[oehpr]

Exactly. This whole essay seems to provide no way to distinguish between moral fashion and actual morality.

Is he trying to say that there's nothing moral under the sun? That there are no evil ideas? Do I even need to put forward examples?!

And providing no framework or tools to distinguish between the two and just telling everyone "go for it" is dangerous. I'm mad at the idea. And no. I don't think it's because it might be true.

[noxer]

Mostly all of the "morality" people live by are fashion. Sure you can craft some example of "pure evil" if you want to but they hardly have any relevance in people every day life. For all the popular "morally right" things to do or not to do we just craft a set of exceptions that are in fashion.

"You should tell the truth" yes, probably you should but should you always? what if you can prevent trouble if you lie? what if you can save someone form getting hurts by lying? what if you omit something etc. etc.

"You should not take a life" except if self-defense, defense of someone else, if the person poses an imminent danger to you or someone else, the person is military personnel form a different country, the person is unborn etc. etc.

[amirkdv]

A lot of morality is of course fashion (and "relative", if you want).

But failure to articulate universal moral rules concisely, doesn't mean there's no concensus.

Circumstances and relevant context can be very complicated and laborious to describe, but there are still many cases where overwhelming majority of people would agree on what's right and what's wrong.

[noxer]

But morality claims to define right and wrong based on logic not consensus. Consensus changes and is also often confused with "acceptance" like for example a majority of people accepts some kind of legal abortions that doesn't mean they think it is morally right to do it.