This started because you said amorality doesn't exist. I questioned you on it. If you said amorality doesn't exist within how humans decide to interact with each other, I probably wouldn't have questioned.

My original point about amorality -- which is what prompted you to say it doesn't exist -- was that people who live in the mind-space of universal ideals and abstractions with little reason to consider their veracity other than mere belief are doing a disservice and I normally like to point out that if they were to exit that mind-space, the universe would say "fuck off with that noise". I was trying to point out that when somebody says "abortion is wrong because god says so", they're really just wringing their hands at an amoral existence of no such thing. I wouldn't consider this a problem -- I do similar dumb shit all the time -- except that it causes people problems. It could be said that I'm making a moral argument for why I'm pointing out this amorality

I never intended to suggest the kind of "amoral" thing with what you referenced with the train. I don't think people who claim amorality in that sort of situation understand the concept. The train example is an exercise in morality. Amorality is not relevant within morality contexts. Maybe people confuse an absence of morality existence with an absence of good moral behavior. That certainly sounds like how some people may call a decision in the train example amoral, when what they really mean is immoral and perhaps they simply don't want to admit it or don't understand the concepts that well in the first place