I think you’ve mistitled this. “Against universal ethics” or “against objective ethics” might be closer to the position you seem to espouse. If you don’t believe that people are ever morally homogeneous based on definable characteristics, and/or you don’t believe there is any non-indexical preference to the state of the universe, you’re going to have trouble engaging with most moral philosophers. “What you like is good for you, what I like is good for me, there’s no aggregation or comparison possible” doesn’t get papers published. Or, once you go Crowley, you never go back.
I think you’ve mistitled this. “Against universal ethics” or “against objective ethics” might be closer to the position you seem to espouse. If you don’t believe that people are ever morally homogeneous based on definable characteristics, and/or you don’t believe there is any non-indexical preference to the state of the universe, you’re going to have trouble engaging with most moral philosophers. “What you like is good for you, what I like is good for me, there’s no aggregation or comparison possible” doesn’t get papers published. Or, once you go Crowley, you never go back.
I may have mistitled it.
But I don’t think I’m against universal or objective ethics? Depends how you define those terms.
I’m not sure what it means for people to be “morally homogeneous” or what “non-indexical preference” means.