How does Holla Forums feel about ethics?

How does Holla Forums feel about ethics?
What school of ethics is the leftermost?
What leftist thinks have written about ethics?

Perhaps I haven't read enough but I fail to see any meaningful distinction between ethics and morals.

...

I think of it like the difference between strategy and tactics.

Ethics is "The greatest good for the greatest number."

Morals are "Donate to charity."

egoism

Stirner is the only one that matters

I'm an Existentialist wrestling with Christianity. The rest is debatable.

Ethics are any code that a person or a group of people follow. Actually, scratch that - it's not just for people. Animals, especially social animals, have ethics too. It's really just a "right" or "best practices" kind of behavior. It's a standard or expectation of behavior that you try to meet.

Morals are "this is right, this is wrong" style ethics, where proper behavior is determined by some kind of virtue-based system.

Basically, morals are a particular type of ethic. As opposed to something like common law or the hobo code, which are based on pragmatism, morals are based on spooky good and evil.g

...

I want people with meme-tier understanding of Stirner to leave.

So all the remarks made by anyone who talks to you in the name of political realism, men of State, teachers (who are the servants of men of State), theorists, journalists, all the intellectuals who pass through classrooms like this and in their speechifying talk with the calm, tolerant words of the realist, state that in any case nothing else is possible, reality is what it is, it is necessary to make sacrifices; there, these people are swindling you. They are swindling you because you can do something else, because any one of us is capable of rising up in the name of our wounded dignity before such a swindle. Because any one of us can realise that we have been swindled, because we have finally realised what is being done to our detriment. And in rising up against it all we can change not only the reality of things within the limits that it is possible to know them, but also one’s life, make it worthy of being lived. One can get up in the morning, put one’s feet on the ground, look in the mirror and say to oneself, ‘At last I have managed to change things, at least as far as I am concerned’ and feel one is a person worthy of living his or her life, not a puppet in the hands of a puppeteer you can’t even see well enough to spit in their face.

Ethics are a spook

contrary to what some posters may believe, ethics aren't a spook.
they're a set of rule necessary for the well being of society

Marxism largely forgoes ethics honestly.

It's hard to like virtue ethics and be a marxist, but not hard at all to like virtue ethics and gommie-nism.

Transhumanists are the last type of person I would expect to care about any sort of ethics.

Not that guy but holy shit use paragraphs to break up your post you faggot. No one cares about your (probably copy pasted) argument because its so poorly presented.

Also, just because Yui poster used an anime girl as an avatar doesn't mean you should as well. Why? Because its fucking stupid.

Why?

That was a paragraph user, I took it from a theory book. I like anime girls so I will post them if I want!

The existence of rules or guidelines for pragmatic purposes does not preclude changing, bending, or outright breaking them. Ethics are just a framework of pre-set behaviors that make life easier because they eliminate the cognitive work of figuring out what to do in every scenario. With ethics in place, you can simply act according to the rules. Having rules does not stop you form evaluating whether the rules make sense or going outside of them.

Virtue ethics is not the only ethics.

I don't think it's possible to come up with a set of rules for behaviours that can be applied everywhere, every instance has got to be different and if you did it seems like it would only lead to missing out on understanding the specifics. And it would make a lot of people think in the same way.

Ethics are spooks.

That isn't the point. The point is to come up with rules that are useful most of the time, so that most of the time you don't have to work through the logic of what to do.

But why is thinking less a good thing? What do you think some of those rules are?

Same reason working less is a good thing. Everything has an opportunity cost. The less demand is placed on a person to expend their time and energy, the freer they are to do something else.

Depends on the ethic. They're all different. The important thing is that people are on the same page about what the ethics are and that they agree to the system being used.

So everybody has to agree on the ethics? That does sound like a way of making everyone the same user. I don't fit in with the ethics of this society, there will always be people on the margins. Is it just tough luck for them? Why should they bother with submitting their individuality to the group? I don't have any more Kumikos.

No, but it's the best.


He doesn't reject ethics, that's nonsense, but his idea of ethics is a lot more collectivised. It's not liberal at all (not that that's bad). He goes beyond materialistic and idealistic ethical systems and creates an alternative ethical system. Because virtue ethics is inherently individualistic, there is no room for virtue ethics in Marxism.

Not to say he's not right to at least do so somewhat. But he creates a split between the ethics of one group (proles) and another (bourg). You can probably guess what those ethics are yourself.

They don't have to, per se. The more who do the better things will run.

With regards to the ethics, perhaps. What ethics are agreeable to people are usually the result of how people already are. It would be more accurate to say that useful ethics codify what people already have in common.

If people can't agree on a common ethic they should probably reduce contact with each other to avoid conflict. You could try finding somewhere else more suitable for you personally. Also, realize that your description covers people like serial killers. Just because a society's ethic is incompatible with you doesn't mean society is wrong.

They shouldn't have to, but people tend to prefer having some kind of ethic to having none.

You must not liker her that much. :^)

Virtue ethics is only useful for controlling people too stupid to handle real philosophy.

It seems like a pretty sad existence though to just have your small and insular group while you've got the whole weight of negative opinion on you from the rest of society. Ultimately I know pretty much fuck all about ethics to be honest and I mainly just want to change society to make it better in the way that I already assume.

Yeah well, nobody's entitled to interact with people if they can't learn to get along with them. Remember
It doesn't have to be formally coded into law or anything.

Is whether they're entitled or not determined in or out of this contractual thing between the group and individual?

That's not right either. What you just described was utilitarianism, which is just one theory of ethics.

Lol. How does virtue ethics "control" people?

Consequentialism is the best system there is.

"Every advantage in the past is judged in the light of the final issue. —Demosthenes"

Kant can get fucked.

I know this is about ethics but could a kind user point me in the right direction to learn about moral realism and critiques on relativism.

...

...

Diaperfags ought to stay well out of sight imo

Diaper fetishes are unethical.

Daily reminder, anyone who's not a negative utilitarian should kill themselves to lessen the suffering on the surrounding population.

trips confirm

This.