From Philosophical Research
Main entry[edit]
- 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
Mechanisms of morality[edit]
- 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
- 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
- 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.
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 a bunch of Evil demons that needs to be exterminated Undertale-style. and when 100 million people show up to exterminate 5,000 people, it's not going to be pretty.
- 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.
- Every moral statement is a scientific prediction / Every moral statement is a determinist hypothesis -> for instance, if we say "all Floridians should 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.
- 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 within Existentialism 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.
Ideology codes[edit]
- Z–86 [MX] [Z] MX (TT)1:
-1:-1
