Yes. That's what I was critiquing. About 3/4 of the way into the article.

Although, it does kinda redeem itself at the end by including the "be kind > retaliate > forgive" algorithm. But there definitely needs to be accountability for repeated, predictable offenses. It assumes all behavior is unpredictable. Which is partially true. But even a 99% chance of something is technically unpredictable because the 1% could happen. Any logical conclusion made, would assume that their behavior is mostly predictable.

I actually hate this. This sort of philosophy would enslave you just for the sake of coexistence. Any sort of group that is anti-social would continuously step on the "generous" ones.

Why should everyone try to tolerate each other? There's some that are so morally and politically far from you that granting them the opportunity to tread on you, would lead to the worst outcome for you. It's like letting your employer continuously steal the fruits of your labor. Letting your abusive partner continuously abuse you. All so that the relationship you have doesn't split apart or escalate. You become the sacrificial lamb to maintain the unjust order.

Why is conflict inherently bad? It's the fundamental result of differences. To be anti-conflict, makes you a hypocrite.

A difference in core values. Not everyone's situation is best suited for one ethical theory. It may be that you live in inhospitable conditions, requiring one to be unethical to survive and thrive.

Conflict allows for one to express their individualality and identity. Ethics and morals allow for violence as well, punishing the unruly. Anything can be ideal.

What if a conflicting society was the ideal? It would allow for one to express themselves. A cohesive society, may be an oppressive society.

Since "good" and "bad" cannot be materially measured, they can only be subjectively determined. They are social constructions, concepts. It's totally illogical to insist that they can be measured. You can only measure material.

How else would you make everyone adhere to your "universal" ethics, other than by enforcing them? Perhaps, you convince people otherwise. However, if you find someone adamantly opposed to it, their existence would contradict your universal theory. As it obviously wouldn't be universal if there's other conflicting ethics that exist.

People perform basic necessary tasks to live. By not performing them, they would be executing themselves, in a sense. Values are materially driven. It's likely that your values have conformed to benefit your own material conditions. If they haven't, I would consider you illogical. Your actions would be unpredictable and inconsistent.

Happy cake day

Ethics have no quantifiable value. Since you cannot physically measure how "good" something is, it's entirely subjective. I'm not saying everything is equally valuable. I'm saying that there's no way to objectively determine the moral value of something. You can only determine it's value to individual people and groups. What would an all-encompassing good look like?

You always act in your own interest, even if those interests are for someone else's well-being. Your morals are your values. I never said you should be amoral. I'm sharing the fact that there are those with different values. You can call them evil, if you want. But, they will continue to exist. They may even overpower you.

You would have to prove that there is an ethical theory that trumps all others. This is conflicting with real world conditions, because there isn't one. Some people's values may align with other's. But, it's not true for everyone. The only way to make your ethics universal, is to defeat all contradicting ethics and people who uphold them. In doing so, you would be considered a fascist. The road of good intentions is paved with blood.

The point is, by enforcing your "universal objective" ethical theory, you would be eliminating all others. Who's not to say that you're the evil one?

What is "good"? Why should it be maximized? You sound like a zealous utilitarian.

Playing devils advocate here: why isn't killing a good thing? What's so obviously wrong about it? Perhaps, one may consider human life evil and seek for it's complete extinction. PETA members come to mind. Perhaps, human life isn't as valuable as capitalist profit is. Economy > humanity. There's some that would die on that hill to enforce these ethics.

Obviously, I dont subscribe to these ideas. I consider myself a humanist that wishes to maximize humanity's health and well-being. However, even the question of what is "health" and "well-being", is up for debate.

Whether or not something should be universally followed, is an opinion. Particularly, the "should" implies subjectivity. It's completely dependent on your personal beliefs and goals. In the real world, not everyone shares those beliefs and goals. Morals and ethics seem objective, until they face contradicting counterparts. Leading to war.

It can be personally correct to you (or your group), as in it's consistent with your beliefs and desires. It may be a correct ethical theory, not the correct ethical theory (which is what "objective morality" is attempting to establish). However, using the word "correct" to define an ethical theory, is ridiculous. There's no way to prove it's correct, it doesn't make any sense to assume it can be correct. How would you define a wrong ethical theory?

What makes it the correct one?

Why should we all adhere to one interpretation of good?

Everyone has different desires and goals. Some want to maximize pleasure, others may want to be zealous with their religion. The only constructive argument to be made is how best to adhere to their morality.

There's definitely a moral philosophy that is the most compatible with a functioning human society. Like a morality that maximizes growth, pleasure, and health of the society (some form of utilitarianism). It may be necessary for creating the most effective and functional society. But, it's not the only morality that exists and some may desire society to be less functional or they may be completely indifferent to it.

I would argue that the most common morality is actually detrimental to society. The morality of capitalism, being that of the belief in private property, productivity, and profit being inherently good. This isn't capatible with humanity and our communal structures. However, it is the current ruling morality.

There is no objective morality. It doesn't really matter what you say in the dilemmas, neither answer is correct or wrong. However, they're good at determining the fundamental aspects of what you personally think is right