Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q660 - Revision history

Reversedragon: pinning False to anecdotes

2026-06-28T07:08:55Z

pinning False to anecdotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:08, 28 June 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=661\|Q2=661\|h4= local morality }} -> localized conception of morality produced by the motions of a particular countable culture		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=661\|Q2=661\|h4= local morality }} -> localized conception of morality produced by the motions of a particular countable culture

	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=669\|Q2=669\|h4= ~~objective morality~~ }} / ethics (objective study of how groups of people construct morality and what ~~are~~ the best ways to construct morality)		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=661\|Q2=661}}local morality / ethical (conforming to local standards; generic) -> Merriam-Webster describes "ethical" as anything conforming to standards of conduct, without really saying anything about where the standards come from, who made them, or why. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethical] [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unethical] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unethical] so, really, the words "morality" and "ethics" very often mean close to the same thing... and in the end refer to the same big empty kettle of nothing.

			{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=669\|Q2=669\|h4= ethical theory }} / ethics (objective study of how groups of people construct morality and what might be the best ways to construct morality) / objective morality / morality or ethics (generic)

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 83:		Line 85:

	{{li\|I=S1/STM\|Q=530\|Q2=530}}[[Ontology:Q530\|truth value]] / non-binary truth value / ({{9k\|RD/Q530}})		{{li\|I=S1/STM\|Q=530\|Q2=530}}[[Ontology:Q530\|truth value]] / non-binary truth value / ({{9k\|RD/Q530}})

			{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|tradition=HAS, ES, HM\|Q=642\|Q2=642\|h4= pinning False to anecdotes }} / pinning True to specific incident / pinning True to oddly-specific outcome / pegging truth values to oddly specific outcomes / ({{9k\|RD/Q642}}) -> one way of constructing an ethical theory, which has been used by critical-theorists but is also embarrassingly easy to just throw together in your basement. I genuinely don't understand why ethics is an academic discipline.

	{{li\|I=F2/ML\|Q=65,30\|Q2=6530}}Marxism doesn't talk about morality / ({{9k\|RD/Q65,30}})		{{li\|I=F2/ML\|Q=65,30\|Q2=6530}}Marxism doesn't talk about morality / ({{9k\|RD/Q65,30}})
Line 93:		Line 97:
	\|I=Z1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|HAS\|Hass}} / humanities, arts, and social sciences		\|I=Z1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|HAS\|Hass}} / humanities, arts, and social sciences
	{{li\|I=Z1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|HAS\|Hass}} / Christian morality		{{li\|I=Z1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|HAS\|Hass}} / Christian morality
	{{li\|I=S1/ES \|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}{{TTS\|ES\|E.S.}} / ~~morality or ethics~~		{{li\|I=S1/ES \|Q=669\|Q2=669}}{{TTS\|ES\|E-S}} / ethical theory
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Machiavellianism is Not Desired (Trotskyism)

2026-06-27T11:24:44Z

Machiavellianism is Not Desired (Trotskyism)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 27 June 2026
Line 63:		Line 63:
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Justice can only be had by those who win / Justice is in the interest of the stronger (Plato) {{YouTube\|uJO7zpNn2i4}} -> a claim straight out of Machiavelli but not one that's wrong. justice is the set of victories that we rationalize. so in that sense, yes, only the winners get justice, and it's very hard or maybe impossible to remove that requirement. unless maybe you cover the entire industrial world in Trotskyism and there are no wars, or you somehow create an anarchism that big which is {{em\|not}} a bunch of tiny fragments. at that point justice would not be resolved by amoral conflicts between material things. but, not already being there has led the world to justify all kinds of imperial atrocities and claimed 'unjust hierarchies' simply to get to a point where justice exists. it seems like the most moral thing you could do is not believe in morality until the time justice becomes possible at which time there paradoxically might not be any morality any more. morality is like a problem claiming to be a solution.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Justice only follows victory / Justice can only be had by those who win / Justice is in the interest of the stronger (Plato) {{YouTube\|uJO7zpNn2i4}} -> a claim straight out of Machiavelli but not one that's wrong. justice is the set of victories that we rationalize. so in that sense, yes, only the winners get justice, and it's very hard or maybe impossible to remove that requirement. unless maybe you cover the entire industrial world in Trotskyism and there are no wars, or you somehow create an anarchism that big which is {{em\|not}} a bunch of tiny fragments. at that point justice would not be resolved by amoral conflicts between material things. but, not already being there has led the world to justify all kinds of imperial atrocities and claimed 'unjust hierarchies' simply to get to a point where justice exists. it seems like the most moral thing you could do is not believe in morality until the time justice becomes possible at which time there paradoxically might not be any morality any more. morality is like a problem claiming to be a solution.

