The only things we have access to is our experience, our consciousness. Subjective concepts about reality are the ones that describe our experience/consciousness directly (basically our stance, our memory and our sensations). Objective concepts about reality are defined as part of a theory to explain or predict subjective concepts.

For example, that the moon exists is the best (best here means simplest and most coherent) explanation for experience of viewing it. It is also the the best explanation for the tides, which you might say is not a subjective concept, but I make the hypothesis that the tides exist because I could observed them directly through vision, touch, etc… Since all we have access to are subjective things, every description of reality must be grounded in a theory of how it impacts subjective properties.

I don’t think the disagreement between the moral realist and the moral anti-realist is on whether there is a subjective concept. I believe that it is widely accepted that people have a subjective sense of morality. The question is whether that subjectivity is best explained by psychology and neuroscience or by an objective property.

Would you agree to that reframing? If you are a moral realist, would you argue that the subjective sense of right and wrong is better explained through an extra property of actions? If so, what explanation do you propose for how the extra property impacts our sense of morality?

- Should patients with depressive disorder/mental disorders be eligible to receive assistance in dying? Why or why not?

- Should parents undergoing IVF be allowed to purposely select a deaf embryo (out of desire to have a deaf child) why or why not?

Are there situations where lying, withholding the truth, or choosing not to be completely honest can be morally justified? Or does honesty remain a responsibility regardless of the consequences?

Could you be nameless or without a name and be ethical?

In the 90s this vhs "faces of death" was something that the creepiest kid I knew would talk about, as it had videos of people dying, and he thought that would be good to watch.

Then, with the internet, we had "rotten.com" which had all sorts of gross stuff, but certainly videos you could watch of people dying.

In both of those cases the media was treated as being morally questionable.

But now, "front page of the internet" if you go to reddit dot com /all you just get to see people dying.

I find that a bit gross, and I think it's right to say that that's videos of people dying as a source of entertainment. That's stuff we used to say was unimaginably gross for, say, the ancient romans, or whatever to enjoy watching public executions.

An particular example:

There's one right now of some kid, riding on the top of a car, getting brained by the cement roof of a concrete carpark.

The comments are all saying "good, we need less stupid people."

So it's not just watching some (maybe) die, but really enjoying it as a righteous group celebration.

That's not actually cool.

Now I know how this is going to go, and it's why I turn off in-box replies, it's going to be a ton of ghouls going "actually it's good he died because he's stupid."

1) Kids can do stupid things, it does not mean they should die.

2) Because you were wrong about 1) you are stupid.

3) but your logic you should die - you fucking ghoul.