Elias's Ideas

Пікірлер

@Chidds 8 күн бұрын

I watched the video to which you are responding. My issue with the use of objective concerns moral values, because I see no evidence of such values (unlike moral principles) to be objective. I find the objection you make to be weak. The reason is that depending on what is framed as the object vs the subject can change whether something is objective or subjective. For example, human morality is subjective to the category of human, but when focusing on a particular person who is objectively human their humanity is objective to them, just as it is to all people.

@jamta69 13 күн бұрын

But both definition are based on 2 fields,one is biological and other is philosophical. In anthropology, morality is viewed as one of the key factor for evolution of social animal, seen in humans ,orcs, dolphins,chimps,most monkeys etc. Which is objective. But for humans ,philosophy of morality is more advanced and is more subjective.eg most religions have different moral standards -most approve of most heinous and deplorable things as normal thing.also for tribes which also have individual sense of morality.

@eliassideas 13 күн бұрын

@@jamta69 the first definition you described, the anthropological one, is not really a definition of objective morality, but rather a descriptive morality of what humans tend to value and do. But just because humans do in fact value X and Y, does not mean that it is objectively good to value X and Y.

@jamta69 10 күн бұрын

@@eliassideas its not a descriptive morality. its objective because it brought forth humans social behavior which helped us in the long run as human. Not just humans but u can see morality in most social animals. which means its not just us humans that value morality other animals do too which makes it objective morality . but that doesn't mean no descriptive morality at all for humans. Morality arising from cultural and religious background is descriptive and localized ie eating the remain ppls ancestors is seen as a sign of respect for some while other disgust it. others thinks animals are divine and forget to protect their own kind. When i say objective morality in other animals.its about commonly existing ideas like sharing,harming and caring etc

@Youttubeuser20932 13 күн бұрын

You should read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape".

@eliassideas 13 күн бұрын

I am aware of Harris's argument for objective morality. Unfortunately he clearly doesn't want to engage with the is-ought gap,, and he "smuggles in" his presumptions into his idea of objectivity.

@Youttubeuser20932 12 күн бұрын

@@eliassideas the gap is covered by the requirement for consciousness. Unless one isn’t using the terms good and bad the way pretty much everyone else uses them, they are tied to well-being and suffering. And those are objectively measurable.

@eliassideas 12 күн бұрын

@@Youttubeuser20932 The "Good" is that which ought to happen. The "Bad" is that which ought not to happen. If your morality is going to be truly objective, you have to provide a reason as to why well-being is that which ought to happen, whereas suffering is that which ought not to happen.

@Youttubeuser20932 12 күн бұрын

@@eliassideas "Should" is based no what is best given a goal. Every goal we have is based on well-being vs suffering. As long as conscious beings can experience well-being and suffering, the better option, is the one that should be taken, and better is determined by well-being and suffering as well. If there were no experience of those things, nothing would be good or bad or better or worse. It's not that anything ought to be done, based on some principle of the universe that exists independent of conscious experience. Should/ought/well-being/suffering/good/bad are all concepts that exist within consciousness, and only make sense in that context, anyway.

@eliassideas 12 күн бұрын

@@Youttubeuser20932 According to this line of reasoning, if something promotes well-being, then it should be completely nonsensical to ask whether it "really is objectively good" or not, and yet it isn't. This is called "The Open Question Argument", formulated by G.E. Moore. It goes something like this: P1: If X is good by definition, then the question "Is it true that X is objectively good?" is nonsensical. P2: The question "Is it true that X is objectively good?" is not nonsensical, so, following the logical conclusion: X is not good by definition. This doesn't mean that nothing could be proven to be good or bad, it's just that you cannot equate a non-moral property, like well-being, to moral goodness in a definitional sense. Thanks for the responses btw!

@user-vm2ki9lv1s 13 күн бұрын

Greatest philosophical smakedown of our time

@WackyConundrum 29 күн бұрын

In one of the previous videos you argued that the world exists because it ought to exist. Here, you claim that good/bad is based on desires and hence it's always subjective. It seems you either disassociate good from ought or you would have to say that the world ought to exist even though it's not your that the world exists / ought to exist. If it's the former, it's difficult to comprehend a notion of "ought" that is completely unconnected to "good". If it's the second, similarly, why would we ever say that the world ought to exist when it's not this for it to exist? It's a conceptual mess. Finally, you can make an analogous reasoning for "ought" as you did here for "good". Then, there would be no way you could say that the world ought to exist, because all ought and all value is subjective (and exists only within the world, after much time has passed).

