Huh? theory? debunked?
First of all its not a theory. Secondly, I have yet to see a relevant peer reviewed psychology science paper (relevant being 1000+ citations).
Morality is part of the human psychology and ethics, which both are considered to be almost completely subjective. Therefore the same applies to morality, which is part of those.
it would be hard to justify something like that with just that. But on this point, if a dictator views it as moral to do so, then it is subjective, since there is diversity in the view on the matter of genocide. It is only objective if it is the same for EVERYONE. Physics and math is objective, you dont have lower gravity because you are a farmer or whatever.
Wether you want to justify something with morality doesnt matter, the masses decide, the winners decide, not the "morally right".
If you want to make this objective at this point, you'll have to say that dictators are in fact not human.
Yes it is "hardcoded" into us to avoid incest. That is because of biology. Survival of the fittest. Incest children had lower survival rates, due to health issues. Through that we learned early on to avoid incest after a bunch of generations. Its just our survival instinct, like avoiding pain, nothing to with morality. Unless you want to say that falling down and getting hurt is immoral.
sry I dont get this sentence.
Also I dont get why you attacked the "moral is subjective" out of all things. You didn't even clarify how incest is connected to morality. Just a "because its bad" is no good btw. "Good" and "Bad" are just social constructs created by humans anyway. There needs to be a globally applicable reason why it should be considered im/moral.
I assume youre talking about books whne you say thousands of pages, since no amount of papers will get you that much. Books are not proof in any capacity. Books are not peer vewied, they are subjectively written by people with the same view on things. You can use such books to learn more about topics and along with other books you can build an opinion on a topic with them. Not proof. Even relevant sience papers are not hard proof as we do not understand human psychology at all yet, so even if there is a relevant paper with only positive citations, its more of a "yeah Ill accept that until we find out more".
