Are you really saying that an action can be recognized as moral or immoral depending on whether other people are willing to pay money to stop it, or am I grossly misunderstanding you?
That would mean that the hiring of thugs to beat up other people who engage in e.g. “sinful behavior” would serve as proof (not just evidence, but effective proof) that person doing the hiring is on the moral side, just because they’re willing to pay money to so beat such people up.
Your description of morality is becoming more and more incoherent.
Are you really saying that an action can be recognized as moral or immoral depending on whether other people are willing to pay money to stop it, or am I grossly misunderstanding you?
That would mean that the hiring of thugs to beat up other people who engage in e.g. “sinful behavior” would serve as proof (not just evidence, but effective proof) that person doing the hiring is on the moral side, just because they’re willing to pay money to so beat such people up.
Your description of morality is becoming more and more incoherent.