Understanding the Differences Between Morality and Ethics

Morality ≠ Ethics

Morality is something personal, derived from emotional/faith-based assertions, with only basis for affecting that personal life. (Ex: “I will not lie about who I am!”)

Ethics are something that are more structurally-revolved, derived from logical/science-based assertions, with basis for realistically affecting grand numbers of people and/or things. (Ex: “We should shift society toward a more democratic approach.”)

There is also a somewhat structural kind of morality, which is basically indoctrination towards specific opinions. (Ex: Religions.)

These distinctions are extremely vital to understand common, Egoist beliefs, as Egoism is a complex subject when placed in accordance with other ideologies.

Pure Egoists will most often create the assertion that the only ethics that are valuable are "spooks" being removed, and that no structural morality should be allowed at all. But plain morality is your ego, and as long as it stays as such, it is fine.

Leftist Egoism confuses a lot of people, since Pure Egoism has no inherent structure past what egos will support. However, regardless, Leftism supports regulations. These can be seen as rules by some, which is a very "dirty" topic. (Not often had in good faith.)

But, really, Leftist Egoism will usually support these other ethics of Leftism, since they are "also spooks inhibiting the individual".

One thing often talked about in terms of left v.s. right is the concept of market competition. To Egoists, this seems to extend to personal competition as well. This makes sense as, the further Libertarian a political system gets, the more focus on individuals it seems to have. This means Leftist Egoism will usually have focus on less personal competition, as well as less market competition. Some folks have been known to supposedly "support less personal competition but not necessarily less market competition". This could be a support for Ego-mutualism, or just a conflation of Pure Egoism being somehow leftist if a sole individual desires it, which is untrue.

Right-wing Egoism, at a glance, seems absolutely not different from Pure Egoism. It would theoretically inherent more widespread greed than Pure Egoism, but Pure Egoism, alone, is already commonly said to be very selfish in ways of enacting personal desires. Even citing ideas of "Moral Nihilism", there does not seem to be a difference. Before rereading material on Avaritionism (the furthest right Egoism) and taking a less stigmatic/assumptive direction, I had just assumed the ideas were illogical ramblings. However, it does seem there are two primary focuses had in Right Egoism. The first is supporting more market competition and supporting more personal competition. I truthfully still do not see a difference between supporting more personal competition with Avaritionism (Ego-darwinism), and plain Social Darwinism, but that is likely my own biases. The second focus mentioned is a total lack of empathy (for Avaritionism specifically), however, this seems as if it could be a misrepresentation. For the most radical Left Egoism, Soulism, there is not a direct claim of necessitating the largest amounts of empathy possible, which would theoretically be the inverted belief. Despite this, it is widely observed that people with less empathy and more selfishness tend towards the right, and people with more empathy and less selfishness tend towards the left, in Egoism. It is even said that narcissistic (especially golden children), sociopathic, or psychopathic people are very common in Avaritionism, whilst borderline or avoidant people have so far seemed more common in Soulism.

It is also worth mentioning that Pure Egoism could be seen from Stirner and not modern adaptations, in which case, would lean slightly Leftist, people say, as Stirner was Anti-capitalist to some extent, and saw it as suppressing the ego.

Finally, I will properly mention Soulism.

Soulism is a maximally-structural ideology in regards to economics. This is no issue, as discussed, until I mention that Soulism is a Collectivist ideology.

Collectivism is often seen as an inherent contraindiction to Egoism, as one is about kind of Ochlocratic stuff, most usually, and the other is about the individual persevering over all other governance (Individualism).

However, Soulism sees itself as only logical and not at all powered by morality.

By this, the governing factor becomes simply acknowledging the reality we are stuck in; same as science.

The Collectivist aspects are just as maximized as the Individualist aspects, since there is the divide of ethics and morality. Ethics are to support a whole collective and morals are to support the individuals of that collective. This support for individuals also manifests as maximal spirituality, which is seen as something powerful for individuals to develop, in their own personal bases, with no external, structured guidance. The collective takes precedent over the individual only when the individual can clearly be seen as inherently less worthy; as individuals are singlets, and the collective is all. But this, once again, differs from mob-rule, in taking from logical precedents. (Ex: There is a new virus killing much of the collective and it is observed that testing on individuals must be performed to eliminate such a thing quickly and effectively.) These things could manifest as individual egos desiring to support the collective at their expense, or potentially not. That has never been discerned yet.

And Soulism idealizes itself as so inherent in these knowledgeable ways, that, if someone were 'enlightened' enough, they would desire the ideology, as it is most logical. This forms the basis for the "common knowledge hivemind", rarely discussed in media, but much less fantastical in ways to achieve it as opposed to other ideas of hiveminds. This finishes explaining why egos would inherently desire such things, beyond simply just feeling generous (generosity is personal), as it is much more selfless, when Egoism is quite a self-centered ideology, as was discussed in the Right Egoism section. This gives justification to the removal of all "spooks" (hierarchies, in Soulism), and explains how these things could even be seen as liberational to the individual, when deeper looking is performed, as opposed to constricting the individual ultimately.

It is also worth mentioning that Soulism, inherently, holds values seeking a lack of competition in all senses. This places it very beyond standard political beliefs primarily pertaining to economics, social aspects of society, and cultural discourse, as it values many ideals that most other ideologies don't even have retorts or ideas of. This is how Soulism does not yet have really any impersonal challengers on a majority of its valued ideals, as well as why Soulism's doctrines are often qualified as "fantastical beliefs". This is also why some may value Soulism as "too complicated" and become discouraged from it.

A noteworthy mention: In the first version of this writing, Soulism was the only mentioned ideology that was a focal point of oddity. However, in this version, it seems Avaritionism is perhaps wacky to a similar or equal extent, as well. It can be said that, when ideologies like these exist, being so radical they go beyond even standards of radical ideologies, the "rules of the game" have just simply been expanded or altered with them.

The distinctions between ethics and morality are ultra-rarely discussed, and it is worthy to note the differences for all of politics, and perhaps, philosophy.

They may be most essential to describing the otherwise seemingly-minute or nonexistent differences betwixt different types of Egoism, but they are really essential to anywhere in politics, and something only usually realized by Anarchists and Egoists, since it is more inherently needed there.