> "Morality is either objective or completely arbitrary" is a false dichotomy
> some reasonable foundational beliefs such as "I generally want people to have it good and not suffer"
> But the belief that it's generally good when people don't suffer is obviously subjective, even if widespread.
Why is generally not wanting to hurt people a "reasonable foundational belief?" It's definitely not universal in humanity right now let alone historically just look at the celebrations of war crimes in Russia. Everyone who thinks there are binding ethical beliefs in any way must ascribe it to others otherwise they're just talking about personal taste and we don't need words like "ethics" or "morals."
I'm not sure what your point is. I think a good amount of people at least like to think they value the absence of suffering, which makes that a useful shared idea which ethical discussions can be had on top of, but my whole point is that it's not universal or objective.
This is a discussion that started with notifying people of a possible webcam bug and ended with Russian war crimes. I think we can declare the thread spent.
>> look at the celebrations of war crimes in Russia
Unfortunately this point doesn't prove/refute any point about morality.
Because most of the russians pro-war idiots (including most propaganda producers) sincerely believe propaganda and from their moral perspective they really are doing good by fighting Ukranian war criminals.
Why is generally not wanting to hurt people a "reasonable foundational belief?" It's definitely not universal in humanity right now let alone historically just look at the celebrations of war crimes in Russia. Everyone who thinks there are binding ethical beliefs in any way must ascribe it to others otherwise they're just talking about personal taste and we don't need words like "ethics" or "morals."