/lit/ - Literature

I'd say that what is considered moral is a product of the biological construction of human brains combined with the circumstances that humans find themselves in, so that with adequate understanding of both we can predict what most people will consider moral in a given situation.

If this is true then moral argumentation becomes irrelevant, because you can just plug the data into the formula and get what "most people" will believe.

>but couldn't argumentation change their mind??
Name literally one time that has worked. Ever.

>but muh slavery, muh democracy, muh this that or the other thing
Take a closer look and you'll see that the moral arguments used at that time were in existence for centuries. What actually changed were the *circumstances*. The environment allowed (or even forced) people to behave differently. They weren't convinced. They were "coerced by nature" into changing their morality.

I know it would impress a philosophy professor because I've already brought it up with mine and he reckons I should do a thesis on it.

>>6049306
Absolutely disgusting. I'd rather die or live alone forever.