Ethics - Revision history

Fractalguy: /* Types of Moral Frameworks */

2026-01-02T12:25:24Z

Types of Moral Frameworks

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 2 January 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:
	* [[These things are bad, mkay?\|'''These things are bad, mkay?''']]		* [[These things are bad, mkay?\|'''These things are bad, mkay?''']]
	== Types of Moral Frameworks ==		== Types of Moral Frameworks ==
	[[wikipedia:Moral_realism\|Moral realism]] reflects the position that there is some [[universal]] source of morality that our standards can be judged against, versus being arbitrary constructs of [[culture]]. Many people confuse moral realism with [[authoritarian]] moral systems that insist there is only one right way to live your [[life]]. What is actually the case is that [[variety]] and diversity in our moral [[perspectives]] is essential for a [[flourishing]] [[society]], but there are common patterns to the ones that are most beneficial.		[[wikipedia:Moral_realism\|Moral realism]] reflects the position that there is some [[universal]] source of morality that our standards can be judged against, versus being arbitrary constructs of [[culture]]. Many people confuse moral realism with [[authoritarian]] moral systems that insist there is only one right way to live your [[life]]. What is actually the case is that [[variety]] and diversity in our moral [[perspectives]] is essential for a [[flourishing]] [[society]], but there are common [[patterns]] to the ones that are most beneficial.

			Each of these frameworks can be useful for making [[life choices]] in various circumstances. [[Utilitarianism]] often has the least amount of utility in this regard, since we rarely have the time or the [[necessary]] data to calculate the long-term net value created by any given decision. If a [[god]]-[[like]] utility calculator was available, we would find that the [[utilitarian]] decision would almost always line up with the conclusions of virtue, [[emotion]], or [[evolved]] [[theological]] systems.

	[[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]] and [[human rights]] are compatible with [[utilitarianism]] when the "greatest good" rules are applied to the [[laws]] of [[society]] rather than isolated hypotheticals, and the actual [[emotional]] responses of humans are taken into account instead of being ignored like friction in a physics 101 problem.		[[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]] and [[human rights]] are compatible with [[utilitarianism]] when the "greatest good" rules are applied to the [[laws]] of [[society]] rather than isolated hypotheticals, and the actual [[emotional]] responses of humans are taken into account instead of being ignored like friction in a physics 101 problem.

Fractalguy at 12:15, 2 January 2026

2026-01-02T12:15:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:15, 2 January 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	* [[Meaning]], [[Suffering]], [[Happiness and well-being\|'''Happiness and well-being''']]		* [[Meaning]], [[Suffering]], [[Happiness and well-being\|'''Happiness and well-being''']]
	* [[Altruism]]		* [[Altruism]]
	* [[Quality of life versus quantity of life\|'''Quality of life versus quantity of life''']]		* [[Quality of life versus quantity of life\|'''Quality of life versus quantity of life''']]
	* [[Primal world beliefs\|'''Primal world beliefs''']]		* [[Primal world beliefs\|'''Primal world beliefs''']]
	* [[Abortion]], [[Euthanasia]], and [[Death penalty\|Death Penalty]]		* [[Abortion]], [[Euthanasia]], and [[Death penalty\|Death Penalty]]
Line 68:		Line 68:
	[[File:Morality-conviction-theistic-secular-conviction-indifference.png\|none\|thumb\|650x650px\|It's not where your convictions come from, it's that you have them.]]		[[File:Morality-conviction-theistic-secular-conviction-indifference.png\|none\|thumb\|650x650px\|It's not where your convictions come from, it's that you have them.]]
	[[Religious]] people tend to lump all "[[atheists]]" into the bottom-right category, falsely assuming that without [[god]] there can be only [[wikipedia:Nihilism\|nihilism]]. They rightly point to the growing number of non-believers who live shallow, [[materialistic]], hedonistic lifestyles that lead more often to [[addiction]] than lasting [[happiness]]. But it isn't [[religion]] that these people truly need, it is conviction! Some may find it in [[religion]], but in modern [[society]] there needs to be a [[Secular institutions\|secular institution]] where people can go to deepen and reinforce their convictions and build their [[community]] without invoking the [[supernatural]].		[[Religious]] people tend to lump all "[[atheists]]" into the bottom-right category, falsely assuming that without [[god]] there can be only [[wikipedia:Nihilism\|nihilism]]. They rightly point to the growing number of non-believers who live shallow, [[materialistic]], hedonistic lifestyles that lead more often to [[addiction]] than lasting [[happiness]]. But it isn't [[religion]] that these people truly need, it is conviction! Some may find it in [[religion]], but in modern [[society]] there needs to be a [[Secular institutions\|secular institution]] where people can go to deepen and reinforce their convictions and build their [[community]] without invoking the [[supernatural]].

