Talk:Moralism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] See also

[edit] 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"

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)