Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq OP wrote

standard, which can be misleading and i'd rather nobody get the wrong idea about what these terms usually mean

See the first line of my OP:

This is a major misunderstanding leftists have of post-left politics.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

and i'm telling you the distinction doesn't bare much scrutiny for reasons i explained

Your argument is that some unnamed philosophers define ethics as 'moral philosophy', while my argument is that anarchists make a distinction between moralism and amoralist ethics. I'm not sure why your establishment philosophers are being allowed a monopoly on terminology or why their ideas are more important than the ideas of post-leftists. There's nothing sacred about their musings.


Dumai wrote (edited )

I'm not sure why your establishment philosophers are being allowed a monopoly on terminology or why their ideas are more important than the ideas of post-leftists.

they're not, and as i said, you're free to disagree with the mainstream view of what ethics are

but firstly, if you're thinking this post will be the first time some readers are introduced to the difference between morality and ethics then i think would help to mention how this division is traditionally realised and make it clear, exactly, where post-leftists are going against the grain, and why. i say this because i'd hate for anybody to find this post and then read some foundational ethical theory and get absolutely lost because your use of the word "morality" doesn't at all match it's wider use. this doesn't invalidate it but if this is meant to be a 101 on post-leftist ethics then it should probably be addressed, at least. it would only flesh out your argument and avoid any potential mishaps with neophytes

and secondly i don't think this division here is very well-considered or representative of anarchism as a whole, even anarchistic traditions that reject morality, and you only achieved it by fiddling with terminology. i'd compare it to anarcho-capitalists who defend capitalism by defining it as a system of voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange between individuals and manage to completely ignore the question of how capitalism has been historically defined, but obviously i don't think you're anyway near that level so just take that as an example of how this kind of thinking can go very very wrong if you're not careful


ziq OP wrote

I don't think there's anything mainstream about philosophy and since this is a political forum I'm not even sure philosophical definitions are relevant. I only really care how the word is used in real life.


Dumai wrote (edited )

if you're talking about ethics and morality then you are talking about philosophy, including the kind of philosophy laypeople do every day

and i've never really known any layperson to juxtapose ethics and morality in the way you are


ziq OP wrote (edited )

I also went into how people that praise themselves as being 'moral' are usually anything but, which could be your main take-away from this if you reject the rest of my argument. Moral posturing doesn't make people better than other people.


edmund_the_destroyer wrote

But to Dumal's point, you're not fitting the terms 'morality' and 'ethics' to their common usage. If some person says, "All Latino people are inherently unethical and we white people are inherently more ethical", it's no different from saying "All Latino people are inherently immoral and we white people are inherently more moral."

So you're using the two terms to try to make a distinction that doesn't exist. I do agree with part of your fundamental point, which is that each side at best believes it is the side of good and at worst adopts the rhetoric of pretending to be the side of good and demonizes opposition. But that's universal.