That's odd, I've never seen someone say that a guy on death row breathing is immoral or unethical. Want to show me some evidence of that?

Its morally permissible to breathe.

Sure, just like how the sun revolved around the earth. After all, 'reality' and history told us that was true too.

Its a special kind of hubris to just decide that we know everything about anything.

Gotcha. Im not going to engage in this anymore because you are refusing to answer the central question.

Again, WHAT the "best" theory is is out of scope. I frankly do not care what it looks like.

Again, if you are going to suggest that "good" and "bad" do not exist, then I think the field of ethics is not for you: the entire core supposition of the field is that there exists good of varying degrees. What that is? How to achieve it? Sure, those are things to discuss, but it inherently relies on the premise that you CAN measure moral value. Show me a single ethical theory with decent standing that says that you can not determine if something is good or bad.

Again, you are constructing strawmen to argue against instead of engaging with the question. Never did I say everyone should be forcibly made to adhere to an arbitrarily decided moral code. Is every action that you do the same as everyone else enforced upon you by the threat of external violence? Do you eat? Do you drink water? Do you breath oxygen? Do you do those things because youll be executed if you dont? If no, then clearly there are things that everyone does, and can do, without the need for external violence. But I digress because, again, its out of the scope of the question.

Good bye.

Youre not playing devil's advocate, youre ignoring the question and diverting the discussion. If you are going to argue that all actions are amoral and/or equally ethical, then we have no basis to continuing this discussion. To put it in your terms, why bother being a "humanist" if all actions are equally healthy and increasing well being?

All youre saying is that because we dont know, we shouldnt subscribe to a single belief. While I think that position alone is contestible, thats not the question Im asking, and truth be told, is a little tautological. Obviously people cant do what they dont know.

To reiterate it a third time, if we DO know a universal ethical theory, why shouldnt everyone follow it?

Youre avoiding the question, or assuming Im saying something different.

A correct ethical theory is one that maximizes good, a wrong one is one that does not.

Again, Im not trying to define what THE correct ethical theory is. But we can say that some ethical theories are better than others. For example, the ethical theory "Murder every single person you encounter" is obviously not a good one. So it seems a logical conclusion that one is the best. What it is, I dont know.

But lets assume it exists, and is known: a system that maximizes good with no downsides.

Why shouldnt it be universally followed?

Thats not the question. I am not listing what makes a correct ethical theory, I am asking why a correct ethical theory should not exist.

Why shouldnt we, if the hypothetical interpretation is the correct one?

I dont really agree. I agree that we might not know what the objective morality is, but I do think that we cant say that the existence of an objective moral theory doesnt exist.

All mental disorders, by definition, are conditions that cause people to be unable to function in normal society without duress unless treated. Thats why they are disorders.

But not everyone suffering from psychopathy (or sociopathy) does any more evil things than the average neurotypical. Dangerous people are dangerous, but psychopathy =/= dangerous.

Primary and secondary isnt a value judgement, and Im not saying anger is not a justifiable emotion. But anytime you are angry, youre not REALLY angry, an emotion is triggering your fight, flight, or freeze response If someone is rude to you, the primary emotion you are likely feeling is shame, if someone is treating you unfairy it might be envy or jealousy, if someone is harming you then its fear. Anger exists to keep you safe, it just unfortunately loses a lot of effectiveness in modern society.

Again, its not a value judgement. Theres nothing wrong with, say, feeling envious of someone who isnt being bullied like you, who is innocent and unconnected to your current situation. It becomes wrong when you lash out at them.

I dont feel like what you are describing is stoicism though.

> Or if you were wronged, youd try to understand that the person who wronged you is a human being whose acting out of their biological impulses, and instead of being angry youd try to be understanding and and subdue your natural distateful resctions.

As we covered, "Anger" isnt a primary emotion, its a phsyiological response. You process the underlying emotion you feel (like Anxiety, Fear, Shame, Guilt, Envy, Jealousy, Sadness, and Contentment), which then informs you of the action to take.

