[@Meta]You explicitly use the term "exist" to refer to any and every physical material but you erase the word's value when the subject is more of a subjective nature? I was using it as a term to refer to how something "[b]is[/b]" in the sense that it [b]"is"[/b] perceived by humans. Now I notice that you are completely disregarding my arguments on the basis that it doesn't "[b]exist[/b]" as for the dictionary's definition of the word. My usage of it was meant to imply that it is perceived by humans all the same. No need to put people with hallucinations on the mix. It doesn't help you make your point. I already know the difference between what humans perceive, ideas etc and the things made of matter. By saying it was "[b]real[/b]" I meant to imply that it has very real effects on our actions and [b]in a sense[/b] can be considered real.

[b]Laws and right are very real. They are written if that is what you need to consider them real. They are ink on a piece of paper.[/b]

Or are you gonna say that words are also how we perceive different shapes on a piece of paper as they have no real value on "having no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes."

[quote]If you want to claim that morality, art, beauty, or any other abstract concept is "real" in the collective human perception, sure, have at it. But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.[/quote]

As for what you say here...I don't know how to counter this. Please elaborate as in my eyes this is completely wrong in a logical sense. Please indulge my foolishness and elaborate this part.

And more importantly, from where the hell did you get that "I desire anarchy"??? 
[quote]Perhaps you wish to argue that in the same way we only perceive beauty as real because we agree it is as a society, we perceive murder as "evil," and therefore we agree that people should be punished for it. However, in doing so, you inadvertently admit that the position held by society is illogical. Under this perspective, the objectively superior societal structure (in terms of logical foundation) is anarchy, in which the only consequence for action or inaction is what others decide to execute[/quote]

I was going to ignore this faulty connection between being amoral and desiring anarchy in order to focus on the argument but how is anarchy more logically superior to any other form of government/ruling organ? Hell, even if I didn't believe in evil/good or any subjective ideals how would I come to see that anarchy is better?