Subjective decisions and ethics

Hello Neria. I disagree. Science is also based on a priori assumptions that have no empirical confirmation. For example, the principle of causality and induction. Scientific generalization is a mental step, not an observational one, since any collection of facts can be generalized in several ways. Therefore, in both cases, we are dealing with fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven. In general, since Popper it has been clear that a scientific theory or a scientific law is not proven, but at most confirmed. Therefore, the existence of basic assumptions is not a challenge to anything. There is no field that is not based on basic assumptions. It is true that in a scientific context, a broader consensus is created than in the fields of taste and smell (as in artistic taste). But I think this is only a quantitative question. The fundamental principles of morality are usually agreed upon by most people, and the arguments are only on the margins. And even in an argument, one can be convinced. Therefore, I do not accept your assumption (!) that morality is relative. At most, you could say that there is no consensus on all moral instructions, but that does not mean that there is no right or wrong instruction. The fact that one argues does not mean that both sides are right. Even the fact that one cannot be convinced does not mean that both are right. It just means that sometimes one cannot be convinced. I also cannot convince many people that the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics is correct. They will not be able to follow the arguments due to lack of knowledge and/or lack of talent. It is true that there is no observational confirmation of moral theses, because morality is not an empirical field. But empiricism is not a necessary condition for truth.