5 ms·

You're simply using the wrong (though popular) word. The "un" in unethical" means "without," not "different."[1] This is basic English (and Old High German, and

You're simply using the wrong (though popular) word. The "un" in unethical" means "without," not "different."[1] This is basic English (and Old High German, and Manx, and...). However, if your goal is to disregard and negate the basic intelligence and/or humanity of another person or group, then it might be the right word, but this path leads to some very bad places. >Whether or not something is ethical You eating a hamburger when I think meat is murder doesn't mean you don't have any ethics. >There’s too much variation in the personal beliefs of the populace for there to be a frontier that neatly encompasses all the guiding principles for their personal actions and also stays within the bounds of what people consider acceptable behavior from others. You're describing morality, AKA a shared set of ethics, and people have been fighting to establish their preferred morality on other people (AKA "stop doing that thing I don't want you to do") for as long as people have had shared identities. Everybody who had participated in that history has acted according to a set of ethics, but the way you use the word, whether one of those people has any ethics depends on what side you're on. Not true. I know I'm pissing in the wind here, but it's simply the wrong word to use. 1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/un- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/un-

kd5bjo 6y ago
The “un-“ prefix in “unethical” means “violative of; contrary to”, and the word as a whole refers to something that is in violation of an ethical standard. It is generally used discursively, to refer to the speaker’s ethics rather than those of the actor performong the action being discussed.
- rhizome 6y ago
  I know how you're trying to use it, I brought up the etymology. Your usage isn't new, I'm just adding rigor. Even "violative of; contrary to" categorically negates the validity of the actor's reasoning. Taking the descriptive position is your option, but I hope we can agree that that would be "literally"-ing the word, given the science.
  - kd5bjo 6y ago
    I’m fundamentally a descriptivist when it comes to language: words mean what people use them to mean, not what they “should” mean based on etymological history. Negating the validity of the actor’s reasoning is generally what people who call things unethical intend to do, and I see no evidence that usage has changed significantly in recent years. As their intentions are clear, I see no benefit in claiming the concept is nonexistent. In fact, deigning to judge an act as either ethical or unethical is implicitly admitting that the actor has agency and therefore reasoning powers: someone’s reasoning cannot be invalid unless it exists.

kd5bjo 6y ago

The “un-“ prefix in “unethical” means “violative of; contrary to”, and the word as a whole refers to something that is in violation of an ethical standard. It is generally used discursively, to refer to the speaker’s ethics rather than those of the actor performong the action being discussed.

rhizome 6y ago
I know how you're trying to use it, I brought up the etymology. Your usage isn't new, I'm just adding rigor. Even "violative of; contrary to" categorically negates the validity of the actor's reasoning. Taking the descriptive position is your option, but I hope we can agree that that would be "literally"-ing the word, given the science.
- kd5bjo 6y ago
  I’m fundamentally a descriptivist when it comes to language: words mean what people use them to mean, not what they “should” mean based on etymological history. Negating the validity of the actor’s reasoning is generally what people who call things unethical intend to do, and I see no evidence that usage has changed significantly in recent years. As their intentions are clear, I see no benefit in claiming the concept is nonexistent. In fact, deigning to judge an act as either ethical or unethical is implicitly admitting that the actor has agency and therefore reasoning powers: someone’s reasoning cannot be invalid unless it exists.