Ask Lemmy

That... seems complicated.

My ethics are pretty simple: Try not to be an ass to others and "Fuck off, asshole". I have so far not seen a need to go much beyond that.

I've cultivated an incredibly rich and complicated system of morals that takes into account-

Just kidding. I would sell my own parents into slavery for a semblance of a decent life. So far every "moral" choice I've ever made has turned out to be detrimental to me personally, so I'm really starting to doubt the whole "Live & let live" thing. "Live & exploit" seems to be the only realistically viable alternative.

All right, nerd. You want to learn something? I'll teach you something. I'm gonna teach you the meaning of life. How do you like them apples?

Now, over the last 2,500 years, Western philosophers have formed three main theories on how to live an ethical life.

Now, first off, there's virtue ethics. Aristotle believed that there were certain virtues of mind and character, like courage or generosity, and you should try to develop yourself in accordance with those virtues.

Next, there's consequentialism. The basis for judgment about whether something is right or wrong stems from the consequences of that action. How much utility, or good, did it accomplish versus how much pain, or bad.

And finally, there's deontology, the school of thought that there are strict rules and duties that everyone must adhere to in a functioning society. Being ethical is simply identifying and obeying those duties and following those rules.

But here's the thing, my little chili babies, all three of those theories are hot, stinky cat dookie. The true meaning of life, the actual ethical system that you should all follow is nihilism. The world is empty. There is no point to anything, and you're just gonna die.

Interesting question. Virtue Ethics for my personal scale and Enlightenment Liberalism for my large scale, but with a dash of Butlerism thrown in as well: The idea that metahuman entities like corporations are mankind's natural predators and any that act to harm humans must be opposed.

I think it's hypocritical for people to absolve themselves of responsibilities they believe they are owed from larger organisations such as corporations or governments.

If you think climate change is bad you should put as much effort into reducing your personal impact as you think corporations should. If you think the housing crisis is bad you shouldn't own investment properties. If you think political revolution is the only way to to bring about change you should be actively not following the law and revolting against your government. If you think Israel should be embargoed you should not be paying for any Israeli goods or services. I promise if you look through the list of isreali corporations or corporations that participate in their society, you will have a lot to change.

I feel a lot of people become aware of issues and care passionately about change being brought about but don't consider themselves responsible. If you're not interested in bettering yourself and changing your impact, I think less of you as a person.

I would primarily describe my view as Virtue ethics, but...

• I believe that cultivating virtues is necessary to be able to take responsibility for your choices etc: existentialism - and this is what I aim to do
• I definitely consider that prioritising the natural environment is essential - at the large and small scale
• In areas where I am aware that I am not sufficiently developed, I will adopt a deontological approach as a fallback
• I would certainly consider the promotion of equality and the development of local community as virtuous, although not to the exclusion of individual autonomy or rights - within that community or without.

On the larger scale, I seek to promote the development of individual virtues and equality within society but, acknowledging that this is always likely to be an aspiration rather than a achieved state then, again, I would look to a deontological approach as a fallback.

I am deeply suspicious of utilitarian arguments in most circumstances, simply through experience of those who tend to promote them. Both egoism and libertarianism seem short-sighted to me.

For me virtue ethics plays the biggest role at small personal level but care ethics is becoming more and more important to me as I age and value existing intimate connections more.

For large scale I've always been a strong contemporary utilitarian (one that includes invisible benefits in the calculations) and I really don't see that ever changing - I really do think there's the most optimal path forward for the society at all times and it can change on existing conditions.

You either continue positively to society or you get excluded from it. Scale does barely matter.