The ultimate problem about philosophy is not that there is no right or wrong; it's that the philosophers stubbornly refuse to admit this when they know it's the case. So the fact that they are arguing a definite moral standpoint for something without a definite moral standpoint (there's no such thing per se) is wrong because there's no right/wrong! And my claim on this is wrong!
Why argue for something to be right when it's already so hard to argue for things being wrong?! Now who holds the burden of proof when the case is about there being no right/wrong? Am I supposed to proof it right or proof it wrong?!!