			== Moral Development ==
			Numerous [[psychological]] studies have demonstrated that morality is built on [[education]] and experience. [[wikipedia:Jean_Piaget\|Piaget]], [[wikipedia:Lawrence_Kohlberg\|Kholberg]], and [[Necessary Prerequisite\|others]] have built models that describe the stages of moral development in detail.

			For more on moral and cognitive development theories, check the [[Necessary Prerequisite]] page.

			Just like you can't understand calculus unless you've learned algebra, and you can't understand algebra unless you know how to add and subtract first, you can't understand [[universal]] moral principles unless you've gone through the stages of [[authority]] and [[legal]] based moral frameworks.

			This is a significant contributor to [[political]] and [[theological]] disagreements, since those at lower stages of development are unable to comprehend arguments made from higher stage [[reasoning]]. Disagreements are treated as [[debate]] between equals when it's often more [[like]] pre-algebra students arguing about the correct way to calculate limits with a [[math]] professor. For example, [[creationism]] versus [[evolution]]. Without the [[necessary]] [[education]], one side doesn't even know the basic facts that inform the other's argument.

			This article provides and excellent explanation of these concepts, though the latter half is paywalled at the time this was added. It will likely be unlocked at a later date, though. [https://brendangrahamdempsey.substack.com/p/learning-and-morality Learning and Morality - How do Moral Values Shift with Psychological Development?]

	== Tethics ==		== Tethics ==

Fractalguy: /* Ethics and Morality Pages */

2025-12-01T04:18:31Z

Ethics and Morality Pages

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:18, 1 December 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:

	== Ethics and Morality Pages ==		== Ethics and Morality Pages ==
			[[File:Do-you-return-the-cart.jpg\|right\|frameless\|334x334px]]
	Check out these pages for topics related to ethics and morality.		Check out these pages for topics related to ethics and morality.

Line 10:		Line 11:
	* [[Meaning]], [[Suffering]], [[Happiness and well-being\|'''Happiness and well-being''']]		* [[Meaning]], [[Suffering]], [[Happiness and well-being\|'''Happiness and well-being''']]
	* [[Altruism]]		* [[Altruism]]
	* [[Quality of life versus quantity of life\|'''Quality of life versus quantity of life''']] ~~and~~ [[Primal world beliefs]]		* [[Quality of life versus quantity of life\|'''Quality of life versus quantity of life''']]
			* [[Primal world beliefs\|'''Primal world beliefs''']]
	* [[Abortion]], [[Euthanasia]], and [[Death penalty\|Death Penalty]]		* [[Abortion]], [[Euthanasia]], and [[Death penalty\|Death Penalty]]
	* [[Environment]], [[Climate change]], and [[Population]]		* [[Environment]], [[Climate change]], and [[Population]]

Fractalguy at 12:30, 29 July 2025

2025-07-29T12:30:45Z

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 The reason for [[Utilitarianism]] is that it is the only ethical system that is potentially subject to [[scientific]] inquiry, as long as ''good'' can be quantified [[objectively]]. Since [[evolution]] has correlated what is ''good'' for humans with what gives us [[happiness]], if we can measure the [[happiness]] of a population we can tell if what we are doing is ''good'', at least relative to other [[societies]] we've been able to study.<blockquote>''"Ethics and equity and the principles of [[justice]] do not change with the calendar."''  -[[wikipedia:D._H._Lawrence|D. H. Lawrence]]</blockquote>There is usually not a single "right" answer to moral quandaries that can be determined with 100% [[certainty]], which is the black and white way that people usually think about "[[objective]]" morality. It is more that there are [[culturally neutral]] tendencies that serve as [[wikipedia:Attractor|attractors]] or [[wikipedia:Limit_(mathematics)|mathematical limits]] that our [[evolving]] morality trends towards as we learn more about how to create [[cultures]] of [[happiness]].
 == Ethics and Morality Pages ==
@@ Line 40: / Line 29: @@
 * [[Freedom]] and [[Free will|'''Free Will''']]
 * [[These things are bad, mkay?|'''These things are bad, mkay?''']]
 == What Are Your Values? ==

