> They might just have different moral values.

This is why "values" is a terrible word to use to describe morals.

Values are subjective things like modesty or frugality. Those are values, because how you dress or spend your money generally have consequences only to yourself.

Something becomes immoral when it deprives another person of their inalienable rights; it causes them harm. Others' rights aren't subject to negotiation, that's what "inalienable" means.

That one can often get away with bullying or lying might make it seem like it's just a personal choice. That is, until people get fed up with it and hold that person to account for their actions.

Same thing with morality, its subjective.

There are no such thing as inalienable rights. Every right has to be earned and fight for.

One of the ways you earn and fight for those rights is by not claiming they don’t exist. There are already enough people in the world who think you don’t deserve those rights. Best to keep the goal posts far away and convince as many others as you can that that’s where they belong.

Yes, any rights exist because someone earn it or fight for it.

Its not just given from god or something.

And yet tribes and nations that recognize and protect inalienable rights are consistently able to defeat those that assume the strong should have power over the weak.

The reason being that individuals living in societies with inalienable rights feel they have more worth fighting for, and they are more industrious and able to build robust trust networks.

None of that is subjective, it's all how the universe works, so, yes, you could plausibly attribute it to God or any kind of creator.

The strong does always have power over the weak. The right that exist right now is because someone powerful enough to fight for it and maintain it, otherwise those right doesn't exist.

Rights are subjective, meaning it depends on the particular society, even it may have different meaning to everyone. Example: The rights for woman in Afghanistan and USA are different.

But people will reliably fight for it, that's an objective fact.

Agree, some people will fight for it, some people will fight againts it.

The dictionary definition of fraud:

  wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain

It is almost certainly illegal. The use of falsified facts in an advertisement is illegal.

> Its not illegal.

Fulfilling your basic legal obligations is not the definition of integrity, and often the two are at odds.

what is your definition of integrity ?

Integrity -- the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

The definition of integrity requires honesty. Do you think it is honest to tell people "there are 38 rooms left" when you know 38 is a random number?

The definition also requires you to act morally. Do you think that anything legal is moral, and vice versa?

Slavery was legal. German extermination camps were legal. Were these moral?

Smoking weed is illegal. Is it immoral?

Brother, you need to grow the fuck up. Right now, you're coming across as one of those try-hard college students on a 'Rationality Rulez' bender.

Morality is subjective but not in the manner you're describing. It's not arbitrary. Our values are conjured out of thin air but for reasons that DO involve the betterment of humanity.

Slavery isn't subjective, and extermination camps sure as hell are not either.

Sometimes is not, some people values does not involve the betterment of society. Unless you claim everyone think alike.

How is slavery or extermination camps not subjective? The slave owner may think slavery is good thing but the slaves may think its horrible.

Frankly speaking, your moral framework needs work. Sincerely, the rest of society.

Its normal. You may disagree with my morality and me or other people may as well disagree with your morality, whatever that is.

Any moral framework that attempts to justify outright lying in order to obtain personal gain at others' expense is not only not normal, it is also indefensible.

Normal as in I don't expect everyone will agree. There is no moral framework that everyone will agree anyway.

Whether its indefensible or not, is matter of your preference/personal value.

Out of curiosity, are you an atheist/agnostic?