			{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Machiavellianism is Not Desired / Machiavellianism is an undesirable outcome -> I've seen this proposition a lot over the years: people see the world described by Machiavelli and act horrified, even though it's the one they live in. every so often you see people realize that Liberal-republicanism is only capable of delivering the results it promised if people use in a Machiavellian way. periodically you see people of either major political party oscillate from being horrified to casually accepting it. and it all feels like a deepity from beginning to end, because Machiavellianism is a descriptive claim and either Machiavellianism is true or it's not true.<br/>
			but.... what if this proposition actually wasn't stupid? what if it was actually saying something fundamentally meaningful and interesting?<br/>
			so, let's say that Liberal-republican parties gerrymandering maps to get votes without anybody voting is an undesirable outcome. nobody really wants this outcome, but how do you stop it? as long as society is a map with islands competing across it or individuals competing across an island in exactly the same way, this is going to keep happening, because whatever your system of ethics even is, competition constantly breaks down control by ethical actors and restores control by unethical actors. individuals want ethical outcomes, but because ethical outcomes can only be put in place by people with the capacity to act, ethical people must exploit the system in order to make decisions and make sure any of those decisions are ethical. so what if that process of taking control is an undesirable outcome or is marked "unethical"? this creates a contradiction. without taking control, an actor cannot make ethical actions and potentially only undesirable outcomes will happen, but if taking control is an undesirable action, then being ethical becomes unethical; Good is Evil and Evil is Good. this brings an absolutely wild implication: the {{em\|competition}} between ethical and unethical people for control must be abolished to restore the ability to act ethically. if that contradiction is created by class society, you are ethically obligated to abolish class society and also to figure out exactly what it is and exactly what you're abolishing.<br/>
			wow. this is a [[E:Communist trolley problem\|Trotskyist trolley problem]] but like, in a good way where the Trotskyists genuinely win the trolley problem, only if they have enough people.

			{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Machiavellianism is Not Desired (Trotskyism) / If taking control over someone else's ability to act and make decisions is unethical (an Undesired outcome), but both actors exist in a system where all actors must compete over who can act and make decisions, then the requirement not to abuse the system creates a contradiction with the imperative for ethical actors to actually be able to carry out actions with Desired effects instead of never doing anything while other actors instead carry out actions with Undesired effects; it follows that if there is a way to abolish the entire system and remove the competition between different actors to act, this is the only remaining route to continuing to make decisions with Desired outcomes, and that if the system that causes competition is a class society, that class society must be abolished; this is to imply that even small businesses and businesses claiming to be 'communities' must be abolished to become something other than competing islands -> that last little bit is why this is orange.<br/>
			ethics through the point of view of Trotskyism is actually kind of metal if you only take Trotskyism after 1960. "we said all social oppressions"... and they actually meant it

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: All moral decisions are Pascal's wagers

2026-05-26T01:31:17Z

All moral decisions are Pascal's wagers

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:31, 26 May 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:
	{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful		{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful

	{{li~~\|I=F2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to act with conviction and achieve your goals {{YouTube\|uJO7zpNn2i4}} -~~> a really good try to save ethics, but no, I {{em\|don't}} think you can know that's virtuous. by this criterion everyone who sides with killing Palestinians 'to save the United States' is justified as long as they believe they're saving the United States hard enough. if they believe that killing North American tribes to save their town is virtuous, it could be. both these claims have been widely rejected by a huge fraction of people who talk about morality, {{em\|as part of their task of defining morality and ethics}}.<br/>		</li></ol>
	I guess the field of ethics really does need that silly chapter I was writing about Trotsky going to the afterlife and ending up in an unresolvable superposition of 50+ different outcomes of whether he was good or bad. that is how ethics functions when tried in the real world, like, I feel like the ethical truth value of many actions {{em\|never}} gets resolved.

	~~{{li\|I~~=~~F2/Aa\|Q~~=~~618\|Q2~~=~~618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to act with conviction and achieve your goals~~ -> other thought: I guess this explains where Žižek got that really weird concept of literally anything being okay as long as people believe it hard enough. well, now I know a better response — it doesn't make sense coming out of him because it didn't make sense originally.		== Definitions of Wrong ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|I=S2/~~HAS~~\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}~~The road to hell is paved with good intentions -> bible sites think this statement does not actually have a strong parallel in the bible, but can find vague examples. [https://bibleask.org~~/~~is-the-phrase-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions-from-the-bible~~/]		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/Zv/PT\|Q=666\|Q2=666\|h4= moral wrong }} / Wrong (morality and ethics) / morally wrong (truth value)

	{{li\|I=S2/~~HAS~~\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}~~The road to hell is paved with good intentions / I persecuted the right way to the death~~ (~~Acts 22:4) / Many will say they prophesied in God's name~~; ~~God will declare "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:22-23~~) / ~~Good intentions do not guarantee an~~ action ~~will ultimately turn out to be morally right~~		{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=579\|Q2=579\|h4= unfitting action }} (truth value; Kantianism) / vicious individual action

	{{li\|I=S2/~~HAS~~\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}~~The descent to hell is easy~~ (~~Virgil~~) ~~-> I think this is a different proposition from the one about good intentions, because it sounds more like inaction to me.~~		{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=558\|Q2=558\|h4= does not produce value }} (truth value; consequentialism)

	{{li\|I=S2/~~HAS~~\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}~~Vice's path is easy / The easy way is not necessarily the right way / The descent to hell is easy~~ (~~Virgil~~) / ~~Wide and broad is the gate~~ that ~~leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13) / A way that seems right ends as the way of death (Proverbs 14:12) / There comes a time when you must choose between what~~ is ~~right and what is easy (Harry Potter series) [https://bibleask.org/is-the-phrase-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions-from-the-bible/]~~		{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=575\|Q2=575\|h4= does not promote freedom }} (truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== ~~Definitions of Wrong~~ ==		== Existentialist ethics ==
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/~~Zv/PT~~\|Q=~~666~~\|Q2=~~666~~\|h4= ~~moral~~ wrong }} / ~~Wrong (~~morality and ethics) / ~~morally wrong (~~truth value)		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}All moral decisions are Pascal's wagers (Kierkegaard, Christian morality)

			{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Virtue and morality are not the same thing -> oh my god.... so once again, this whole thing has been muddied for me by arbitrary and absurd uses of language. okay, then, what does virtue even mean and why would anyone want it? why should anyone care what virtue is if it doesn't lead to determining what is right or wrong?<br/>
			is the purpose of defining virtues just to exterminate other cultures, like when the United States tried to cast the Soviet Union as lazy or not respecting human life for having a different method of creating businesses? I genuinely can't think of a {{em\|worthwhile}} reason to make this decision as opposed to really sinister sounding ones.

