One thing I never got. "Good" and "evil" are entirely subjective, and the majority of people (not versed in ethical philosophy) base their morality primarily on their feelings, yet there seems to be a general consensus on what constitutes either of those things to a confusingly large degree. I just plain don't understand, for example, how euthanizing the severely mentally handicapped is wrong; we kill viruses and cancerous cells, so why not them? I wouldn't ask that question IRL, of course, but I don't understand why it, along with other things, is such an offensive idea to so many people.
Because muh religion says so
So basically spooks
>>1144455
There is a biological basis to much of our moral reasoning.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5_WdU5aGkA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
>>1144470
These are the spookiest links I've ever seen in my life.
Good and evil aren't entirely subjective. We can't even really overcome the sceptic, is it really that surprising we don't have a flawless analysis of morality either?
Moral relativism is just laziness, disagreement is a terrible basis for understanding good and bad. If you really believed morals were subjective you wouldn't be saying others ought to believe what you believe, because you would have no ground for saying your morality is better or worse than anyone else's conception of it.
It won't be in another hundred years. The first step will be convincing people in old folks homes to accept euthanasia, and eventually even pressuring them into it. The mentally handicapped won't be far off after that.
>>1144455
>(not versed in ethical philosophy) base their morality primarily on their feelings
Everyone does. Given that error theory is the correct account of first order moral discourse, what else is there to base it on?
>>1144455
>we kill viruses and cancerous cells, so why not them
People with the mental capacity of a child do not pose a threat to humanity on the same level as viruses and cancer.
>I wouldn't ask that question IRL, of course, but I don't understand why it, along with other things, is such an offensive idea to so many people.
Because contemporary academic philosophy exists to stifle offensive ideas. Everything post-Popper is a bad joke.
>"Good" and "evil" are entirely subjective
Could you support this claim with an argument?
>>1145006
Could you support this claim with an argument?
>>1144743
>not being a noncognitivist realist
>shiggydiggydoo
>>1144474
Stirner was a mistake.
>>1145032
Are... Are you serious? When Europeans landed in North America it wasn't the retards that killed millions of natives, it was the diseases.
>>1144455
>One thing I never got. "Good" and "evil" are entirely subjective,
Yup. You never got that was wrong.
>>1147092
I too mourn these attention-seeking teens who have yet to embrace the noble eightfold path. They all come around eventually.
>>1144506
U fuckin wot, m8?
They are not subjective, they're relative, thread.
>>1147028
ha!
