on, and see if he actually wants to participate in a relativistic discussion. While they may be funny, the amount of red herrings, strawmen, and extrapolations on this thread is sickening. Debate in a legitimate way. Establish what is being debated Understand each other's worldviews and stick to a single definition at a time Debate Acknowledge good points, bad points and topic wins or losses in a respectful and logical manner - Eh, this post seems a little harsh, and it wasn't directed only at you, Obt. Your post just gave a good opportunity to make this reply. This post is directed at everyone in this thread. I've enjoyed reading (and contributing in my head) so far, however the circular, back-and-forth arguments of this thread are provoking me to try and get everyone on the same terms. - And don't call out his logical fallacies if you guys are commiting the same ones. Moreover, don't commit a logical fallacy (mainly, a red herring) while calling out his logical fallacies.