Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm writing about post-left anarchy and the distinctions post-left anarchy makes between ethics and morality. I'm not sure how it's not helpful since it explains our reasoning in great detail.

What is 'traditionally' understood as morality and ethics is the problem the postleft rejection of morality addresses.

As a Christian, your propensity to moralize would put you at odds with post-left philosophy, but that doesn't mean you need to deny it's a valuable train of thought just because it doesn't appeal to your senses.

9

Dumai wrote

it's not helpful because it kind of fudges the terms, and without clarifying how your use of this language differs from the popular use, you're only going to lead people to poorly conceived ideas on ethical philosophy somewhere down along the road:

Unlike reactionary universal 'morals', ethics are decided on a case-by-case basis by the individual based on their own values and desires. Ethics are tangible and tied to real cause and effect outcomes.

this is actually a normative consequentialist ethical position and doesn't really break with how philosophers use the term "morality". rejecting morality, if that's what you're inclined to do, requires more than playing with words i think

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I think it's too much to ask that anarchists talking to other anarchists in anarchist spaces should have to define their terms every time they use them.

I also think it's a plenty helpful critique of morality or I wouldn't have wasted hours writing it. If my argument is poorly conceived, you haven't demonstrated that in any way in your rejection of it.

The terms are only fudged if you're somehow attached to the idea of a moral left, which is as ridiculous as being attached to the notion of a 'civilized' left in that it adapts oppressive terminology with a brutal colonialist legacy and calls it radical - for no good reason.

how philosophers use the term "morality"

I don't think that's relevant to any of my arguments since I'm talking about the common usage of the word and specifically the way it's used to control us by our oppressors and reinforce their hierarchies.

8

Dumai wrote

I think it's too much to ask that anarchists talking to other anarchists in anarchist spaces should have to define their terms every time they use them.

if you're using this terminology in a way that diverges hugely from how it is traditionally used, and your whole point here is to educate people and clarify your ethics, then i don't actually think it's too much to ask in this case

The terms are only fudged if you're somehow attached to the idea of a moral left

i say they're fudged because i don't think you're actually rejecting morality in any meaningful sense here

1

ziq wrote (edited )

if you're using this terminology in a way that diverges hugely from how it is traditionally used, and your whole point here is to educate people and clarify your ethics, then i don't actually think it's too much to ask in this case

Well I've pretty much definitively defined the terms with this piece (which I'm surprised I needed to do since it's commonly accepted terminology among post-leftists, individualist anarchists and even the half-baked stirner-meme anarchists on reddit) so there's no excuse for misunderstanding it now.

I still think it's too much to ask that anarchists explain basic anarchist concepts to long time anarchists every time they use them. It's not like I go around blatantly misunderstanding collectivist-anarchist terminology and then accusing people of being monsters based on my misunderstanding.

i say they're fudged because i don't think you're actually rejecting morality in any meaningful sense here

I made a pretty detailed distinction between collectivist one-size-fits-all blame-game always-black/white morality and individualist highly-adaptable usually-grey-area ethics. But ok.

5

Dumai wrote (edited )

what i mean to say is that your definitions of "ethics" and "morality" are rather idiosyncratic outside of the online post-left but you're presenting them as the standard, which can be misleading and i'd rather nobody get the wrong idea about what these terms usually mean

I made a pretty detailed distinction between collectivist one-size-fits-all blame-game always-black/white morality and individualist highly-adaptable usually-grey-area ethics.

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

it relies on a simplistic one-dimensional portrayal of what morality is and has been (even bourgeois morality), which can only limit your criticism of it, and what you're presenting as "ethics" doesn't differ all that much from a consequentialist view of morality

1

ziq 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.

4

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

0

ziq 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.

6

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

-1

ziq 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.

2

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.