Fractalguy: /* Probably, Not Definitely */

2025-07-29T12:28:05Z

Probably, Not Definitely

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:28, 29 July 2025
Line 141:		Line 141:
	Here is a good example of the criticism of Harris from the academic [[philosophy]] perspective. The criticism treats the books as if it was the foundational research for the establishment of a new theoretical model rather than a popular science book that tries to introduce these concepts to people that don't have extensive backgrounds in [[neuroscience]] or ethical [[philosophy]], and make a [[persuasive]] argument in favor of ethics that can be informed by empirical data. This is not the same goal that academic works have, though they tend to judge popular works by those standards.		Here is a good example of the criticism of Harris from the academic [[philosophy]] perspective. The criticism treats the books as if it was the foundational research for the establishment of a new theoretical model rather than a popular science book that tries to introduce these concepts to people that don't have extensive backgrounds in [[neuroscience]] or ethical [[philosophy]], and make a [[persuasive]] argument in favor of ethics that can be informed by empirical data. This is not the same goal that academic works have, though they tend to judge popular works by those standards.
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI\|\|center\|A Critique of Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape"\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI\|\|center\|A Critique of Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape"\|frame}}
			<br>
	Here is an excellent discussion of [[Jordan Peterson]]'s [[philosophy]] of [[meaning]] and Harris' Moral Landscape as opposing critiques of moral relativism. It offers insightful criticisms of both. The moral of this story is that you shouldn't use work written for a popular audience as the final authority for any theory, and not everyone cares to know the 2000+ years of [[philosophical]] debate behind every proposition. {{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEMB1Ky2n1E\|\|center\|Jordan Peterson & The Meaning of Life - Philosophy Tube\|frame}}		Here is an excellent discussion of [[Jordan Peterson]]'s [[philosophy]] of [[meaning]] and Harris' Moral Landscape as opposing critiques of moral relativism. It offers insightful criticisms of both. The moral of this story is that you shouldn't use work written for a popular audience as the final authority for any theory, and not everyone cares to know the 2000+ years of [[philosophical]] debate behind every proposition. {{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEMB1Ky2n1E\|\|center\|Jordan Peterson & The Meaning of Life - Philosophy Tube\|frame}}
			<br>
	A discussion of emotivism and the sources of our ethical attitudes.		A discussion of emotivism and the sources of our ethical attitudes.
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs7fBx-zURw\|\|center\|Are Ethics Just Emotions? - Simon Blackburn\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs7fBx-zURw\|\|center\|Are Ethics Just Emotions? - Simon Blackburn\|frame}}

Fractalguy at 12:27, 29 July 2025

2025-07-29T12:27:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 29 July 2025
Line 143:		Line 143:

	Here is an excellent discussion of [[Jordan Peterson]]'s [[philosophy]] of [[meaning]] and Harris' Moral Landscape as opposing critiques of moral relativism. It offers insightful criticisms of both. The moral of this story is that you shouldn't use work written for a popular audience as the final authority for any theory, and not everyone cares to know the 2000+ years of [[philosophical]] debate behind every proposition. {{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEMB1Ky2n1E\|\|center\|Jordan Peterson & The Meaning of Life - Philosophy Tube\|frame}}		Here is an excellent discussion of [[Jordan Peterson]]'s [[philosophy]] of [[meaning]] and Harris' Moral Landscape as opposing critiques of moral relativism. It offers insightful criticisms of both. The moral of this story is that you shouldn't use work written for a popular audience as the final authority for any theory, and not everyone cares to know the 2000+ years of [[philosophical]] debate behind every proposition. {{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEMB1Ky2n1E\|\|center\|Jordan Peterson & The Meaning of Life - Philosophy Tube\|frame}}

