4 ms·
> For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to compromise th
by ianleeclark 6y ago
> For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to compromise their morality.
Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks. You could have both an individualist and a collectivist both be deontologists, utilitarians, or some other framework.
- javert 6y agoI would be willing to argue in favor of my definitions over yours, but I don't think it's germane to the point I was making. I could re-formulate my example using your terminology quite easily.
- Emma_Goldman 6y ago> 'Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks'. Of course they are. Nozick begins Anarchy, State and Utopia with the pronouncement that individual rights are absolute. Rawls begins A Theory of Justice by claiming that justice is the first virtue of social institutions. Their conflicting visions of political life are intimately related to the value the place, respectively, on the value of the individual and the value of the collective. The triumvirate deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics is a useful framework, especially pedagogically, as a parsimonious way of teaching ethics. But actual ways in which humans have thought about ethical and political life is far more complex, varied and interesting. If you tried to reduce Hegel, early Javanese culture, or third-wave feminism to 'deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics', you would get no where. The vast majority of people have not thought in those terms, and so are misunderstood when read through those terms.