			{{li\|I=F2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to act with conviction and achieve your goals {{YouTube\|uJO7zpNn2i4}} -> a really good try to save ethics, but no, I {{em\|don't}} think you can know that's virtuous. by this criterion everyone who sides with killing Palestinians 'to save the United States' is justified as long as they believe they're saving the United States hard enough. if they believe that killing North American tribes to save their town is virtuous, it could be. both these claims have been widely rejected by a huge fraction of people who talk about morality, {{em\|as part of their task of defining morality and ethics}}.<br/>
			I guess the field of ethics really does need that silly chapter I was writing about Trotsky going to the afterlife and ending up in an unresolvable superposition of 50+ different outcomes of whether he was good or bad. that is how ethics functions when tried in the real world, like, I feel like the ethical truth value of many actions {{em\|never}} gets resolved.

			{{li\|I=F2/Aa\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to act with conviction and achieve your goals -> other thought: I guess this explains where Žižek got that really weird concept of literally anything being okay as long as people believe it hard enough. well, now I know a better response — it doesn't make sense coming out of him because it didn't make sense originally.

			{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The road to hell is paved with good intentions -> bible sites think this statement does not actually have a strong parallel in the bible, but can find vague examples. [https://bibleask.org/is-the-phrase-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions-from-the-bible/]

	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=~~579~~\|Q2=~~579\|h4= unfitting action~~ }} (~~truth value~~; ~~Kantianism~~) / ~~vicious individual~~ action		{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The road to hell is paved with good intentions / I persecuted the right way to the death (Acts 22:4) / Many will say they prophesied in God's name; God will declare "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:22-23) / Good intentions do not guarantee an action will ultimately turn out to be morally right

	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=~~558~~\|Q2=~~558\|h4= does not produce value~~ }} (~~truth value; consequentialism~~)		{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The descent to hell is easy (Virgil) -> I think this is a different proposition from the one about good intentions, because it sounds more like inaction to me.

	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=~~575~~\|Q2=~~575\|h4= does not promote freedom~~ }} (~~truth value~~) / ~~unique self~~-~~expression that~~ is ~~harmful~~		{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Vice's path is easy / The easy way is not necessarily the right way / The descent to hell is easy (Virgil) / Wide and broad is the gate that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13) / A way that seems right ends as the way of death (Proverbs 14:12) / There comes a time when you must choose between what is right and what is easy (Harry Potter series) [https://bibleask.org/is-the-phrase-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions-from-the-bible/]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 74:		Line 84:
	{{li\|start=y		{{li\|start=y
	\|I=Z1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|HAS\|Hass}} / humanities, arts, and social sciences		\|I=Z1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|HAS\|Hass}} / humanities, arts, and social sciences
			{{li\|I=Z1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|HAS\|Hass}} / Christian morality
	{{li\|I=S1/ES \|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|ES\|E.S.}} / morality or ethics		{{li\|I=S1/ES \|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|ES\|E.S.}} / morality or ethics
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	* (none)

Reversedragon: The road to hell is paved with good intentions

2026-05-26T01:14:38Z

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:14, 26 May 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:
	{{li\|I=F2/Aa\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to act with conviction and achieve your goals -> other thought: I guess this explains where Žižek got that really weird concept of literally anything being okay as long as people believe it hard enough. well, now I know a better response — it doesn't make sense coming out of him because it didn't make sense originally.		{{li\|I=F2/Aa\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to act with conviction and achieve your goals -> other thought: I guess this explains where Žižek got that really weird concept of literally anything being okay as long as people believe it hard enough. well, now I know a better response — it doesn't make sense coming out of him because it didn't make sense originally.