			A discussion of emotivism and the sources of our ethical attitudes.
			{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs7fBx-zURw\|\|center\|Are Ethics Just Emotions? - Simon Blackburn\|frame}}

	== Ethics in Music ==		== Ethics in Music ==

Fractalguy at 12:25, 29 July 2025

2025-07-29T12:25:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 29 July 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:
	The [[wikipedia:Ethics\|Ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [[Utilitarianism]], but with some [[evidence-based]] solutions to the various ''problems'' of [[utilitarianism]] that have been raised by critics.		The [[wikipedia:Ethics\|Ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [[Utilitarianism]], but with some [[evidence-based]] solutions to the various ''problems'' of [[utilitarianism]] that have been raised by critics.

	The reason for [[Utilitarianism]] is that it is the only ethical system that is potentially subject to [[scientific]] inquiry, as long as ''good'' can be quantified [[objectively]]. Since [[evolution]] has correlated what is ''good'' for humans with what gives us [[happiness]], if we can measure the [[happiness]] of a population we can tell if what we are doing is ''good'', at least relative to other [[societies]] we've been able to study.<blockquote>''"Ethics and equity and the principles of [[justice]] do not change with the calendar."'' -[[wikipedia:D._H._Lawrence\|D. H. Lawrence]]</blockquote>There is usually not a single "right" answer to moral quandaries that can be determined with 100% [[certainty]], which is the black and white way that people usually think about "[[objective]]" morality. It is more that there are [[culturally neutral]] tendencies that serve as [[wikipedia:Attractor\|attractors]] or [[wikipedia:Limit_(mathematics)\|mathematical limits]] that our [[evolving]] morality trends towards as we learn more about how to create [[cultures]] of [[happiness]]. ~~See~~ [[wikipedia:Moral_realism\|moral realism]].		The reason for [[Utilitarianism]] is that it is the only ethical system that is potentially subject to [[scientific]] inquiry, as long as ''good'' can be quantified [[objectively]]. Since [[evolution]] has correlated what is ''good'' for humans with what gives us [[happiness]], if we can measure the [[happiness]] of a population we can tell if what we are doing is ''good'', at least relative to other [[societies]] we've been able to study.<blockquote>''"Ethics and equity and the principles of [[justice]] do not change with the calendar."'' -[[wikipedia:D._H._Lawrence\|D. H. Lawrence]]</blockquote>There is usually not a single "right" answer to moral quandaries that can be determined with 100% [[certainty]], which is the black and white way that people usually think about "[[objective]]" morality. It is more that there are [[culturally neutral]] tendencies that serve as [[wikipedia:Attractor\|attractors]] or [[wikipedia:Limit_(mathematics)\|mathematical limits]] that our [[evolving]] morality trends towards as we learn more about how to create [[cultures]] of [[happiness]].

			== Types of Moral Frameworks ==
			[[wikipedia:Moral_realism\|Moral realism]] reflects the position that there is some [[universal]] source of morality that our standards can be judged against, versus being arbitrary constructs of [[culture]]. Many people confuse moral realism with [[authoritarian]] moral systems that insist there is only one right way to live your [[life]]. What is actually the case is that [[variety]] and diversity in our moral [[perspectives]] is essential for a [[flourishing]] [[society]], but there are common patterns to the ones that are most beneficial.

	[[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]] and [[human rights]] are compatible with [[utilitarianism]] when the "greatest good" rules are applied to the [[laws]] of [[society]] rather than isolated hypotheticals, and the actual [[emotional]] responses of humans are taken into account instead of being ignored like friction in a physics 101 problem.		[[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]] and [[human rights]] are compatible with [[utilitarianism]] when the "greatest good" rules are applied to the [[laws]] of [[society]] rather than isolated hypotheticals, and the actual [[emotional]] responses of humans are taken into account instead of being ignored like friction in a physics 101 problem.

