User:RD/9k/morality or ethics (Q660)
Main entries
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 dolocal morality
-> localized conception of morality produced by the motions of a particular countable cultureobjective morality
/ ethics (objective study of how groups of people construct morality and what are the best ways to construct morality)
Definitions of Right
moral right
/ Right (morality and ethics) / morally right (truth value)fitting action
(truth value; Kantianism)produces value
(truth value; consequentialism)promotes freedom
(truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful- 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. - 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.
- Justice can only be had by those who win / Justice is in the interest of the stronger (Plato) [2] -> 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.
Definitions of Wrong
moral wrong
/ Wrong (morality and ethics) / morally wrong (truth value)unfitting action
(truth value; Kantianism) / vicious individual actiondoes not produce value
(truth value; consequentialism)does not promote freedom
(truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful
Related
- lying / lie / (9k)
- trolley problem / (9k)
- truth value / non-binary truth value / (9k)
Ideologies or fields
- / humanities, arts, and social sciences
- / morality or ethics
- (none)