[SwellJoe]

There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering

Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples.

The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets.

That's really the only reason you see for this? So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable? Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief? Is it always right, if popular opinion says it is?

[Amezarak]

> Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples.

Nothing. That's my whole point. Can you tell me where we can see what is objective evil? Or is it all just ultimately based on our contemporary feelings that "oh, that's awful"?

> So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable?

Correct, ethically acceptable is defined by your culture. If you're an ancient Aztec, human sacrifice is ethical. If you're a 21st century American, human sacrifice is not ethical.

> Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief?

No, because I'm not arrogant enough to declare myself somehow wiser and more able to see The Truth than the billions of humans who have lived on this earth over the past two million years who were also convinced they alone knew the truth of right and wrong while all holding very different moral beliefs from one another. Why do you think you're different? If there is a "true" morality, it is clearly not accessible to mere mortals by reason.

[SwellJoe]

"Can you tell me where we can see what is objective evil? Or is it all just ultimately based on our contemporary feelings that "oh, that's awful"?"

My particular ethics are (mostly) utilitarian in nature. Maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, with a recognition that we live in a world of limited resources and limited understanding of both happiness and suffering. But, it's relatively easy to recognize suffering, so I try to shape my life in such a way that the amount of suffering I cause is minimized. I would argue that suffering is a more objective measure than popular opinion, though neither is perfect, and both rely on my ability to understand what other people or sentient beings are experiencing and thinking.

"No, because I'm not arrogant enough to declare myself somehow wiser and more able to see The Truth than the billions of humans who have lived on this earth over the past two million years"

But, arrogant enough to dismiss thousands of years of philosophers on the topic of ethics. Got it.

Frankly, I find your belief on this repugnant, and disturbing. I'm not sure how to even have a conversation about ethics with someone who denies the very existence of ethical behavior, instead replacing it with adherence to popular opinion (and demanding objectivity while relying on something as shifting and difficult to observe as the beliefs of large groups of people).

[Amezarak]

> Maximizes happiness and minimizing suffering,

Why? Utilitarianism is fine, but the variable you choose to optimize and why is precisely what is subjective. Why optimize for happiness and not order? Or security? Or liberty? Or really, anything else? Simply because you prefer it.

> But, arrogant enough to dismiss thousands of years of philosophers on the topic of ethics. Got it.

Are you sure you're not picking and choosing your philosophers, and picking and choosing what they had to say on the subject? While there has been an abundance of philosophers writing reams and reams on the subject, I think you might find the majority of them simply wrote to extol a particular brand of norms (usually the imagined ones of their past) without justifying them on any solid rational basis. A careful examination of these 'ethics' generally finds they're quite distinct from what a 21st century westerner actually regards as ethical. There have also been plenty of philosophers saying exactly what I am saying.

> I'm not sure how to even have a conversation about ethics with someone who denies the very existence of ethical behavior, instead replacing it with adherence to popular opinion (and demanding objectivity while relying on something as shifting and difficult to observe as the beliefs of large groups of people).

The fortunate thing is that the product of normal socialization is a human being who has already been instilled with the norms that society wants it to hold and therefore most people are in agreement about the broad strokes of what is right and wrong. And if they haven't been convinced, then ideally the law keeps them in check. Naturally, because our society is so large and there are so many influences on people from different perspectives, and because societal norms are fundamentally fuzzy, people can argue for days about whether particular things are right or wrong.

And yes, cataloging the changing norms of societies is an incredible and fascinating enterprise that, even more than a hundred years from its real beginning, still has a very long way to go.

In general, you should interpret what I'm writing as descriptive, not prescriptive.