Summary

Three great ethical traditions rebuilt without objectivity illusion. All assume moral truth grounded beyond agent (flourishing, duty, consequences)—assumption doesn’t survive subjective value framework. Consequentialism: Morality = outcomes. Problem: Better for whom? Classical util posits universal utility function (fiction). Refined: What outcomes do I value? Vantage-relative decision theory, not moral calculus. Consequentialist in subjectivist framework = agent modeling outcomes based on own preferences. Deontology: Morality = rules (Kant tried grounding in reason—fails). But reason doesn’t generate values. Refined: Voluntary codes—meaningful for agents who choose them. Code like martial art or professional oath. Aesthetic, not universal. Virtue ethics: Morality = character (cultivate courage, wisdom, temperance, justice). Most compatible with subjectivist framework—doesn’t pretend values float free from valuers. Asks what it means to flourish as you. Strip away Aristotelian teleology → personal moral development style, rooted in practice not principle. What survives: All three traditions, but stripped of illusions. (1) Consequentialism = agent-relative decision theory. (2) Deontology = voluntary codes/chosen constraints. (3) Virtue ethics = moral style. What dies: Fantasy that morality lives “out there,” written into universe fabric. Replaces it: Moral agency—every ethical system = LARP (some coherent, some confused, all constructed/chosen). You don’t need to pick one. You are source of your values. Rest is just code.

Tags

Cross-References

Notes

  • Major synthesis post
  • Reconstructs all three major ethical traditions within subjectivist framework
  • Explicit LARPitarianism reference
  • Shows flexibility/generosity of framework