markhank

I don’t agree with “wholesomeness” as a moral guide but I did at least understand it if you were defining it as conformity with the existing system.

If I’ve understood you correctly now the maxim is “act wholesomely (conforming with prevailing rules and expectations) unless that wouldn’t in fact be wholesome (which in this context is defined differently, as meaning ‘having consideration for what is good for the whole’).”

(Or to use your architectural analogy, build your building in line with the others unless there’s a good reason not to)

That’s fine, as far as it goes, although we are asking “wholesome” to do a lot of work there with two meanings and ultimately it... (read more)

The central problem with the ethical system that you have outlined here is that it does not allow for challenge to the prevailing cultural norms.

Acting wholesomely means paying attention to the whole system around us, and contributing well as a part of that whole without introducing unnecessary friction or pain points

is fine in a system which is working well, but entirely inappropriate in a system which needs radical reform, which your ethical framework does not allow for.

Allow me to adopt some of your examples to demonstrate when "unwholesome" activity is, I would argue, morally appropriate or indeed praiseworthy.

You write that

Skirting the law for convenience

and

Disregarding rules for personal benefit

are both unwholesome and therefore not... (read more)