@eliassideas 29 күн бұрын

@@WackyConundrum I am exploring different philosophical positions, and I think I am becoming less convinced by the position that I defended in my previous video. My ideas evolve with time. That being said, I do think that the main arguments from that video can be compatible with the views in this one, if one posits that the world is created by either a subject or some kind of necessary mechanism that 'prefers' certain things over others. Not saying that this is my view but it is conceivable.

@WackyConundrum 28 күн бұрын

@@eliassideas Sure these weird things are conceivable. There's just no reason to believe any such things exist in this world or "outside of" it. So the argument doesn't work.

@eliassideas 28 күн бұрын

There are certainly some reasons to believe the world is created but they are besides the point of this video. It could just be that I no longer hold the conclusion of my previous video as true. Back then I was strongly in favor of objective morality, and now I seem to find it conceptually meaningless.

@WackyConundrum 27 күн бұрын

@@eliassideas That's interesting. So, you've made a 180 change in a couple of weeks!

@eliassideas 27 күн бұрын

@@WackyConundrum I am currently in the phase of exploring different ideas, so yeah I don't hold any beliefs too strongly. Also, it's been a few months that I have been contemplating the issue, and if you see even some earlier videos I have been voicing similar concerns.

@WackyConundrum 29 күн бұрын

Your analysis is not general enough. For example, the divine command theory says that whatever god decides is what is good. The prime example is the literal genocide of some tribes, including Canaanites, by the Israelites. According to this theory, it was good. And it is good irrespective of the desires of the one making this claim (a particular philosopher or theologian).

@eliassideas 29 күн бұрын

@@WackyConundrum Thanks for the comment! The video does not suggest that every ethical theory is based on desire. The video suggests that in reality moral claims only make sense if they are based on desired outcomes. In other words, I am claiming that "objective" or "stance-independent" moral theories such as the divine command theory, are inherently incoherent, because there can be no intelligible sense of the word "wrong" without reference to the desires of subjects. In order to be coherent, they would need a premise like "it is desirable to be in union with god", otherwise I would have no reason to believe that union with god is better than separation from him.

@WackyConundrum 28 күн бұрын

@@eliassideas But you don't even need to desire to be in union with god to _understand_ what it means that god decides what is good and bad by his authority/decree. I think it is coherent (that is, I can understand it and don't see major contradictions).

@danielg6057 28 күн бұрын

I think the argument in this video doesn’t get to the backbone of moral claims, rather mixes the positions of moral cause and consequence. It’s mistaking the inherent cause of our actions for our subjective reactions toward such outcomes. An action is not morally good or right simply because I desire its outcome, rather I desire an action because it is morally good. The expressing of desire or lack thereof does not define our moral actions. For example, you don’t give money to a homeless person because you desire to aid those in need, you gift them the money because the action itself must first be good in order for you to desire it. You cannot say that you desire to give help to those who need it without first explaining WHY you desire to give help to those who need it-because it is morally good. The desire is not the cause of one’s moral observance, but one’s attitude toward the morally good or bad, and our attitudes hold no basis for our behavior. They are simply reactions or byproducts of what is already understood to be good or evil. Additionally, if we take desire to be the basis of moral action and therefore strictly subjective, is this not a variation of some egoism-would not the self then be the true basis for our moral behavior? Acting on “I” desire or don’t desire instead of judging our actions based on some inherent quality of good or bad in our actions? This seems problematic to me.

@danielg6057 28 күн бұрын

I also don’t think that we should use the Divine Command Theory to critique this claim. This theory itself has its own issues: like it doesn’t make sense that what is right is whatever God commands. The claim, “Whatever God commands is morally good,” would be the equivalent of “Whatever God commands is whatever God commands”- that’s just an empty statement. This is the same question Plato explores in his Euthyphro. I truly think the idea of desire being a necessary part of our morality is very interesting, but the idea just doesn’t work for me. Maybe instead our desires can work in some other way with our moral lives.

@eliassideas 28 күн бұрын

Very good observation! I think partly my point and my response to this is a linguistic one. What do you mean when you say, "I do X because it is morally good"? Morally good is just "that which should happen". But then we run into a problem: "Why is it that X should happen". Then you have to give some sort of reason, and reasons are always structured with a certain desired outcome or goal. Thus where desire comes in. To merely say that "I do philanthropy because it is good", would be to say, "I do philanthropy because should happen". So it does not give a definitive reason for action, unless you give a reason as to why it is morally good in the first place, and you do that by extrapolating from your desired outcomes as a subject.

@liminalzone909 Ай бұрын

Have you ever looked at Dharmakirti's Apoha theory of nominalism?

@magicastridjane Ай бұрын

The mental and explanatory gymnastics of natalists is both astounding and painful to listen to. I came to antinatalism for a completely different reason than it seems most do and that is that our consciousness is eternal and it is this REALM that is the problem. It is a place where evil prevails and suffering is unavoidable for EVERYONE. There are many out of body explorers that report there are much nicer places we can exist than here.

@lucasawill Ай бұрын

One of the greatest philosophical books.

@utopianbuddha6346 2 ай бұрын

the problem is that sometimes there is no clear distinction between democratic and nondemocratic. Many systems have both qualities. i have channel

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

@@utopianbuddha6346 I think if the members of a society are allowed to vote for political repressentation, then we have a democratic system. I would love to hear why you think that the distinction can become unclear. Also, you have an interesting channel, and if you want we can have a public discussion!

@utopianbuddha6346 2 ай бұрын

@@eliassideas i am open to a public discussion (never debate....true wisdom is a negotiation of perspectives), you would have to tell me what topic you have in mind and how to set it up (i am terrible with technology). The following article is from wikipedia. Illiberal democracy edit Main article: Illiberal democracy When elected officials are no longer held to constitutional principles due to the deterioration of power held by the judiciary, the nation becomes an illiberal democracy. in which the rule of law is damaged or flawed, and the constitutional norms have little or no binding impact on elected officials and their actions. Individual civil rights are either partially nullified or not established. Illiberal democracy is the most common form of defective democracy. In 2017, Venezuela held a controversial election for state governors. Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro and his United Socialist Party swept the election, winning 17 of 23 states and 54% of the popular vote, despite Maduro's approval rating fluctuating between 17% and 22%. Ruling party members used state resources to help their campaigns, giving them an advantage over their rivals. The use of state funds for campaigns is illegal under normal circumstances but the Venezuelan court system had deteriorated to the point at which it only acted to serve the ruling party instead of serving true justice. This and other factors makes Venezuela a defective democracy.[7]

@user-vm2ki9lv1s 2 ай бұрын

Elias Political Philosophy Arc

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

😂😂

@blue-pi2kt 2 ай бұрын

Amazing video on honestly one of his weakest positions. I just think on some level it's a health scientist who's so used to appeals to nature as evidence ie this technique delivers X, as muscle got bigger more, therefore optimal. That for Mike, the idea of ignoring your very nature ie breeding is so foreign its almost a fallacy by definition. At the end of the day, we have some very solid answers beyond simply nihilism and i think the fact it's not driven by data or an 'objective' naturalistic logic its just not accessible to his analysis.

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

Those were some of my first thoughts as well. Which is why I clarified that Dr. Mike's view is very pragmatic and perhaps useful but still not properly justified.

@billowen3285 2 ай бұрын

I don’t think Mike is trying to answer ‘Why is life better than death’. He’s saying that ‘People think life is better than death, so this is what I think we should do about that’ Note that I haven’t watched his video or finished yours though haha

@mohammada6197 2 ай бұрын

🍉🍉🙈🙉🙊 🍉🍉

@anonimen31 2 ай бұрын

Debate bros when someone says life is good we should be alive. (Jokes aside I did enjoy this vid and like your thought process. Take a shot everytime you say postulate)

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

For real😂. Glad you liked the video.

@benjamincox6723 2 ай бұрын

Nice vid bro keep it up x

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

Thanks!

@Pantheist2602 2 ай бұрын

Omg, dude is cooler than expected 😮

@user-vm2ki9lv1s 2 ай бұрын

I am very curious, and I know this is only slightly related but do you also reject mathematical platonism? or I guess mathematical 'realism'?

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

@@user-vm2ki9lv1s As of right now yes.

