2. It doesn't stop. And it's why CNN and Fox are successful. But it is how we as humans want to see the world. Suprisingly to some, neither democrats or republicans are actually evil, they just have different perspectives on the world, and probably have more in common than in disagreement.
Surely this claim requires moral relativism, right? If women have a right to an abortion, then attempting to outlaw it outright in virtually every case is surely evil, and thus (most) Republicans are evil. If it's wrong to give people welfare or health care that they can't afford to pay for, then (most) Democrats are evil. If it's wrong to mandate vaccines, then (a handful of) Democrats are evil. If it's wrong to prohibit refugees or economic immigrants from crossing your border in search of a better life, then both Democrats and Republicans are evil to the extent that they do that. Same for drone strikes on purported terrorists.
Moral relativism is not as promising a position as most ordinary (non-religious) people believe. The majority of trained ethicists (in the field of Philosophy) are moral realists: they believe that certain things are actually right and wrong.
"Evil" sometimes connotes a special level of immorality than no one can ever reach - they'd have to be demon possessed, or act against the will of God (provided one exists), etc. But I think ordinary evil is quite banal. It's just a matter of large-scale injustices being perpetrated by ordinary people who think they're in the right, when they are not. I think it's almost certain that quite a few Republicans and Democrats are evil in this sense. I have opinions about which group is more systematically evil, but those aren't relevant to this comment.
This is a poor argument because response to it is just that that is selection bias. Those who settle on moral relativism don't become ethicists (since there's nothing much to say on that, they specialize in something else) and those who do become ethicists can't settle on moral relativism (since again, there would be nothing much to say and they'd have no job.) Or take it the other way: in order to be an ethicists, you'd have to be a moral realist. Something along these lines anyway waves hands.
This is not really true. There are plenty of different forms of relativism and plenty of philosophers who have taken a stance in ethics that is consistently anti-realist and published countless papers defending various aspects of that.
It's more or less the same argument as "all climate scientists believe in climate change because they have to or they wouldn't be able to publish anything, therefore we should discount what they say about climate change". Except in this case it's even weaker, because a significant proportion (though a minority) of ethicists take this position.
No, it just requires not calling mistakes evil unless you should have known better. And not every example where you might hurt someone is one where you should have known better.
Oof. You are right about this, and it's certainly a blind spot for a lot of "adults"
But I would steer clear of generalizing, I think a lot of people have a strong preference for stories where the lines between what's moral and not are much more blurry and where you have reversal of preferences for various characters and where the main character is somehow sketchy. I think at the acclaimed Parasite for instance.
It's relatively easy to elicit a strong emotion, but that doesn't make a story, just a news.
However, it's not all bad. I just watched The Grinch with my three year old. Despite some of the subtle adult oriented jokes aging poorly, the characters are surprisingly nuanced.
Initially my daughter was scared of the Grinch, then she decided he was naughty (like her, she added). Soon she was asking why children were mean to him when he was little etc. There was admittedly a bit of explaining (shaving cuts etc.), but by the end of it she seemed to have a pretty solid grasp that children being mean upset him, and so he did naughty things because he was upset.
Great example: