litphoria

I may agree with you, but I have no idea what you're wanting it changed to. There's probably a way to make anarchism less instantly confused with anarchy, yes. Realize though that 'anarch(y/ism/ist) is a very large group of, often conflicting things.

I don't quite see the issue, truth be told - aside from the fact that people keep on trying to forcefully use anarchy which is a way of governing a country to understand moral principles stemming from anarchism as a way of thinking. It is not like anarchy is based on "it would be fun to have no government" but oftentimes is based on assumption that said government is not what people of given are need, nor something that actually serves their best interest - and that any hierarchy, or inequality, is bad (this part is actually one of those that get defined differently whoever you ask).
If you want to get idea of anarchist as ethics, like used on the site, watch "V for Vendetta" - methods used by protagonist might not be thing to focus on, but the way he thinks is the defining factor.

I never got to see or comment on "Anarchist" when it was initially proposed. This might be an argument for requiring at least 150 points, if not +200 points for approval of an auto-suggestion. After all, a single person other than the suggester can get a suggestion "auto" approved and immediately get all their points back. And technically, a single person with two accounts can probably do it all by themselves, I assume.

I didn't make this suggestion, but I agree that the current definition of 'anarchist' is a head-scratcher at first. Then after finding the Ethics article on Wikipedia, I see where someone got all their suggestions and verbiage for the various categories of Ethics, but I would argue the source, Wikipedia is weakish at best, in that section of the Ethics page, and then what someone chose to condense from Wikipedia into the various descriptions are not always ideal. Given that Anarchy has both far-Left and Right-wing supporters, both Socialist/Marxist and Individualist/Free-Market Anarchism, and there's a Christian Anarchist tradition as well, its hard to narrow down any classification of Ethics as belonging to Anarchy as a whole.

Some modern anarchists have chosen to use the term "voluntaryist". Anarchist is too loaded of a term, from bomb-throwing, and thuggish street-violence, to voluntaryists who follow the non-aggression principle. I think voluntaryists are synonymous with extreme libertarians or completely-Stateless libertarians.

Wikipedia itself says this about Anarchy:

Anarchists may be motivated by humanism, divine authority, enlightened self-interest, veganism or any number of alternative ethical doctrines.

That pretty much connects Anarchy to all schools of ethics. Thus I see no definitive class of ethics to which you can ascribe to Anarchy. Even the non-aggression principle used by Voluntaryists and other shades of Libertarians is not shared by the Marxists who believe revolution is required and the state is necessary at first, withering away only "eventually."

Personally, I'd just throw out Anarchy. I don't even see the need for it.

I think you missed my point? The quote is meant to show that Anarchist origins and philosophies are diverse, and per the Wikipedia quote, draws in many ethics frameworks. Thus the current definition is perhaps correct or applicable for certain anarchists but not others. This particular definition seems to be tied to the Russian anarchist tradition? A simple definition of Anarchy only refers to the common goal, which would be a stateless or very free society. An individualist/free-market approach isn't going to focus on collectivist ethics, though the mutual-aid societies i.e., 'solidarity', would be one way any anarchist society might deal with the less-fortunate in society without resorting to a state apparatus. An individualist would certainly be for equality of opportunity, but would recoil from the modern equality-or-outcome politics. And being for 'justice'? That begs the question, since it is the ethical framework that determines what is just, moral, fair, good, or right. If performing your duty is the highest good, then that ethical system will always deem you just for performing your duty, even if it was in killing individuals that the state deemed worthy of death.

["equality-or-outcome" should be "equality-of-outcome"]

The OP is probably fatally flawed. It needs to make a concrete, actionable suggestion, be that a new definition (problematical for Anarchy), or a new name and definition (which can just be done through the regular suggestion system), or a recommendation of deletion, so that deletion can be discussed and endorsed.

So, general feeling is that ethics is not that useful as it is as a trait and I agree. I believe whatever we end up doing to ethicswill solve this with it, so I am tying the discussions together and closing this.