			[[wikipedia:Emotivism\|Emotivism]] is view that our moral judgements reflect an [[emotional]] reaction rather than a [[rational]] one. If an action tends to make people [[happy]] it is good. If it tends to piss people off, it's [[These things are bad, mkay?\|bad]]. A system based on [[happiness]] is of course using [[emotion]] as the basis for morality, but since we have ways to quantify these [[emotional]] reactions with [[science]], it is now possible to use [[reason]] to predict the better [[emotional]] outcome.

	[[wikipedia:Virtue_ethics\|Virtue ethics]] are a great shorthand for deciding the best course of action when there are too many variables to calculate an optimal [[utilitarian]] outcome. They also tend to prioritize our known [[emotional]] preferences and the actions that benefit them, rather than making false assumptions that people would be [[happier]] when they sacrifice others for their own benefit.		[[wikipedia:Virtue_ethics\|Virtue ethics]] are a great shorthand for deciding the best course of action when there are too many variables to calculate an optimal [[utilitarian]] outcome. They also tend to prioritize our known [[emotional]] preferences and the actions that benefit them, rather than making false assumptions that people would be [[happier]] when they sacrifice others for their own benefit.

	While you can really dive deeply into the world of ethical quandaries, the goal of this ~~section~~ is to provide a solid rationale for ethical living and an empirical framework for understanding its importance that doesn't rely on the [[supernatural]]. Applying this framework to every conceivable situation, or summarizing 5,000 years of ethical [[philosophy]], are out of scope.		While you can really dive deeply into the world of ethical quandaries, the goal of this page is to provide a solid rationale for ethical living and an empirical framework for understanding its importance that doesn't rely on the [[supernatural]]. Applying this framework to every conceivable situation, or summarizing 5,000 years of ethical [[philosophy]], are out of scope.

	== Ethics and Morality Pages ==		== Ethics and Morality Pages ==

Fractalguy: /* What Are The Rules? */

2025-07-29T11:56:43Z

What Are The Rules?

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:56, 29 July 2025
Line 85:		Line 85:
	If you have recently been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Leap quantum leaped] into the body of a black person in America, the following musical provides great advice on the rules for this very specific situation.		If you have recently been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Leap quantum leaped] into the body of a black person in America, the following musical provides great advice on the rules for this very specific situation.

	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZP-n5ArEH4\|\|center\|"What Are The Rules" A Sunny Musical\|frame}}The whole [[wikipedia:It's_Always_Sunny_in_Philadelphia\|It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia]] series is a [[hilarious]] exploration of ethics through counterexample. This, along with its low budget, has made it ~~one of~~ the longest-running sitcom of all time. [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/its-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-politics]		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZP-n5ArEH4\|\|center\|"What Are The Rules" A Sunny Musical\|frame}}The whole [[wikipedia:It's_Always_Sunny_in_Philadelphia\|It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia]] series is a [[hilarious]] exploration of ethics through counterexample. This, along with its low budget, has made it the longest-running sitcom of all time. [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/its-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-politics]

	== Other Pop Culture Based Ethical Systems ==		== Other Pop Culture Based Ethical Systems ==

Fractalguy at 09:45, 6 July 2025

2025-07-06T09:45:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 6 July 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:
	The [[wikipedia:Ethics\|Ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [[Utilitarianism]], but with some [[evidence-based]] solutions to the various ''problems'' of [[utilitarianism]] that have been raised by critics.		The [[wikipedia:Ethics\|Ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [[Utilitarianism]], but with some [[evidence-based]] solutions to the various ''problems'' of [[utilitarianism]] that have been raised by critics.