@jockt967 2 ай бұрын

Thank you for the essay but I do have questions: Your example of the apple is dealing with a color quality. But then in your argument listing you state “stuff happens”. “Stuff happening” deals with to act and to be acted upon. Are those mind-dependent the same as your example of color grouping? If to act and to be acted upon is not mind dependent - say for example to burn and to be burned, then what is the grounds of similarity in different things burning and being burnt? It has to be a form of some kind that is common to diverse things. This doesn’t include the observation that some things burn better than others - as in fulfill the essence of the activity of burning; gasoline burns better than stone. As Aristotle states fulfillment of the activity is virtue. Even the color example is faulty as what is named red is more than a concept in the mind - red is a frequency of 430 terahertz. Red is an activity of a particular arrangement aka form. (One can quibble if such a form is a taxis, schema, morphe, eidos, idea, or paradigma but that’s outside this comment discussion) While I am being critical I am grateful for you to be posting such essays on KZbin - keep up the great work, just reconsider your nominalist position! 😂

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

@@jockt967 Thank you for your comment! However, I am not sure what you mean exactly when you say "what is the grounds of similarity in different things burning". Burning is a physical phenomenon i.e. something that happens when matter is arranged in a certain way. This arrangement can happen in many different places, and so that's why you have many things that burn. So, why would we need to appeal to some essence or universal here? Things happen, and sometimes they happen in similar ways. If there is some epistemic fact that this description does not account for, please let me know. Again, thanks!!

@jockt967 2 ай бұрын

@@eliassideas But the arrangement for a thing to burn is a figure in time and not space alone. What grounds the necessary connection of figures in time - as is the case with all activity. Sensation alone cannot do it as Hume points out. For physical phenomena to occur a thing must change from potency to actual. As in the paper which could burn now burns. What is the connection between actuality and potency - the actuality is indeed what one observes but where is the potency observable?

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

@@jockt967 "What grounds the necessary connection of figures in time"? Honestly I do not understand what you mean by this sentence. Maybe because I am not trained in this terminology. If you could put your objection in simpler terms it would be great. "For physical phenomena to occur a thing must go from potency to actual" -- sure, but how is that related to universals?

@jockt967 2 ай бұрын

@@eliassideas the movement from potency to actuality is directed by the nature of a particular. Nature is a universal.

@ethanjkemp 2 ай бұрын

Small note: Your first example, with James, is not a logical contradiction. At least not as you have written it. There is nothing *logically* contradictory unless you prove a premise & its negation. So you’d need to have premises like “James was in my country” and “James was NOT in my country”.

@zestinii 2 ай бұрын

are you slovenian?

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

@@zestinii Greek

@chilledoutorange4269 2 ай бұрын

You earned a sub! I'm always on the lookout for content of this type. Keep going!

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

Thanks, will do!

@servant_of_light 2 ай бұрын

We do this all the time in Irseal

@ReneGallisky 2 ай бұрын

I think the second example about negative utility is debate about what is suffering. If existence always creates suffering, then NU would indicate that mass death. I think that because all utility arguments are moralities for populations and given that the reasonable person prefers to take the bumps of suffering of existence than the dice roll of death of humanity, utility seems like a useless moral tool. However if you presume the definition of suffering requires the person to be alive, then this example is useless because it changes the rule it’s examining.

@pepijngermans6265 2 ай бұрын

This reminds me of camus's philosophy about people avoiding the absurd. He's worth cheking out if you're interested.

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

Absolutely!

@computer1-hc1qn 2 ай бұрын

I totally disagree with the points you make in this video, sorry.

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

@@computer1-hc1qn What point do you disagree with exactly? I would love to hear your criticism.

@computer1-hc1qn 2 ай бұрын

@@eliassideas its just totally absurd.

@faidonc 2 ай бұрын

@@computer1-hc1qn 4:20

@rTodd-g8e 2 ай бұрын

Clever! well done good points

@eliassideas 2 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

@unwono 3 ай бұрын

Great video. I haven't really thought about this argument in this manner and I've probably used it "wrongly" before. Oh and btw your thumbnail looks sick. Maybe drop the bottom text next time though, kinda hard to read. Anyway, subbed.

@eliassideas 3 ай бұрын

@@unwono That's awsome man! Thanks for the comment👍

@jamesmoore4827 3 ай бұрын

Antinatalism is STUPID! The universe produces lifeforms NOT "people". People are a part of the universe and not separate from it. If the universe dictates that sentient beings exist guess what? People will (and do) exist. And If the universe didn't dictate that sentient beings exist then guess what? People wouldn't exist. In other words, its not up to us. Infant there are no "you", "me" or "they" as such that exists separate from or outside of the universe itself that could effect it one way or the other. In other words, its not up to us either which way. And yes, free will is illusory. "I" have no more choice in writing this then "you" have a choice in reading this right now.

