Human-animal comparison
Imagine you have the opportunity to build the most fair world. A philosopher named John Rawls proposes a mental device to achieve this - the veil of ignorance. You enter the mental device as if it's the current world we already live in, but without knowing our ethnicity, social status, gender, and (crucially in Rawls's formulation) our or anyone else's ideas of how to lead a good life. Ideally, this would force us to examine the current world impartially and rationally.
For example - imagine you're entering the current world as a Muslim woman who lives in an islamophobic country - is this world fair for you? Why? Why not?
Another example - imagine you enter the world as a chicken - how fair is the world we live in towards you?
"WANT"
"NEED"
Morals and virtues are both important aspects of ethical behavior, but they differ in their focus and application. Morals are principles or beliefs that guide a person's behavior and decision-making. Virtues, on the other hand, are qualities or traits that are considered to be morally good and desirable, such as honesty, compassion, and integrity. While morals provide a framework for ethical behavior, virtues are the qualities that individuals strive to embody in order to lead a virtuous life. In essence, morals dictate what is right or wrong, while virtues reflect the character and values of a person.
If a statement is made, its basis should be examined. If a statement can be backed by facts, strong evidence and valid arguments, then it carries more weight than a statement that are based on poor or no evidence, although both technically can be called "opinions". "This is just your opinion" assumes the latter and dismisses a statement as if it's as insignificant as a baseless opinion. This is lacking nuance, and is a category error.