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}~~Justice~~ can ~~only be had by those who win~~ / ~~Justice~~ is in the ~~interest of~~ the ~~stronger~~ (~~Plato~~) {{~~YouTube~~\|~~uJO7zpNn2i4~~}} -> a ~~claim straight out of Machiavelli but not~~ one ~~that's wrong. justice is the set of victories that we rationalize. so in that sense, yes, only the winners get justice~~, ~~and~~ it~~'s very hard or maybe impossible~~ to ~~remove that requirement~~. ~~unless maybe you cover the entire industrial world in Trotskyism and there are no wars, or you somehow create an anarchism that big which is~~ {{em\|~~not~~}} ~~a bunch of tiny fragments. at that point justice would~~ not ~~be resolved by amoral conflicts between material things. but, not already being there has led~~ the ~~world~~ to ~~justify all kinds of imperial atrocities~~ and ~~claimed 'unjust hierarchies' simply~~ to ~~get to a point where justice exists. it~~ seems ~~like~~ the ~~most moral thing~~ you ~~could do~~ is ~~not believe in morality until the time justice becomes possible at which time there paradoxically might not be any morality any more~~. ~~morality~~ is ~~like a problem claiming~~ to ~~be a solution.~~		{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The road to hell is paved with good intentions -> bible sites think this statement does not actually have a strong parallel in the bible, but can find vague examples. [https://bibleask.org/is-the-phrase-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions-from-the-bible/]

			{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The road to hell is paved with good intentions / I persecuted the right way to the death (Acts 22:4) / Many will say they prophesied in God's name; God will declare "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:22-23) / Good intentions do not guarantee an action will ultimately turn out to be morally right

			{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The descent to hell is easy (Virgil) -> I think this is a different proposition from the one about good intentions, because it sounds more like inaction to me.

			{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Vice's path is easy / The easy way is not necessarily the right way / The descent to hell is easy (Virgil) / Wide and broad is the gate that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13) / A way that seems right ends as the way of death (Proverbs 14:12) / There comes a time when you must choose between what is right and what is easy (Harry Potter series) [https://bibleask.org/is-the-phrase-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions-from-the-bible/]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 41:		Line 47:

	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=575\|Q2=575\|h4= does not promote freedom }} (truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful		{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=575\|Q2=575\|h4= does not promote freedom }} (truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful

			</li></ol>

			== Machiavellianism ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Justice can only be had by those who win / Justice is in the interest of the stronger (Plato) {{YouTube\|uJO7zpNn2i4}} -> a claim straight out of Machiavelli but not one that's wrong. justice is the set of victories that we rationalize. so in that sense, yes, only the winners get justice, and it's very hard or maybe impossible to remove that requirement. unless maybe you cover the entire industrial world in Trotskyism and there are no wars, or you somehow create an anarchism that big which is {{em\|not}} a bunch of tiny fragments. at that point justice would not be resolved by amoral conflicts between material things. but, not already being there has led the world to justify all kinds of imperial atrocities and claimed 'unjust hierarchies' simply to get to a point where justice exists. it seems like the most moral thing you could do is not believe in morality until the time justice becomes possible at which time there paradoxically might not be any morality any more. morality is like a problem claiming to be a solution.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 53:		Line 66:
	{{li\|I=S1/STM\|Q=530\|Q2=530}}[[Ontology:Q530\|truth value]] / non-binary truth value / ({{9k\|RD/Q530}})		{{li\|I=S1/STM\|Q=530\|Q2=530}}[[Ontology:Q530\|truth value]] / non-binary truth value / ({{9k\|RD/Q530}})

	</~~li><~~/~~ol>~~		{{li\|I=F2/ML\|Q=65,30\|Q2=6530}}Marxism doesn't talk about morality / ({{9k\|RD/Q65,30}})

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Justice can only be had by those who win

2026-05-25T23:59:22Z

Justice can only be had by those who win

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 25 May 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:
	{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful		{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful

	{{li\|I=S1/~~HAS~~\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to ~~fully~~ act ~~out~~ your goals {{YouTube\|uJO7zpNn2i4}}		{{li\|I=F2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to act with conviction and achieve your goals {{YouTube\|uJO7zpNn2i4}} -> a really good try to save ethics, but no, I {{em\|don't}} think you can know that's virtuous. by this criterion everyone who sides with killing Palestinians 'to save the United States' is justified as long as they believe they're saving the United States hard enough. if they believe that killing North American tribes to save their town is virtuous, it could be. both these claims have been widely rejected by a huge fraction of people who talk about morality, {{em\|as part of their task of defining morality and ethics}}.<br/>
			I guess the field of ethics really does need that silly chapter I was writing about Trotsky going to the afterlife and ending up in an unresolvable superposition of 50+ different outcomes of whether he was good or bad. that is how ethics functions when tried in the real world, like, I feel like the ethical truth value of many actions {{em\|never}} gets resolved.