	The reason for [[Utilitarianism]] is that it is the only ethical system that is potentially subject to [[scientific]] inquiry, as long as ''good'' can be quantified objectively. Since [[evolution]] has correlated what is ''good'' for humans with what gives us [[happiness]], if we can measure the [[happiness]] of a population we can tell if what we are doing is ''good'', at least relative to other [[societies]] we've been able to study.<blockquote>''"Ethics and equity and the principles of [[justice]] do not change with the calendar."'' -[[wikipedia:D._H._Lawrence\|D. H. Lawrence]]</blockquote>[[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]] and [[human rights]] are compatible with [[utilitarianism]] when the "greatest good" rules are applied to the [[laws]] of [[society]] rather than isolated hypotheticals, and the actual [[emotional]] responses of humans are taken into account instead of being ignored like friction in a physics 101 problem.		The reason for [[Utilitarianism]] is that it is the only ethical system that is potentially subject to [[scientific]] inquiry, as long as ''good'' can be quantified [[objectively]]. Since [[evolution]] has correlated what is ''good'' for humans with what gives us [[happiness]], if we can measure the [[happiness]] of a population we can tell if what we are doing is ''good'', at least relative to other [[societies]] we've been able to study.<blockquote>''"Ethics and equity and the principles of [[justice]] do not change with the calendar."'' -[[wikipedia:D._H._Lawrence\|D. H. Lawrence]]</blockquote>There is usually not a single "right" answer to moral quandaries that can be determined with 100% [[certainty]], which is the black and white way that people usually think about "[[objective]]" morality. It is more that there are [[culturally neutral]] tendencies that serve as [[wikipedia:Attractor\|attractors]] or [[wikipedia:Limit_(mathematics)\|mathematical limits]] that our [[evolving]] morality trends towards as we learn more about how to create [[cultures]] of [[happiness]]. See [[wikipedia:Moral_realism\|moral realism]].

			[[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]] and [[human rights]] are compatible with [[utilitarianism]] when the "greatest good" rules are applied to the [[laws]] of [[society]] rather than isolated hypotheticals, and the actual [[emotional]] responses of humans are taken into account instead of being ignored like friction in a physics 101 problem.

	[[wikipedia:Virtue_ethics\|Virtue ethics]] are a great shorthand for deciding the best course of action when there are too many variables to calculate an optimal [[utilitarian]] outcome. They also tend to prioritize our known [[emotional]] preferences and the actions that benefit them, rather than making false assumptions that people would be [[happier]] when they sacrifice others for their own benefit.		[[wikipedia:Virtue_ethics\|Virtue ethics]] are a great shorthand for deciding the best course of action when there are too many variables to calculate an optimal [[utilitarian]] outcome. They also tend to prioritize our known [[emotional]] preferences and the actions that benefit them, rather than making false assumptions that people would be [[happier]] when they sacrifice others for their own benefit.

Fractalguy at 14:00, 18 April 2025

2025-04-18T14:00:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:00, 18 April 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:
	The [[wikipedia:Ethics\|Ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [[Utilitarianism]], but with some [[evidence-based]] solutions to the various ''problems'' of [[utilitarianism]] that have been raised by critics.		The [[wikipedia:Ethics\|Ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [[Utilitarianism]], but with some [[evidence-based]] solutions to the various ''problems'' of [[utilitarianism]] that have been raised by critics.

	The reason for [[Utilitarianism]] is that it is the only ethical system that is potentially subject to [[scientific]] inquiry, as long as ''good'' can be quantified objectively. Since [[evolution]] has correlated what is ''good'' for humans with what gives us [[happiness]], if we can measure the [[happiness]] of a population we can tell if what we are doing is ''good'', at least relative to other [[societies]] we've been able to study.<blockquote>''"Ethics and equity and the principles of [[justice]] do not change with the calendar."'' -[[wikipedia:D._H._Lawrence\|D. H. Lawrence]]</blockquote>While you can really dive deeply into the world of ethical quandaries, the goal of this section is to provide a solid rationale for ethical living and an empirical framework for understanding its importance that doesn't rely on the [[supernatural]]. Applying this framework to every conceivable situation, or summarizing 5,000 years of ethical [[philosophy]], are out of scope.		The reason for [[Utilitarianism]] is that it is the only ethical system that is potentially subject to [[scientific]] inquiry, as long as ''good'' can be quantified objectively. Since [[evolution]] has correlated what is ''good'' for humans with what gives us [[happiness]], if we can measure the [[happiness]] of a population we can tell if what we are doing is ''good'', at least relative to other [[societies]] we've been able to study.<blockquote>''"Ethics and equity and the principles of [[justice]] do not change with the calendar."'' -[[wikipedia:D._H._Lawrence\|D. H. Lawrence]]</blockquote>[[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]] and [[human rights]] are compatible with [[utilitarianism]] when the "greatest good" rules are applied to the [[laws]] of [[society]] rather than isolated hypotheticals, and the actual [[emotional]] responses of humans are taken into account instead of being ignored like friction in a physics 101 problem.

