>What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? I myself tend towards error theory,

>What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? I myself tend towards error theory, but am fluent enough in typical moral thoughts and arguments to partake in them. So I'm not going to claim that I have evidence for objective morals. What I will claim, is that the sense that people have for morals is not satisfied by law. >For the person who believes, it does. That's a tautology and not particularly useful. >No one said that laws are why people should have rights. Actually, someone asked "Why should you have 'the right to be forgotten'?" You answered "Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have." Note the word "should" in there; that statement directly implies that law leads to (whatever you mean by should). >What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision. Laws are made by a tiny subset of society and rarely consider other cases implied by but not directly mentioned in the law. Case in point, this law in France was made before Google existed.