I hold the opposite perspective: world wars are brought about by those who are convinced that there is only one correct moral system — theirs — and who therefore have no compunction about inflicting it on others.
The belief that the no moral system is objectively correct, and yet choices matter because they have tangible effects, inoculates against dehumanizing those who do not share your ethics.
Logical fallacies are why I dislike talking to people. The point of view you expressed is not opposite from mine, as you can have multiple moral systems that can live side by side without issues. My original idea is that some moral systems are bad (in regards to those "tangible effects" you mentioned), and your assertion induces the idea that all moral systems are more or less the same.
> Logical fallacies are why I dislike talking to people.
Well, I admit I'm finding the exchange increasingly unpleasant as well. I'd like to think that if we were speaking in person with the benefit of tone of voice and body language it would feel less combative.
There does seem to be significant overlap in how we both allow for multiple moral systems. We appear to differ on what leads to world wars.
The belief that the no moral system is objectively correct, and yet choices matter because they have tangible effects, inoculates against dehumanizing those who do not share your ethics.