			[[wikipedia:Virtue_ethics\|Virtue ethics]] are a great shorthand for deciding the best course of action when there are too many variables to calculate an optimal [[utilitarian]] outcome. They also tend to prioritize our known [[emotional]] preferences and the actions that benefit them, rather than making false assumptions that people would be [[happier]] when they sacrifice others for their own benefit.

			While you can really dive deeply into the world of ethical quandaries, the goal of this section is to provide a solid rationale for ethical living and an empirical framework for understanding its importance that doesn't rely on the [[supernatural]]. Applying this framework to every conceivable situation, or summarizing 5,000 years of ethical [[philosophy]], are out of scope.

	== Ethics and Morality Pages ==		== Ethics and Morality Pages ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 6 July 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:
	The [[wikipedia:Ethics\|Ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [[Utilitarianism]], but with some [[evidence-based]] solutions to the various ''problems'' of [[utilitarianism]] that have been raised by critics.		The [[wikipedia:Ethics\|Ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [[Utilitarianism]], but with some [[evidence-based]] solutions to the various ''problems'' of [[utilitarianism]] that have been raised by critics.

	The reason for [[Utilitarianism]] is that it is the only ethical system that is potentially subject to [[scientific]] inquiry, as long as ''good'' can be quantified objectively. Since [[evolution]] has correlated what is ''good'' for humans with what gives us [[happiness]], if we can measure the [[happiness]] of a population we can tell if what we are doing is ''good'', at least relative to other [[societies]] we've been able to study.<blockquote>''"Ethics and equity and the principles of [[justice]] do not change with the calendar."'' -[[wikipedia:D._H._Lawrence\|D. H. Lawrence]]</blockquote>[[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]] and [[human rights]] are compatible with [[utilitarianism]] when the "greatest good" rules are applied to the [[laws]] of [[society]] rather than isolated hypotheticals, and the actual [[emotional]] responses of humans are taken into account instead of being ignored like friction in a physics 101 problem.		The reason for [[Utilitarianism]] is that it is the only ethical system that is potentially subject to [[scientific]] inquiry, as long as ''good'' can be quantified [[objectively]]. Since [[evolution]] has correlated what is ''good'' for humans with what gives us [[happiness]], if we can measure the [[happiness]] of a population we can tell if what we are doing is ''good'', at least relative to other [[societies]] we've been able to study.<blockquote>''"Ethics and equity and the principles of [[justice]] do not change with the calendar."'' -[[wikipedia:D._H._Lawrence\|D. H. Lawrence]]</blockquote>There is usually not a single "right" answer to moral quandaries that can be determined with 100% [[certainty]], which is the black and white way that people usually think about "[[objective]]" morality. It is more that there are [[culturally neutral]] tendencies that serve as [[wikipedia:Attractor\|attractors]] or [[wikipedia:Limit_(mathematics)\|mathematical limits]] that our [[evolving]] morality trends towards as we learn more about how to create [[cultures]] of [[happiness]]. See [[wikipedia:Moral_realism\|moral realism]].

			[[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]] and [[human rights]] are compatible with [[utilitarianism]] when the "greatest good" rules are applied to the [[laws]] of [[society]] rather than isolated hypotheticals, and the actual [[emotional]] responses of humans are taken into account instead of being ignored like friction in a physics 101 problem.

	[[wikipedia:Virtue_ethics\|Virtue ethics]] are a great shorthand for deciding the best course of action when there are too many variables to calculate an optimal [[utilitarian]] outcome. They also tend to prioritize our known [[emotional]] preferences and the actions that benefit them, rather than making false assumptions that people would be [[happier]] when they sacrifice others for their own benefit.		[[wikipedia:Virtue_ethics\|Virtue ethics]] are a great shorthand for deciding the best course of action when there are too many variables to calculate an optimal [[utilitarian]] outcome. They also tend to prioritize our known [[emotional]] preferences and the actions that benefit them, rather than making false assumptions that people would be [[happier]] when they sacrifice others for their own benefit.