🧵 View Thread
🧵 Thread (7 tweets)
a case in ethics that I believe is at least tangentially related is the insistence that once a thing develops ethical valence it must be either good, if not obligatory; or bad, if not forbidden; but it generally may not shed the ethical valence that it has developed https://t.co/y28gcV82YG
this may be related to the preference cascade necessary for one notion of propriety to displace another hegel erred in his model of dialectic. in morality there is no synthesis; there is only the dominance of thesis or of antithesis in their extremes, unless both are forgotten
heres a freebie an implication is that one may often do well to reject both sides of a morally-charged argument X is good? X is bad? have you considered that actually X has no inherent moral valence whatsoever beyond that which you carelessly assign to it well. have you idiot
this isnt to say that morality or ethics are fake. i very much dont believe that. i am not beyond good and evil. what i am suggesting is that when a moral matter is *contested* the odds that the contested point is ill-formed are high and frequently both sides are not even wrong
ok ok heres my favorite case https://t.co/eZurXhbDM9