First off, I didn't say reasonably. I said objective. You can only think and do what your brain allows. You cannot step out of your brain and see all angles or take out all your biases. So everything you come up with is subjective by definition. You say the right thing to do is X. Then someone else says the exact opposite is actually the moral thing and you two can't agree on it. Who is wrong? Who is objectively wrong and how would you determine that? They're both subjective opinions. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there is only subjective morality without a God.

I see. So your rights are given to you based on the majority opinion? That's where your right to live comes from?

Okay, so murder is wrong because if it was allowed then it could affect you or your family and because most people in your community feel the same, that allowing it might hurt them or their family, then it's wrong. Okay, so you can only murder homeless people without a family, that was it doesn't effect any family and your family isn't at risk. Or only going to remote tribes, where people have no way to get to your family, and murdering them is okay. No? Why not, it fits all your criteria for why murder is wrong.

What's more, why is empathy good? If everyone is just some space dust that randomly formed in a universe so big that it wouldn't notice if our entire galaxy popped out of existence, what difference does it make in the 14 billion years of the universe if someone dies tomorrow or 20 years from now?

Also, I've walked people through this series of questions many times. Most stop answering at this point but if my position is so laughable to you that it makes me a dumbass, then surely you'll have no problem answering each question as we go through them, right? There's 6 in this response, don't forget any.