What do you mean by morally opposed and doing anything about it?

It seems to be fading due to the China Threat*. Countries like Japan and Australia are joining the UK and US in an economic group to fight its growth.

*the threat being China's... existence, since they don't do whatever the US says

And this explains every unlikable personality trait. How convenient.

Tragic how the media gave her a case of constant terrible sportsmanship and arrogance.

Grace? Is that how you read her constant insults of colleagues and abysmal sportsmanship?

Society has been repetitive and stagnant since 2010.

But you only mean "freedom" in that humans are smart enough to make choices. In your sense It's just a prerequisite for anything we do. Not something especially related to ethics at all.

With social contract theory you're conceding that your argument for freedom being the foundation of morality relies on restrictions on freedom to get off the ground at all...

You're arbitrarily giving preference to one freedom. You could just as well say since they both have equal right to freedom, the monk cannot deny his killers will to do what he wants.

> If the skeptic says his X is valuable, then according to reason, X is valuable among others.

Right but the equality here wouldn't tell us killing the monk is wrong. It seems like it could be morally neutral by your account.

This is a problem in not describing the kind of freedom you have in mind. It doesn't tell us how much weight to give positive versus negative rights.

I think the question still stands. The link is also vague and mostly assuming your conclusion from the start.

If you don't mean anything more specific than the subjective experience of freedom, it is a problem for your position, since it isn't clear why the freedom not to be killed is more important than the freedom to kill others.

As if people haven't committed crimes in the name of so called freedom?

Also, you never defined or detailed at all what you mean by freedom. Freedom for who?.... freedom to do what? Maybe you should be free to "kill the monk".

> valuing utility above all else can lead to morally perverse outcomes, as many hypotheticals have shown.

Does the real world show it, or just made up utility monsters?

I find that if you have a goal, you might not reach it. But with no ambition in life, you are never disappointed. I've followed this rule for nearly 40 years, and am in constant mental and physical agony!