Raw LLM Responses

In relation to whether right and wrong existed before humans did, here's one of those [animated comparisons of sorting algorithms](https://funsubstance.com/uploads/gif/250/250344.gif). What I'm trying to say here is: before humans existed, perhaps none of those algorithms existed. Even so, wasn't it already true that the ones on the right were faster than the ones on the left? The truth of that statement existed all along, even before there was a situation for it to be relevant to. It's also true that rhombic dodecahedra can tessellate perfectly, even if it happens that nobody has made any yet. You see where I'm going with this with regard to morals? Morals are just rules about what people should do. There are rules about the best way to design a stadium to allow steady flow of crowds: those occupy a nice halfway position between engineering and morality. Even before there was any stadium for the rules to apply to, the fact that these rules *would* work (not necessarily work the best, but work better than other rules we know) was true of any future stadium that *might* be built. But it's possible for people to have other value systems: historically it's been fairly common to believe in a golden, unchanging, static society, in which learning new things is immoral. (To maintain a steady state like that might be the reason creativity evolved in the first place - for the purpose of creatively frustrating other humans and ensuring no dangerous novelty.) In which case, other moral ideas (which we in our culture today disagree with) become the relevant ones. Maybe if you're an Aztec, the best design of stadium is one where the crowds routinely get crushed. And you can say, isn't that choice of value system arbitrary? Possibly so. We could be forced into war with such a culture, without there being any option of talking out our differences, because we were simply on opposite sides of an arbitrary fence with different purposes in life. There might not be any argument to ma