eg. racial identity politics divides people

in the same way that people were divided by 19th century raciology

which lead to arrogant conduct during war, such as in the russo japanese war

russia paid dearly for their naivete dealing with the japanese

and also it undermines the individual, which can be immoral

individuals are told to sacrifice for a 'greater good' which may lack justification or meaning to that individual

so those are immoralities of a sort, from a liberal lens

morals are relative, unless it's golden rule stuff

>morals are relative

they are

doesn't mean its wrong to have them tho

Well, I think you have to differentiate between morals and principles

And ethics

yes, morals are largely pathos

principles (should) be logical

ethics are just conduct i think

What of the ingrained nature of humans?

Is that 'pathos'?

yeah, pathos is emotional appeal

Yeah, okay, that makes sense i guess

But I wouldn't consider the golden rule to be pathos

cool

man

Except the golden rule isnt inherent in human nature

yeah but the golden rule usually applies in conduct when people are trying to get along

Right, it's come to logically as the best means forward for conflict resolution and avoidance

it transcends culture, people tend to comprehend it easily

Yes it's not hardwired either

doesn't often apply when it comes to hierarchy tho

So it would be more a principal than a pathos.

People understand it but dont follow it.

As not all cultures follow it.

a moral principle

i mean there's logical reasons to undermine the golden rule

depending on the objective

An *ethical principle* <:makes_you_think:382980749780844554>

sure

yeah, ethics morals and principles all blend together sometimes lol

or most times, i duno

Principles generally are derived from the other 2

An objective truth, that covers most people's subjective experiences

People generally build their principles from the logical extension of their own morals and ethics