Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q660: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
← Older edit
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
15,312 edits
Justice can only be had by those who win
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
15,312 edits
All moral decisions are Pascal's wagers
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
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=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>
Line 41: Line 34:


{{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>
== Existentialist ethics ==
<ol class="hue clean  terse">
{{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=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>
== 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 76:
{{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>
Line 61: 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)




Latest revision as of 01:31, 26 May 2026

Main entries

  1. morality or ethics

    / morality (referring to any method of distinguishing Right from Wrong; MDem 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

  2. local morality

    -> localized conception of morality produced by the motions of a particular countable culture

  3. objective morality

    / ethics (objective study of how groups of people construct morality and what are the best ways to construct morality)

Definitions of Right

  1. moral right

    / Right (morality and ethics) / morally right (truth value)

  2. fitting action

    (truth value; Kantianism)

  3. produces value

    (truth value; consequentialism)

  4. promotes freedom

    (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful

Definitions of Wrong

  1. moral wrong

    / Wrong (morality and ethics) / morally wrong (truth value)

  2. unfitting action

    (truth value; Kantianism) / vicious individual action

  3. does not produce value

    (truth value; consequentialism)

  4. does not promote freedom

    (truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful

Existentialist ethics

  1. All moral decisions are Pascal's wagers (Kierkegaard, Christian morality)
  2. 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?
    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 worthwhile reason to make this decision as opposed to really sinister sounding ones.
  3. The only act you can know to be virtuous is to act with conviction and achieve your goals [1] -> a really good try to save ethics, but no, I 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, as part of their task of defining morality and ethics.
    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 never gets resolved.
  4. 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.
  5. 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. [2]
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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) [3]

Machiavellianism

  1. Justice can only be had by those who win / Justice is in the interest of the stronger (Plato) [4] -> 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 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.

Related

  1. lying / lie / (9k)
  2. trolley problem / (9k)
  3. truth value / non-binary truth value / (9k)
  4. Marxism doesn't talk about morality / (9k)

Ideologies or fields

  1. pronounced Hass / humanities, arts, and social sciences
  2. pronounced Hass / Christian morality
  3. pronounced E.S. / morality or ethics
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q660&oldid=43556"