Talk:Moralism

Untitled

I hold that the concept of "moralism" is clearly distinct from that of "morality". Morality, or ethics, is simply one's standards of right vs. wrong; good vs. evil. However, "moralism" is when one tries to impose or force their own "special" (arbitrary; extraordinary) ideas of morality on a community or society as a whole; prohibiting murder is one thing, almost unanimously agreed to by all---this is morality---prohibiting alcohol, drugs, sex, foul language, gambling, rock music, etc.---is MORALISM. Examples of moralists include: Islamist terrorists, Nazis/Fascists, Stalinist Communists, many/most Christian conservatives, and probably many/most of the so-called politically-correct "thought" police ("feminazis"). Shanoman 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Moralism is not a Nazi/Islamic terrorist belief. It is merely the belief that humans are governed by morals and beliefs which are instilled into a person. This results in Moralists only accepting what is true to themselves, that is only believing what is proven.

See also

• Arbitrariness
• Blue-laws
• Force-initiation
• Individual rights
• Personal freedom
• Prude
• Puritan
• Sex-negativity
• Spear-chucking culture & morality
• Taliban
• Taboos
• Victimless crime
• Victorian

Various problems

There are some serious problems with this article.

• It seems non-notable. I've found no sources that use the term in the way defined in the article.
• There are no sources cited anywhere on the page.
• It contains unencyclopedic language:
  • "Morality through knowledge. Knowledge through understanding. Understanding through devotion"
  • "We simply try to follow our morals, and if there is [...]"
• It contains substantial original research:
  • "It does not deny religion, and therefore if a religion in true, moralists (one would logically come to the assumption that) will get a greater afterlife than that of an atheist"
  • "Through [human learning and appreciation of science and culture], man can [...] appreciate the beauty of this world more"
• It contains factual inaccuracies:
  • "atheism is a direct attempt to disprove an ethereal creator"
  • Immoralism redirects to this page, yet it says absolutely nothing about it.

It sounds like the whole thing was copy & pasted from a website's FAQ page. Assuming its inclusion can be justified, it needs a complete rewrite. Ilkali (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything Ilkali says above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.196.165 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree.

A further inaccuracy:

• Immoralism is an ideology similar to hedonism and anarchism

Anarchism is simply a political philosophy. It doesn't have much to say about underlying morality. Merehap (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This entire article is an unsourced pile of non-notable garbage. Why hasn't this been deleted or redirected yet? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Moralism (religion)

Hello everyone. Since moralism was a redirect to morality anyhow, I used it for the religion which apparently goes by that name. I'm creating a disambiguation page as well to distinguish between the religion and the philosophy. The link for the philosophy of moralism will then be redirected to the Morality page. If this isn't the correct approach, we could always use Moralism as the disambiguation page instead. JBogdan (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert by Editor2020

I've contacted Editor2020 on his talk page. Here is what I wrote:

Hello Editor2020. Just to clarify, no, I didn't make this up one day. I reference a file I uploaded to Scribd, but that's because I can't find the original site that had it. (It actually came as several individual TIF files, not a combined PDF. I originally combined them into one document using Microsoft Office--and then exported it as a PDF--because someone on the Catholic Answers forum wanted to know what I was talking about and the forum wouldn't support multiple TIF file uploads.) I had saved the document several months ago but then got too busy to really look into it. I already posted questions about it on Answers.com, Yahoo Answers, Ask.com, and Catholic Answers to see if anyone could find more about it. I would have asked on more sites (such as the JREF forums), but Google indexed my question as a "see also" function on multiple pages and flooded the internet with duplicates of my question. (See the Catholic Answers thread for a discussion about this.)

It's certainly possible that Moralism could be a hoax that Eduardo Hernandez or someone else created; most religions are hoaxes anyhow. If you look at the text on my article, I ensure that I identify Moralism's doctrines as "claims," not facts. I've also created a section to refer to criticisms about it.

The only reason I bothered to create the article about Moralism was because it's one of the first religions I've seen which isn't (a) unethical, (b) lacking intelligence/commons sense, or (c) a moneymaking/power scheme. Even though I don't agree with everything that Moralism teaches, I must admit that overall it makes a good case and can make positive contributions to religious and ethical studies.

It looks like you're on Wikipedia almost every day, so I'm looking forward to receiving your response within the next couple days. I'll hold off from doing anything with the article until then. JBogdan (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBogdan (talk • contribs)

I talked with Editor2020 on his talk page. He's concerned about notability issues, so I'll do some more research over the next couple weeks and see if I find anything else. JBogdan (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I too am highly skeptical of the notability of this "religion". Which, please note, isn't to say anything about the merits of any of the ideas presented in it, but just whether it is something well-known enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia. It also doesn't matter that it's not something you made, but rather something you found. Random people self-publish interesting ideas on the internet all the time; it's not until a notable secondary source (like a journal, magazine, or newspaper) notices them and talks about them that they become notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia like this. We are here to summarize the material which notable sources are talking about, not to talk about (or publish) such material ourselves, no matter how unique or interesting it may be. (For an example: if someone discovered a new star, completely verifiable by other astronomers, and they talked about it on their blog, and you read that and verified it for yourself, it would still not be appropriate to publish on wikipedia, until an astronomy journal or something announced "such-and-such discovers new star" -- and then we could cover that here). --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

PamD said that a disambiguation page is not supposed to be used if there are only two articles. I gave the following response:

Hello PamD. I had created the disambiguation page as an interim measure while editors were deciding whether to have Moralism (the religion) or a disambiguation page be the landing spot for "moralism," but I see the point you're making. In that case, (once I get everything clarified with Editor2020) we'll have Moralism (the religion) as the landing spot for "moralism" and then have an "other meaning" link at the top of the page for the philosophy of moralism (which redirects to "Morality"). JBogdan (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, I did not say that "a disambiguation page is not supposed to be used if there are only two articles". I first unpiped the two links on the dab page, as per WP:MOSDAB. I then realised that both entries pointed to the same one article, one directly and one via a redirect. There was therefore no purpose in having a disambiguation page.

A dab page can quite legimately exist where there are ony two articles to point to for a term, if neither of them is the primary usage. If one of the articles is the primary usage (ie doesn't have a disambiguator in brackets), then there should not be a dab page and the second article should be reached via a hatnote at the article to which the base name leads (which may be an article at that title, or may be an article at another title, via a redirect: the fact that the article is the primary usage of the term XYZ does not require that XYZ is the title of the article).

Please be more careful not to misrepresent what other editors have said. Thanks. PamD 08:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To be exact, I nominated the dab page for speedy deletion as G6 "disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); ". PamD 09:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry PamD, we were discussing two different scenarios. I was discussing that there were two separate articles, the scenario you found was after Editor2020 made "moralism" a redirect to Morality again. But either way, we don't need the disambiguation page. JBogdan (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

But in any case, I didn't say what you said I said! Please be more careful in future. Glad you agree we didn't need the dab page, which I see has now been zapped. PamD 22:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)