Oh, so you are saying there is some kind of templates ethics, rather than absolute.
eg; everyone says its OK to kill a bad person, but everyone disagrees as to which person the bad person is.

Like everything dealing with social affairs. Everyone wants a good government system, but a lot disagree which political system is the best. Nevertheless, most people in the world would agree that Saddam Husein's regime is a bad choice = intersubjectivity.

Often it's far more obvious, eg Charles Manson. Take a global poll and see how many call him good.

It seems you find only correlation in extreme examples.

Good enough to show that, for all intents and purposes, ethics aren't entirely subjective. So long as words like "good" and "bad" have communicative value (often across borders and centuries), calling ethics completely subjective seems unreasonable.

Performing moral diagnosis on people is much harder, because there is so much information (often known only to some people) attached to one person. Average people are by definition unexceptional, and thus fall in the gray area as far as goodness goes. You'd get far more consistent answers if you asked people what actions they deem moral and immoral.

I think you would find it much more difficult to find correlation in less extreme examples.

Of course asking people what actions are moral/immoral will yield the values imprinted on them by their society. And thus it should be easier simply just to observe.

imo the intersubjectivity can have a sense only between 2 person of the same culture.

You can't say "everyone want a good government" because this phrase without a contest doesn't have sense.For example i don't want a good government,from the moment i don't want any government.But you could say "for you a good government mean no government,so even you want a good government" and this would be fallacy.So even if exist only 1 person(in this case me)that disagree with your "examples",imo your examples end to have a validity.
And i'm sure in the world there will be ever at least 1 against to every argument.
We can't talk about any form of absolutism,at max we can see wich morale has more followers(for example "i want a good government" it's a widespread argument)

I obviously used 'everyone' in colloquial sense, not absolute. Overwhelming majority. I can't believe I have to repeat this again, but I never argued for objective moral framework that everyone does/ought to follow.

"Subjectively right" is whatever I prefer.
"Intersubjectively right" is whatever the herd prefers.


Case in point: murder of innocent non-consenting person for personal gain is seen wrong across cultures and time.

hence ethics are purely subjective?




When does a group of people become statistically relevant?
If there is only 1 person, is that 1 person's opinion relevant?
Where do you draw the line between 'absorbed by the majority' and 'isolated'?
Perhaps you should abandon your concept of 'universal' when the entire planet is made up of sub culture upon sub culture upon sub culture.

Nationalism isnt always good. In moderation it would be fine, but if you start killing people because of your country, and not because of ur own meanings and princips, then its too much. Like the war in Afghanistan. The troops should have been taken back long time ago. Many are dead for no purpose.

I think you overestimate the diversity of people when it cones to basic moral intuitions.
I never contested that moral sentiments are subjective (ie agent-dependent). There are however a lot of agents in the world, and vast majority share several passions, or ends toward which their moral framework is constructed.

Moral frameworks have formed around avoidance of fear and suffering since the dawn of time. The duties/strategies/methods toward these goals continue to vary, but they can be discussed just like any other methods and strategies.

If when you look at the world you see a chaotic sea of opinions without any common theme whatsoever go ahead and say there is no intersubjectivity. I happen to see a common thread of values.

PS: where to draw the line is a matter of preference. Take a poll of a society and see where it's drawn by the collective.