Do you believe morals such as 'good' and 'evil' can be defined objectively, or are you a moral relativist?
Explain. And get the Stirner out of your system early if you have to.
Non-cognitivism
Prove it wrong.
>protip: you can't
>>1796502
I believe they can be defined contextually but not objectively
>>1796502
If an action is aligned with natural law then it is moral
https://mises.org/system/tdf/thelaw.pdf?file=1&type=document
>>1796502
Evil is a lack of Good.
After the Fall, we were separated from God via sin; hence, evil.
>>1796611
There is no 'natural law'.
>>1796624
read bastiat's the law
you havent?
then dont reply to me
>>1796595
This.
We do have an intuive understanding of good and bad. Good is what aproximates the subject from it's goals, bad is that which distances the subject from it's goals.
>>1796502
I am a fan of Stirner, but his conclusions lead me to the Categorical Imperative.