What's the matter with you?...

What if I tell you that in my world, 1 does not equal 1? Are we going to argue? If you would be in my world, you wouldn't. If you're not, you would. It's that hard... gah.
Ahh, but I have a point, I am going to tie this in a little later.

It's quite simple zencoder...if laws/ethics/morals/conscience thought do not exist outside of man...then if I kill you neither god/nature/or anything else will condemn me for that action if I simply avoid getting caught by man.
Wouldn't that be: if ethics/etc. were outside of man, then there would be a force that would condemn me for killing? Whichever, why are laws included? Aren't laws merely an attempt to make ethics (which as we agreed are subjective) into an objective form?

I can't imagine how. This is why governments are finding it harder to stay in power without resort to force. They want a "flexible" system of ethics for their own policies(pragmatism), but insist that ordinary citizens must respect the law as if it were sacred.
So, it would not be possible to have an objective point in a non-objective reality. OK.

So, if it is not possible to hold an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system, and ethics/morals are a non-objective system, then how can we argue an undeniable moral point?