[Didymos Thomas]

Your dialog exposes the most fundamental fallacies of your argument:

You say: "Why does their future matter to me? My future will go on, and they'll be dead. Why do I care if someone else is in pain?"

Yet in your introduction you say: "right being actions which benefit us or others, and wrong being actions which unbenefit us or other"

The murder is not the only individual involved - his murdering certainly causes harm to the victim, and therefore murder is wrong.

You argue that, because moral values vary and often conflict that there are no universal moral rights or wrongs. However, there does not have to be universal moral right and wrong in order for there to be moral right and wrong.

As for your claim "there are no moral values except the ones put into law", this is, on it's face, untrue - and your support for the claim is nonexistent. You go from saying that laws 'express a form of morality' to saying that laws are the only moral values. The claim is patently false because I can hold a moral value regardless of legislation - even you admit that men held moral values prior to legislation.