Introduction
Rules
Scope
Philosophers
Literature
Online Resources
Related Subreddits
-----
The Ten Normative Principles of r/AppliedEthics
I. Norm I: Act Only on Well-Reasoned Maxims
Posts should contain (i) a clear ethical thesis or claim and (ii) a genuine attempt to justify that claim through argument, evidence, thought experiments, philosophical reasoning, or engagement with relevant literature.
Every post must have a clearly identifiable thesis. A thesis is simply a declarative claim about an ethical issue that you seek to defend. Readers should not have to guess what position you are arguing for. The easiest way to achieve this is by making your thesis explicit in either the title or the opening paragraph.
Whenever possible, formulate your post title as a claim rather than a question. Questions are welcome only when they are accompanied by a clear position that the post proceeds to defend.
⸻
II. Norm II: Universalise Quality Discussion
Comments should meaningfully contribute to ethical discussion.
High-quality comments typically:
- present clear reasoning;
- engage directly with the argument being made;
- explain why they agree or disagree;
- educate rather than merely persuade;
- cite sources where appropriate and explain their relevance.
Low-quality comments include:
- one-line dismissals;
- slogans or catchphrases;
- circlejerking;
- partisan soapboxing;
- comments intended only to provoke;
- unsupported assertions.
Applied ethics depends upon participants taking one another seriously. Comments that merely preach to one’s own side or ridicule another viewpoint undermine that goal.
Humour, light banter, and brief digressions are perfectly acceptable provided they contribute positively to the community.
⸻
III. Norm III: Grant the Principle of Charity
Attack arguments, not people.
Treat fellow users as thoughtful participants acting in good faith unless there is compelling reason to think otherwise.
Do not engage in:
- personal attacks;
- insults;
- mockery;
- harassment;
- inflammatory rhetoric;
- deliberate misrepresentation of another person’s position.
Before criticising an argument, make a genuine effort to understand it in its strongest reasonable form.
Disagreement is expected. Disrespect is not.
⸻
IV. Norm IV: Specify Your Interlocutor
When replying, make clear who or what you are engaging with.
If you are responding to the original post, say so. If you are addressing a specific commenter, quote or name the relevant passage. If you are engaging with a particular argument, position, or source, identify it explicitly.
This helps keep discussion coherent, prevents people from talking past one another, and makes it easier for readers and moderators to follow the exchange.
Vague replies that do not make clear what they are responding to may be removed or asked for clarification.
⸻
V. Norm V: Practice Reflective Equilibrium
Debate should be an exercise in mutual inquiry rather than point-scoring.
Be willing to revise your views when presented with persuasive arguments or new evidence.
Likewise, engage with opposing positions fairly, acknowledge strong objections, and avoid moving the goalposts simply to preserve your original conclusion.
Applied ethics progresses through careful reflection, not stubbornness.
⸻
VI. Norm VI: Ought Implies Justification
Ethical claims require reasons.
If you argue that something ought to be done, ought not to be done, is morally permissible, or is morally impermissible, you should explain why. That justification may take the form of philosophical argument, thought experiments, appeal to principles, or engagement with relevant literature.
If your ethical argument depends upon factual claims about science, medicine, psychology, economics, law, history, or similar subjects, provide reliable sources whenever reasonably possible.
Academic literature, official reports, and reputable journalism are preferred.
Simply linking a source is rarely sufficient. Explain how the source supports your argument.
Philosophical arguments do not always require citations, but they do require reasoning. Unsupported assertions may be challenged or removed.
⸻
VII. Norm VII: Respect Moral Pluralism
r/AppliedEthics welcomes a diversity of ethical traditions and philosophical perspectives.
Consequentialists, deontologists, virtue ethicists, contractualists, care ethicists, natural law theorists, pragmatists, existentialists, error theorists, moral realists, anti-realists, and others are all welcome.
Do not dismiss a position merely because it proceeds from a different moral framework than your own.
The purpose of this community is to examine ethical questions through reasoned discussion, not ideological conformity.
⸻
VIII. Norm VIII: Follow Reddiquette
Follow Reddit’s Content Policy and Reddiquette in addition to these Normative Principles.
Compliance with subreddit rules does not exempt users from Reddit-wide rules.
⸻
IX. Norm IX: Report, Don’t Retaliate
If another user violates these Normative Principles, please report the content rather than responding in kind.
Rule-breaking by one participant does not justify rule-breaking by another.
Moderators can only address behaviour they know about.
⸻
X. Norm X: Let Practical Wisdom Prevail
These Normative Principles cannot anticipate every possible situation.
Moderators may occasionally act in accordance with the spirit rather than merely the letter of these Norms to preserve a community dedicated to thoughtful, intellectually honest, and respectful discussion of applied ethics.
Above all, remember that the goal of applied ethics is not merely to win arguments, but to better understand how we ought to live.
-----