@GA_Sola 3 ай бұрын

Enjoyed the conversation greatly man... there'll likely be more in the future, thanks for having me on ✌🏿

@nektariosbreyannis576 3 ай бұрын

It's better i think to describe it with the terms "intrinsic" and "instrumemtal" value. But there is no intrinsic value, it seems!

@vijrumbhanam9200 3 ай бұрын

2:29 - The violation of consent starts existing once a new person is born.

@Leo9nine 3 ай бұрын

I expected a discussion on metaethics and received a discussion a lot on the cosmological argument. I am certainly not disappointed!

@Kron-j3k 3 ай бұрын

Life is chaotic. Having children is neither bad nor good. But life is still unfair and harsh for everyone. This is not filosophy. It's reality. You can't hide this. This video is not debunking anything.

@destronia123 3 ай бұрын

Morality is a subjective opinion, and it would be immoral to impose one's subjective opinion on anyone else. ;)

@eliassideas 3 ай бұрын

Wait a sec, if you think that morality is subjective, then the moral claim that "it would be immoral to impose one's subjective opinion on anyone else" is also subjective. So why should i follow it?

@destronia123 3 ай бұрын

@eliassideas It up to you to accept it or not. But, it's up to me to accept your morality, unless you somehow persuade me or force me, but that would be immoral. ;)

@eliassideas 3 ай бұрын

@@destronia123 Why would it be immoral to force you? You said that morality is just a subjective opinion. So if forcing you to do what I want is good according to my subjective opinion, then on what grounds do you claim that it is immoral? Don't you see that your argument defeats itself?

@destronia123 3 ай бұрын

@eliassideas That's my morality. That's why morality is subjective. We may agree on a lot of moral points, but we're just matching up our subjective opinions. On a societal level, we pressure conformity to moral constructs by consequences such as shaming, shunning, violence, etc.

@CriticalThomist 4 ай бұрын

I would love to talk to you more about aristotelianism and his ethical framework, I’m still learning his philosophical framework since I’m more of a theologian myself, do you have discord perhaps? And this is a great video

@eliassideas 4 ай бұрын

Absolutely, I would love to talk. Contact me in my Instagram or my email and we'll figure it out. Both are in the description of my channel.

@kaminskiexist 4 ай бұрын

Upon perceiving, I am able to be satisfied with the validity of most theories provided explanation. However, I tend to not know where to place the boundary on my range of thought. Shall I limit to the existential realm? Is philosophy limited to existence, or is the questioning of such concept part of philosophy itself? Especially the ambiguity of the definitions of concepts like "goodness", "morality", or "benefit" force me to question the entirety of any argument itself. I feel as if I cannot truly grasp anything because of my inclination to interrogate every part of an explanation. Although this is vaguely related to the video, I would enjoy to hear others thoughts on my situation.

@nataliewilson7855 4 ай бұрын

Enjoyed this video, thanks for the food for thought.

@kaminskiexist 4 ай бұрын

Your way of explaining is very captivating

@eliassideas 4 ай бұрын

Thank you so much, I appreciate it!

