Forum:What should be RW's stance on/approach to moral issues?

< Index | Site-related discussion

Vote

Note: Not all these options are necessarily mutually exclusive. Feel free to make multiple votes/comments if you wish to show support for two or more non-mutually exclusive options.

Another note: This is by no means an officially binding vote. Rather, it's more of an informal poll to get a better idea of the general sentiment among RW users. You can untwist your panties now.

We should criticize particular kinds X and Y of moral codes and be neutral towards everything else

We should poop on all the bullshit based on imagined/nonfactual narratives and not bother with the other stuff

1. because poop is involved FuzzyCatPotato of the Colossal Cubicles (talk/stalk) 03:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Critical rationalism

i.e. (in this case) intellectually criticizing moral theories without firmly taking a stance in support of any specific moral perspective

We should take a stance in support of one (or more) specific moral view(s)

Meta-ethical views

Moral realism

1. Am I supposed to write here? How else do I "vote"? Anyways, in Sense and Goodness Without God and The End Of Christianity (as well as in his blog, in podcasts, on youtube, etc.) Richard Carrier does a good job of showing that Ethical Naturalism, a form of Moral Realism, is true. He definitely convinced me. Brianpansky (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   "Am I supposed to write here?" Yep, you 'voted' correctly. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:45, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

2. Sounds good. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Moral universalism

Value pluralism

1. This would be where I come in, I think. Human moralities are complex webs of different impulses, and there is no algorithm that weighs them all correctly. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Normative ethical views

Consequentialism

Hedonism

1. Really? Nobody's even given the time of day to Hedonism? Fine! I'll start my own wiki! With blackjack, and hookers! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Make me another. If the goal isn't pleasure, what's the point? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Preference utilitarianism

1. I vote for this. Also see Richard Carrier's unification of Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, and basically everything, because they all come back to desire consequentialism. Brianpansky (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this but

We should be totally Conservative, because why the fuck not?

1. This is a stupid idea, but obviously renaming ourselves Trumpopedia and rearranging every article to prove Donald Rump right is a great idea.Keter (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

   Wait, since when is Trump a conservative? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Not sure

This thing is complicated as hell. I'm being presented with a massive list of options. Is this a German election? BurgerDominar (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Only if you want it to be. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG How dare you even ask my opinion on this??!?

( This is apparently a very popular opinion, judging by people's comments. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC) )

General discussion

This sounds like a thing we should ideally get to some sort of agreement/consensus on. Feel free to add more options where you think they belong, btw. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need another orthodoxy that isn't set forth in the mission statement here? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No. The very idea is preposterous. We have many varieties here and always should.---Mona- (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where you get the idea this vote is proposing to get rid of varieties of anything. I'm just nudging the proletariat to see how people feel about this/see if there might be a consensus or other hiding in the dark. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the proletariat loves choosing between various pieces of philosophical jargon. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That assumes the proletariat is exclusively focused on the "We should take a stance in support of one (or more) specific moral view(s)" section, though. And it's not so hard to figure out what most of those terms mean. And there's also the option to add a new section to the list if none of the 'philosophical jargon' really works for you. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, though it would preemptively solve a good deal of disputes if there was some general agreement on this (not saying that this vote would actually lead to such). The mission statement sort of hints at a version of the first option and possibly implies a particular meta-ethical view. Might be nice to get some clarity on that part. But feel free to add a "We don't need an official stance on this; let things resolve themselves on a case-by-case basis" section in the vote if that's how you feel. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and will not stop opinions for a second - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop opinions?! Where are people getting these ridiculous impressions from? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am profoundly annoyed by FCP's apparent empire-building and love of pointless bureaucratic fuckery. RW is not the place for an endless parade of petty votes about everything under the sun and their determination to make everything on the site as joyless and anodyne as possible. Stop this idiocy. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any of that is relevant to this forum...? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)