			{{li\|I=F2/Aa\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to act with conviction and achieve your goals -> other thought: I guess this explains where Žižek got that really weird concept of literally anything being okay as long as people believe it hard enough. well, now I know a better response — it doesn't make sense coming out of him because it didn't make sense originally.

			{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Justice can only be had by those who win / Justice is in the interest of the stronger (Plato) {{YouTube\|uJO7zpNn2i4}} -> a claim straight out of Machiavelli but not one that's wrong. justice is the set of victories that we rationalize. so in that sense, yes, only the winners get justice, and it's very hard or maybe impossible to remove that requirement. unless maybe you cover the entire industrial world in Trotskyism and there are no wars, or you somehow create an anarchism that big which is {{em\|not}} a bunch of tiny fragments. at that point justice would not be resolved by amoral conflicts between material things. but, not already being there has led the world to justify all kinds of imperial atrocities and claimed 'unjust hierarchies' simply to get to a point where justice exists. it seems like the most moral thing you could do is not believe in morality until the time justice becomes possible at which time there paradoxically might not be any morality any more. morality is like a problem claiming to be a solution.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

YouTubeCreators: The only act you can know to be virtuous is to fully act out your goals

2026-05-25T23:38:02Z

The only act you can know to be virtuous is to fully act out your goals

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:38, 25 May 2026
Line 21:		Line 21:

	{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful		{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful

			{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The only act you can know to be virtuous is to fully act out your goals {{YouTube\|uJO7zpNn2i4}}

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q51,36

2026-05-25T23:34:59Z

copy markup from Q51,36

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=morality or ethics|User=RD|E=Q660|Contents=y}}
== Main entries ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/ES|Q=660|Q2=660|h4= morality or ethics }} / morality (referring to any method of distinguishing Right from Wrong; <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1-5.2) -> I at first wanted to put morality at number 333 but that was already filled up by quantum physics concepts. this will do

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=661|Q2=661|h4= local morality }} -> localized conception of morality produced by the motions of a particular countable culture

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=669|Q2=669|h4= objective morality }} / ethics (objective study of how groups of people construct morality and what are the best ways to construct morality)

</li></ol>

== Definitions of Right ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/ES|Q=667|Q2=667|h4= moral right }} / Right (morality and ethics) / morally right (truth value)

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=580|Q2=580|h4= fitting action }} (truth value; Kantianism)

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=553|Q2=553|h4= produces value }} (truth value; consequentialism)

{{li|I=S1/A|Q=576|Q2=576|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful

</li></ol>

== Definitions of Wrong ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Zv/PT|Q=666|Q2=666|h4= moral wrong }} / Wrong (morality and ethics) / morally wrong (truth value)

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=579|Q2=579|h4= unfitting action }} (truth value; Kantianism) / vicious individual action

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=558|Q2=558|h4= does not produce value }} (truth value; consequentialism)

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=575|Q2=575|h4= does not promote freedom }} (truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Zv|Q=51,36|Q2=5136}}lying / lie / ({{9k|RD/Q51,36}})

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=650|Q2=650}}[[E:Q650|trolley problem]] / ({{9k|RD/Q650}})

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=530|Q2=530}}[[Ontology:Q530|truth value]] / non-binary truth value / ({{9k|RD/Q530}})

</li></ol>

</li></ol>

== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">
{{li|start=y
|I=Z1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|HAS|Hass}} / humanities, arts, and social sciences
{{li|I=S1/ES |Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|ES|E.S.}} / morality or ethics
</li></ol>

* (none)

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]