@Nyland2.0 4 ай бұрын

Thanks❤

@Stacee-jx1yz 4 ай бұрын

Ethical theories have long grappled with tensions between deontological frameworks focused on inviolable rules/duties and consequentialist frameworks emphasizing maximizing good outcomes. This dichotomy is increasingly strained in navigating complex real-world ethical dilemmas. The both/and logic of the monadological framework offers a way to transcend this binary in a more nuanced and context-sensitive ethical model. Deontology vs. Consequentialism Classical ethical theories tend to bifurcate into two opposed camps - deontological theories derived from rationally legislated moral rules, duties and inviolable constraints (e.g. Kantian ethics, divine command theory) and consequentialist theories based solely on maximizing beneficial outcomes (e.g. utilitarianism, ethical egoism). While each perspective has merits, taken in absolute isolation they face insurmountable paradoxes. Deontological injunctions can demand egregiously suboptimal outcomes. Consequentialist calculations can justify heinous acts given particular circumstances. Binary adherence to either pole alone is intuitively and practically unsatisfying. The both/and logic, however, allows formulating integrated ethical frameworks that cohere and synthesize deontological and consequentialist virtues using its multivalent structure: Truth(inviolable moral duty) = 0.7 Truth(maximizing good consequences) = 0.6 ○(duty, consequences) = 0.5 Here an ethical act is modeled as partially satisfying both rule-based deontological constraints and outcome-based consequentialist aims with a moderate degree of overall coherence between them. The synthesis operator ⊕ allows formulating higher-order syncretic ethical principles conjoining these poles: core moral duties ⊕ nobility of intended consequences = ethical action This models ethical acts as creative synergies between respecting rationally grounded duties and promoting beneficent utility, not merely either/or. The holistic contradiction principle further yields nuanced guidance on how to intelligently adjudicate conflicts between duties and consequences: inviolable duty ⇒ implicit consequential contradictions requiring revision pure consequentialism ⇒ realization of substantive moral constraints So pure deontology implicates consequentialist contradictions that may demand flexible re-interpretation. And pure consequentialism also implicates the reality of inviolable moral side-constraints on what can count as good outcomes. Virtue Ethics and Agent-Based Frameworks Another polarity in ethical theory is between impartial, codified systems of rules/utilities and more context-sensitive ethics grounded in virtues, character and the narrative identities of moral agents. Both/and logic allows an elegant bridging. We could model an ethical decision with: Truth(universal impartial duties) = 0.5 Truth(contextualized virtuous intention) = 0.6 ○(impartial rules, contextualized virtues) = 0.7 This captures the reality that impartial moral laws and agent-based virtuous phronesis are interwoven in the most coherent ethical actions, neither pole is fully separable. The synthesis operation clarifies this relationship: universal ethical principles ⊕ situated wise judgment = virtuous act Allowing that impartial codified duties and situationally appropriate virtuous discernment are indeed two indissociable aspectsof the same integrated ethical reality, coconstituted in virtuous actions. Furthermore, the holistic contradiction principle allows formally registering howvirtuous ethical character always already implicates commitments to overarching moral norms, and vice versa: virtuous ethical exemplar ⇒ implicit universal moral grounds impartially legislated ethical norms ⇒ demand for contextual phronesis So virtue already depends on grounding impartial principles, and impartial principles require contextual discernment to be realized - a reciprocal integration. From this both/and logic perspective, the most coherent ethics embraces and creative synergy between universal moral laws and situated virtuous judgment, rather than fruitlessly pitting them against each other. It's about artfully realizing the complementary unity between codified duty and concrete ethical discernment approprate to the dynamic circumstances of lived ethical life. Ethical Particularism and Graded Properties The both/and logic further allows modeling more fine-grained context-sensitive conceptualizations of ethical properties like goodness or rightness as intrinsically graded rather than binary all-or-nothing properties. We could have an analysis like: Truth(action is fully right/good) = 0.2 Truth(action is partially right/good) = 0.7 ○(fully good, partially good) = 0.8 This captures a particularist moral realism where ethical evaluations are multivalent - most real ethical acts exhibit moderate degrees of goodness/rightness relative to the specifics of the context, rather than being definitively absolutely good/right or not at all. The synthesis operator allows representing how overall evaluations of an act arise through integrating its diverse context-specific ethical properties: act's virtuous intentions ⊕ its unintended harms = overall moral status Providing a synthetic whole capturing the multifaceted, both positive and negative, complementary aspects that must be grasped together to discern the full ethical character of a real-world act or decision. Furthermore, the holistic contradiction principle models how ethical absolutist binary judgments already implicate graded particularist realities, and vice versa: absolutist judgment fully right/wrong ⇒ multiplicity of relevant graded considerations particularist ethical evaluation ⇒ underlying rationally grounded binaries Showing how absolutist binary and particularist graded perspectives are inherently coconstituted - with neither pole capable of absolutely eliminating or subsuming the other within a reductive ethical framework. In summary, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide powerful tools for developing a more nuanced, integrated and holistically adequate ethical model by: 1) Synthesizing deontological and consequentialist moral theories 2) Bridging impartial codified duties and context-sensitive virtues 3) Enabling particularist graded evaluations of ethical properties 4) Formalizing coconstitutive relationships between ostensible poles Rather than forcing ethical reasoning into bifurcating absolutist/relativist camps, both/and logic allows developing a coherent pluralistic model that artfully negotiates and synthesizes the complementary demands and insights from across the ethical landscape. Its ability to rationally register both universal moral laws and concrete contextual solicitations in adjudicating real-world ethical dilemmas is its key strength. By reflecting the intrinsically pluralistic and graded nature of ethical reality directly into its symbolic operations, the monadological framework catalyzes an expansive new paradigm for developing dynamically adequate ethical theories befitting the nuances and complexities of lived moral experience. An ethical holism replacing modernity's binary incoherencies with a wisely integrated ethical pragmatism for the 21st century.