litphoria

I have moved this into 'in discussion' to let people properly evaluate and comment on this feedback. There was also discussions to rename it back to alignment (a la dungeons and dragons).

I get your idea and it might... hmm, might be useful to crack it that way, I suppose. Basically some categories would even stay with the same meaning, but have the name changed to something that is less scientific and more understandable, yes? I think we could, or maybe even should, dig into that direction. Of course this sort-of invalidates some of other feedbacks, but there was more nay's to general idea of having schools of thoughts/ethics than yes's, if I recall correctly.

Though I am not exactly sure if the change of the name for this trait serves anything but making it painfully obvious that we switch focus, because... well, we could have the same movement without it. But I suppose it is a good way to start, yes.

Are we over-thinking this? Perhaps we should dial it back: Simplify. Keep things brief. Avoid nuances, especially if they only serve to placate university majors. Avoid politically-serving pseudo-philosophical bias. Rely on the dictionary: Anarchy, for example, is not an ethical system, it is a political system.

Anarchy is, Anarchism is not. People keep making the mistake since Day 1 of 'anarchism' as a category, so no, it is not overthinking it to attempt to take the confusion possibly away.
We actually made a few traits recently that are very confusing, complicated or not quite intuitive. So recent discussions about stuff are attempts to simplify.

Looks like Loki was quoting me way up at the top there. I'm on board with this concept. The current Ethics categories are a little bit whacky. Anarchist is listed in wikipedia, but not elsewhere, and elsewhere really doesn't list more than three or four major categories before you get into sub-categories. Stoic is pretty obscure, and interesting once I started reading outside of Wikipedia, which is a joke on this subject. Religion is not listed per se on the internet. This is because there are "Virtue" theories, some of which rely on religious foundations, and there are Duty theories, one of which relies on Duty to God. So, is it better to not add in a separate Religion category, and just reference Virtue and Duty? Anyway, its all messy, and I'm not sure Ethics is a useful Trait if we try to stick to serious definitions that we all have to look up on the internet to get any good out of.

BTW, Hedonism is where the seeking of pleasure is the motivating force, and Egoism is where self-interest is the motivating force, and then Altruism is the opposite of Egoism, where the good of others is the motivating force, but that's meta-ethics, and I know that term and nothing else, at this point.

Okay. In its current form, I do not see ethics being a long-term viable trait for the site to have. Categories should be pretty obvious and readily apparent; basically none of the ones in ethics right now are, and the ones that seem to be are controversial. It will probably be easier to just remove ethics entirely and rethink this more atomically; instead of trying to have one trait that encompasses every possible philosophical outlook, we should have specific traits that people will actually use and search for (like the recently-added empathy).

Also, particularly now with alignment, just a rename to morality doesn't seem sufficient, as both handle morality.

This trait has been deleted. As such, any conversation on the subject is moot. Closing.