User:RD/9k/Q2930 - Revision history

Reversedragon: To be free is to be hated

2026-02-06T02:29:42Z

To be free is to be hated

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:29, 6 February 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

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

			</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,33" value="2933" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">Morality is a form of culture and identity / Morality is carried on Social-Philosophical Systems / Morality is carried in the bonds of social graphs / Morality is an internal characteristic of free-floating groups rather than individuals

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,32" value="2932" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">People accept ethical standards when they wish to maintain relationships / Subjects accept moral standards when they want to maintain relationships; Subjects might reject moral standards when they do not want to maintain relationships		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,32" value="2932" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">People accept ethical standards when they wish to maintain relationships / Subjects accept moral standards when they want to maintain relationships; Subjects might reject moral standards when they do not want to maintain relationships

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,33" value="~~2933" data-tradition="MX/exmat~~" data-dimension="S2">~~Morality~~ is a ~~form~~ of ~~culture~~ and ~~identity~~ / ~~Morality is carried on Social~~-~~Philosophical Systems / Morality~~ is ~~carried in the bonds~~ of ~~social graphs / Morality~~ is ~~an internal characteristic~~ of ~~free~~-~~floating groups rather than individuals~~		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="29,29" value="2929" data-dimension="S2">To be free is to be hated / To be free is to defy the expectations that would be required to join with a particular person and create an ongoing relationship, thus detaching from a particular materially defined border of morality and potentially coming across to the other person as rude, Evil, weak, defective, or dangerous -> the corollary to Deleuze and Guattari's "escape" theories that they never seem to want to acknowledge. people fear freedom because the only way people judge something as good or bad is whether individuals reciprocally obey each other's arbitrary wants.<br />
			not all anarchists are unaware of this idea. the Zinovievist-styled anarchists definitely are. but none of them get the implications of it correct. they typically just decide that being hated is unequivocally okay. none of them realize that millions and billions of people are going to think their whole population is [[E:Anarchism is definitionally Evil\|a bunch of Evil demons]] that needs to be exterminated {{book\|Undertale}}-style. and when 100 million people show up to exterminate 5,000 people, it's not going to be pretty.

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,34" value="2934" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives -> the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin's Marxism to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same here because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,34" value="2934" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives -> the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin's Marxism to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same here because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,31" value="2931" data-dimension="S2">Every moral statement is a scientific prediction / Every moral statement is a determinist hypothesis -> for instance, if we say "all Floridians <i>should</i> learn about the history of racism and stop being racist", that is a prediction that there is a deterministic process of every single Floridian going through education and then doing a particular more-or-less identifiable pattern of behavior to not be racist. if it is not possible to list out a repeatable procedure that can and will be followed by absolutely everyone, however general the outline, "should" becomes meaningless and the moral statement is unenforceable.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,31" value="2931" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">Every moral statement is a scientific prediction / Every moral statement is a determinist hypothesis -> for instance, if we say "all Floridians <i>should</i> learn about the history of racism and stop being racist", that is a prediction that there is a deterministic process of every single Floridian going through education and then doing a particular more-or-less identifiable pattern of behavior to not be racist. if it is not possible to list out a repeatable procedure that can and will be followed by absolutely everyone, however general the outline, "should" becomes meaningless and the moral statement is unenforceable.

			</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="29,04" value="2904" data-dimension="S2">Messing with free will is messing with culture / Interfering with free will is the same as interfering with culture / An attempt to change Free Will is synonymous with an attempt to change culture -> seems random at first, but the more you apply it the more you see it's basically the case. these days, attempts to impose culture on Africa are typically seen as bad because Free Will. attempts to force the hand of any particular individual Subject, defined by Free Will, are frequently taken as a violation of culture, as with "disabled culture" and "autistic culture". the autonomous will of an individual Subject is already understood <em>within [[E:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition\|Existentialism]]</em> to be the same as culture. look at Lacanians identifying individual will with an individual human being's tower of signifiers (as deterministic as that might sound on the surface) — individuality is culture. with this said? this hypothesis is also appropriate for meta-Marxism if the definition of culture is tweaked just a tiny bit to refer to an existential-materialist Subject, or socially-linked material populations that can be modeled as containing existential-materialist processes.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 23:		Line 28:
	== Ideology codes ==		== Ideology codes ==

	* MX / existential materialism ; MX/exmat		<ol class="hue clean compound">
			{{HueNumber\|Q86/TT}} <!-- MX / existential materialism ; MX/exmat -->
			</ol>

Reversedragon: Every moral statement is a scientific prediction

2026-02-06T01:30:00Z

Every moral statement is a scientific prediction

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, 6 February 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

	<li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,30" value="2930" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2930\|Ethics is almost impossible]] / Morality is almost impossible / Vegeta effect prevents naïve diffusion of morality / Individuals can never be forced to accept morality or ethics -> bound to be one of the most controversial ones, but the point of it is to test it and see if there is any way it can be clearly untrue		<li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,30" value="2930" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2930\|Ethics is almost impossible]] / Morality is almost impossible / Vegeta effect prevents naïve diffusion of morality / Individuals can never be forced to accept morality or ethics -> bound to be one of the most controversial ones, but the point of it is to test it and see if there is any way it can be clearly untrue

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 11:		Line 11:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,34" value="2934" data-dimension="S2">Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives -> the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin's Marxism to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same here because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,32" value="2932" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">People accept ethical standards when they wish to maintain relationships / Subjects accept moral standards when they want to maintain relationships; Subjects might reject moral standards when they do not want to maintain relationships

			</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,33" value="2933" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">Morality is a form of culture and identity / Morality is carried on Social-Philosophical Systems / Morality is carried in the bonds of social graphs / Morality is an internal characteristic of free-floating groups rather than individuals

			</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,34" value="2934" data-tradition="MX/exmat" data-dimension="S2">Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives -> the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin's Marxism to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same here because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.

			</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,31" value="2931" data-dimension="S2">Every moral statement is a scientific prediction / Every moral statement is a determinist hypothesis -> for instance, if we say "all Floridians <i>should</i> learn about the history of racism and stop being racist", that is a prediction that there is a deterministic process of every single Floridian going through education and then doing a particular more-or-less identifiable pattern of behavior to not be racist. if it is not possible to list out a repeatable procedure that can and will be followed by absolutely everyone, however general the outline, "should" becomes meaningless and the moral statement is unenforceable.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 17:		Line 23:
	== Ideology codes ==		== Ideology codes ==

	* ~~(none)~~		* MX / existential materialism ; MX/exmat

Reversedragon: proofread / Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives

2026-02-06T01:22:58Z

proofread / Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:22, 6 February 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,34" value="2934" data-dimension="S2">Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives -> the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin ~~Thought~~ to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,34" value="2934" data-dimension="S2">Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives -> the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin's Marxism to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same here because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.

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

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q29,30

2026-02-06T01:20:51Z

copy markup from 9k/Q29,30

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Ethics is almost impossible|User=RD|E=Q29,30|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

<li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,30" value="2930" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2930|Ethics is almost impossible]] / Morality is almost impossible / Vegeta effect prevents naïve diffusion of morality / Individuals can never be forced to accept morality or ethics -> bound to be one of the most controversial ones, but the point of it is to test it and see if there is any way it can be clearly untrue

</li></ol>

== Mechanisms of morality ==

<ol class="hue clean">

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,34" value="2934" data-dimension="S2">Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives -> the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin Thought to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.

</li></ol>

== Ideology codes ==

* (none)

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