That doesnt mean you need to neccesarily forgive them or pretend everything is fine and provide them no consequences for their action. If your mother constantly makes racist remarks towards your partner, a stoic wouldnt say to just "let it slide because its not a big deal". Someone you care about is being hurt, and while its a complex situation, the right answer isnt not address it. But at the same time, are you going to accomplish anything by shouting over your mother? Would it bot be better to address WHY you are angry (Guilt for subjecting your partner to the experience, Shame that your mother is so hateful, Fear because you need to stand up to an authority figure, etc.) and then respond to those emotions, like "Mother, I won't be spending the holidays with you until you can accept Jill and apologize to her. I am ashamed that someone I care so much about is being so hateful to someone else I care for deeply, and I will not subject her to this treatment. Jill, I apologize, I did not realize that my mother could be so hateful. I will not ask this of you again until she has been able to examine her feelings."

Nothing in that is not stoicism. You are establishing a boundry and you are communicating how you feel. All without resorting to fight or flight reactions. Thats not harmful at all, and is healthier than just not trying to understand why you are angry at all. In that case its pretty obvious, but what about when someone bumps i to you and you lash out at them. Was that simply "not suppressing your emotions", or was that taking them out on someone who didnt deserve that response?

So not philosophy, but in therapy you are taught to:

• Recognize your emotion and label it.
• Validate and feel your emotion.
• Then formulate how you act or react.

Using anger, its important to recognize that thats a "secondary" emotion, as in its not truly the emotion you are feeling and is merely the way you are responding to said emotion. Anger usually stems from places like fear, shame, stress, and being hurt. In your example, you arent angry that someone honked at you. You are startled by the sudden stimuli (a fear response), you are feeling stimulus overload after avoiding a potentially dangerous situation (fear), you are ashamed that you did something thatd cause someone to honk at you (shame).

So to follow the steps:

• You get angry at being honked at, because you swerved into another lane after the car in front of you abruptly stopped.

• You recognize, examine, and label it the true emotion you are feeling.

• You validate that feeling and feel it. Its important in this step to avoid imperitives like 'should' and 'need'. Don't focus on next steps to lessons to take away, just the moment you are in. So if you avoided a potentially dangerous situation and someone honked at you, you would say to yourself "They are reacting to the method I chose to protect myself. I am safe now. My adrenaline is pumping right now and my heart is racing, but I am currently safe."

• Now you can formulate your response to being honked at, which would likely be ignoring it and working on clearing your stress, whule continuing to your destination.

Notice that this doesnt suppress or subdue your emotions. Outwardly, it makes you less reactive and volatile, but at no point are you saying "I shouldnt feel this, I am not allowed to be angry, Im not upset at all and everything is hunky dory". You are simply taking the next step after having an emotional response and addressing it. If anything, not addressing the true emotion and simply saying "Im angry" is as much suppression as saying "Im not upset" and not addressing the root emotion.

I dont think that would make you have no personality or be okay with everything.

I would also challenge you to examine why you feel that someone choosing to not react with anger, fear, sadness, etc. and instead processing their emotions and working through them would make someone less of a person, or a less interesting one, it why someone being reactive to their negative emotions make them more interesting and "more" of a person.

To use a topical example, look at how many people are experiencing lonliness, a sense of nowhere to belong, and instead of examining it are saying "Im angry" and allowing that to blind them and get wrapped up in the incel movement, terrorist (domestic or otherwise)pipelines, or otherwise hateful ideologies. (NOTE: Not trying to say that these people are intetesting and therefore what you are talking about.) Does getting angry and lashing out at a demographic of strangers really address that sense of lonliness? If you took an incel and gave them a "perfect" woman by their definition, would that really resolve the underlying state they are in and reacting to?

Part of why the "monkeys paw" is such a powerful trope is because rarely what we think we want is truly what we want, its just merely a reaction to something triggering our fright, flight, or freeze response.

Sorry if this is semantic, but what is the difference between "preferring a situation/outcome" and "(rationally) desiring a situation/outcome"?