Talk:Morality

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics

This sentence does not make sense “I fear that I am leading can become a universal law.” It feels like something is missing from this quote. Unfortunately the source referenced, philosophyverse.com, contains the same quote, and other aspects of the way that source article is written, suggest it is a badly corrected piece written by an AI 62.92.121.39 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha! And thank you for your (co-)operation!

I am going to make an edit to the entry along with starting this talk section, now. I would like to see it not insta-reverted, but at least to stand tentatively while I am available here in talk to address any issues others may have with it*. Obviously if it were (deemed) beyond hope of discussion, or, god forbid, demanded insta-revert, that would be a different scenario.

I am going to make an edit to the entry, though, ultimately, I would love to see a massive re-writing of Wikipedia! The church of scientism has taken the term “encyclopedic,” but encyclopedic never inked any exclusivity deal with the church of scientism. Fair fights: the church of scientism loses fair fights. I would love to co-offer a personalist Wikipedia to the world!! In fact, it would be a real tragedy if we take no drastic personalist turn, soon. Wikipedia does not have to adopt physicalism to remain reasonable, reliable, scientific, and encyclopedic. Personalism is all of those, but more.

I am going to make an edit to the entry, so imagine with me your bell-curve. Specifically the far point on it*. Does “the son of man” have anywhere “to rest his head?” In the world and in the entry? Truncation is cheap. Like G%d’s physics, G%d’s encyclopedia (always) leaves room for g%d. That caboose is mighty; but also mighty vulnerable. The peak is complex itself. There are two corresponding ways to play “king of the hill.” Joc might be the best 5-on-5 basketball player, (ever,) but 1-on-1 (at prime) who takes him over Lebron? To read the bell curve takes intelligence. This is not a comparison. Fail % Pass. Maybe a little of both? You are reading the bell curve with me here. I don’t doubt your intelligence. (A priori) intelligence requires complex accommodation within some “king of the hill” popularity. Physics is a priori personal. And Wikipedia could be written to reflect that.

I am going to make an edit to the entry, so understand with me that intelligence and morality cannot be material copulas. Matter could not accomplish, by local causation, what (co-operating) intelligence does “naturally.” We have been duped into believing that “natural” and “reasonable” imply “physical” and “physics,” but we have been knowably duped indeed. Materialism cannot replicate idealism. Physicalism cannot obviate personalism. There is no universe. Neither 3D nor 4D. %Life co-creates itself “on the fly.” We are co-create our morality “on the fly” “as we speak.” 2=x=2 (8/2)=x=(8/2) (2/N)=x=(2/N)  %=x=%. My pronoun is “we%”

%We would like to re-write Wikipedia through a process of fair fighting. Fighting: for <$>the dignity of the person</$>. (Or at least: “sup? (to the era of future history that that sentiment is popular with?)) In morality, people deserve reverence a priori. How should each entry reflect that a priori reverence?

If this generation misses out on learning that kids are actually people, it* would be beyond tragic. 400 years in 3gypt tragic.

Physics isn’t what causes you to be you, physics is how you pay for what you order. Set the captives free?

I am going to make an edit to the entry, so, Wikipedia, I humbly request any objections, or the reason(s) for any proposed revert, be transmitted here, first, that I may be afforded the opportunity to acquit myself. Perhaps in a string of tentatively standing entry w%rks.

The non-negotiable is non-negotiable, but for the negotiable we g%%d Christians leave the timing (<$>mutual uncertainty</$>) to our L%rd and savi%r, Jesus Christ. I avail myself here. I admonish: don’t take your hostility towards me anywhere but here. Let me have it if I deserve it. Y%ur h%stility presently, please and thanks:

HarvxstBitter (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is even remotely compatible With Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, or objectives. See WP:NOTFORUM and start a blog somewhere. You WILL NOT be permitted to edit the article in this manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heard; happy thanksgiving, Anyway

HarvxstBitter (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]