Max Stirner

[Noleaders]

Well it depends i suppose. Egoism is radically sceptical and when you pursue scepticism to its logical conclusions all that exists is thoughts, not even thinkers are definately there, which also means you can be sceptical of the argument "you have to be sceptical of everything you don't know for certain". If you take a coherentist view of knowledge, which i do, then beliefs are true when they are coherent with all the other beliefs you have. At this point id say the burden of proof is on those saying murder, theft, etc. aren't wrong since it seems so contradictory to most of the other beliefs we have such as "murder and theft are harmful actions".

[Zazaban]

They're not 'wrong' because right and wrong simply don't actually exist in blank-state world. However, they can still be harmful. Nothing incoherent there. Simply a view radically different from the moralism standard in our society.

[Noleaders]

Yes but im challenging the premise that blank slate is based on. I know it isnt incoherent to say right and wrong dont exist but some things are harmful but i think your then getting on to a utilitarian based ethics system which isnt justified by blank slate since it sees human happiness as an intrinsic good.

[Zazaban]

I don't see it as an intrinsic good, I simply see it as desirable.

[Noleaders]

Ah ok. This may be semantics then cos where you say "desirable" i say "right".
My ethical ideas so far revolve around ethics being arising out of social interaction as opposed to any spooky notions, but id still say it falls under the catagory of natural rights.