Serious question, didn't he basically end all ethics debate?
No.
He's only relevant if you're an atheist.
>>1140812
He ended all debates concerning "objective" morality.
Now the only ethical question is how useful an idea is a given society at this particular moment in time. For instance he said Stoics is the best ethics if your society is constantly changing in uncontrollable ways (hence why it thrived in a time when Rome was having a new Emperor every 5 years and there were daily civil wars).
>>1140921
C.S. Lewis proved an objective morality.
So I don't know what you're on about.
How could he have done that when this thread exists? ;^)
>>1140937
Lewis is a hack at about everything he does but write children's books. You can't prove anything with his metaphysical bullshit.
>>1140975
>Implying Nietzsche even tried to prove anything
Aphoristic "philosophy" is beyond truth and falsehood.
>>1140993
with friends like these....
>>1140993
I never said Nietzsche was trying to prove anything, I said that Lewis FAILED to prove what he was trying to prove because all his arguments are blinded by his Christian memery. Kinda like this board.
>>1140921
>He ended all debates concerning "objective" morality.
I guess the vast majority of moral philosophers didn't get the memo. Moral non-realism, while a defensible position is relativity unpopular in modern ethics.
>>1141092
You get this more in the Anglo-Sphere, especially the states. Americans never really did serious philosophy until the 1900s (unless you want to count utilitarianism which is horribly supported). Anglo philosophy has defined itself by the analytic, a movement that was literally formed on the idea of rejecting Nietzsche and pretty much everything else in the philosophical cannon. Once you step outside analytic the relativity of morality is pretty well accepted. You also see that a lot of non-analytic philosophy really doesn't concern itself with ethics as much.
Americans also have a hard on for utilitarianism even though it's total garbage because it's basically the only real philosophy they ever did until the 1900s (unless you want to count economics as philosophy)
>>1141009
>all his arguments are blinded by his Christian memery
I don't see how this is an argument. He's trying to prove Christianity, you can't just call it a meme and dismiss it like that without seriously engaging with his arguments. What in particular doesn't satisfy you about him? Is it just the whole slave morality meme?
Moral relativism is a trash ideology.
Not really. Subjective morals didn't begin with him, and even in a universe without objective truths, you can still debate which system is "better" if you can find an agreed upon standard, or get enough people to agree with you that it doesn't matter.
