Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


LanceHughes -> Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 9:51:13 AM)

Morals derive from external sources, usually cast in the sense of  "Do as I say," without any reason(ing) behind it. The moral mandate "Thou shalt have no others Gods but me," is a good example.

Ethics derive from one's internal source, uusually cast in the sense of  "I will behave in a manner that is rational, logical, and justifiable."  A good example is "Thou shalt not kill."

What say you?




Smutmonger -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 9:55:01 AM)

I always make decisions based on sustainable practices-not "custom."




LanceHughes -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 9:58:22 AM)

Another, tighter parallel:

Moral: Until recently, one could not buy "package goods" (bottled alcohol) in Denver on Sundays. I can only presume this was due to Sunday being the Lord's Day to many.

Ethical: Drunk driving is permitted on NO day of the week.

Can you imagine the out-cry if drunk driving were permitted on Sundays?  Neither can I...........




Smutmonger -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 10:06:38 AM)

I find that morals are usually a way attempt to enforce a herd mentality on dissidents.




pahunkboy -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 10:08:27 AM)

Try to be a good neighbor.



Easy fix.         (really!)




VaguelyCurious -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 10:50:41 AM)

The best example I can think of is sex ed in schools; handing out condoms and providing support for gay students is immoral but teaching abstinence and denying homosexuality is unethical.

(Partisan? Moi?)




Arpig -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 11:11:17 AM)

quote:

handing out condoms and providing support for gay students is immoral
Bullshit!

No as to the OP...Morals has to do with defining what is right and wrong, while ethics has to do with determining the best way to live one's life. The two often overlap but not entirely, the difference is often subtle, but not always.




brainiacsub -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 11:45:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

handing out condoms and providing support for gay students is immoral
Bullshit!

No as to the OP...Morals has to do with defining what is right and wrong, while ethics has to do with determining the best way to live one's life. The two often overlap but not entirely, the difference is often subtle, but not always.


Have to agree with Arpig on this one - no to both VC and the OP (sorry).

Morality is about defining right and wrong. It's usually based on a set of beliefs or principles, such as religion, Kantian, utilitarianism, libertarianism, Marxism, etc. There was a thread here about having science define morality. I vote for that one. It has the potential to create the most stable world.

Ethics, on the other hand, is a philosophy on the application of morality. It is a system or set of rules or guidelines for applying what we believe to be moral. They aren't always in sync.

For example:

If one agrees that stealing is wrong - or immoral - then one could adopt a business ethic of checks and balances to ensure that customers receive value for their purchase.

On the other hand, one may not agree that teachers having sex with students or doctors having sex with patients is necessarily wrong in all instances - we can't control attraction, who we love, etc - yet you could agree that the behavior is unethical because of the power dynamic, potential for coercion, conflict of interest, etc.




BrokenSaint -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 5:23:11 PM)

The problem with the debate is inherent to our language. Words evolve and change. If morality is taken to be in the context of being enforced by some other power 90% of the time, this is eventually what it becomes. To nail down anything, in any way whatsoever, we first have to agree what the terms actually are, which in and of itself is probably an impossibility.

While science enforcing amorphous morality may eventually lead to good things, I doubt it will ever happen, and if it does there will be an awful lot of things that, by the right people, will be considered bad along the way. I doubt it would end up as anything other than a zero sum game, though I'd love the shift to happen simply to see it. Religion conquered that ground long ago, and unless we undergo a radical paradigm shift, I highly suspect that will not change.

However, as we're talking about abstract concepts, that don't actually exist except for in our minds (unless one takes an extremely liberal view of existence), the perception of the individual is really all that matters, as it defines their personal reality to a very large extent, and as an extension, their actions, and interactions with their actions.

However, on a personal basis I'm somewhere between Pyrrhonian skepticism and amoralism. So take that as you will.

I would tend to agree with the op, but further while I'd agree it exists (hence my not absolute amoralism) I would tend to disagree with the very concept of morality being valid or "true".

What morality is good for, is enforcing a particular code of behavior. VERY good for that. IF it's been instilled through the socialization process as important. If it hasn't it quickly loses value. It's basically a giant trojan horse built right into our souls (if one accepts the very existence of such, which is really up in the air).

Right and wrong are extremely objective on a day to day basis. While I've seen arguments to the contrary, most of them rest on extremes, and tend to go like

"you're in that situation"
"Why? How would I end up in that situation in the first place?"
"You just are"
"No?"

By the way, one thing I think we can agree on, is this thread has nigh endless entertainment value, and will be awesome.




OrpheusAgonistes -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 5:37:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

handing out condoms and providing support for gay students is immoral
Bullshit!

No as to the OP...Morals has to do with defining what is right and wrong, while ethics has to do with determining the best way to live one's life. The two often overlap but not entirely, the difference is often subtle, but not always.


Have to agree with Arpig on this one - no to both VC and the OP (sorry).

Morality is about defining right and wrong. It's usually based on a set of beliefs or principles, such as religion, Kantian, utilitarianism, libertarianism, Marxism, etc. There was a thread here about having science define morality. I vote for that one. It has the potential to create the most stable world.

Ethics, on the other hand, is a philosophy on the application of morality. It is a system or set of rules or guidelines for applying what we believe to be moral. They aren't always in sync.

For example:

If one agrees that stealing is wrong - or immoral - then one could adopt a business ethic of checks and balances to ensure that customers receive value for their purchase.

On the other hand, one may not agree that teachers having sex with students or doctors having sex with patients is necessarily wrong in all instances - we can't control attraction, who we love, etc - yet you could agree that the behavior is unethical because of the power dynamic, potential for coercion, conflict of interest, etc.


I'm reasonably sure this nails it.  At the very least, it's the A student's answer.

My grandfather (may the angels sing his stern WASPy heart to Elysium) once summed it up for me when I was a kid as "Immoral acts land you in hell.  Unethical acts land you either in jail or in office."




brainiacsub -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 5:44:05 PM)

Oh, and I was an A student...and your grandfather was a very wise man.




subfever -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 7:15:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrpheusAgonistes

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

handing out condoms and providing support for gay students is immoral
Bullshit!

No as to the OP...Morals has to do with defining what is right and wrong, while ethics has to do with determining the best way to live one's life. The two often overlap but not entirely, the difference is often subtle, but not always.


Have to agree with Arpig on this one - no to both VC and the OP (sorry).

Morality is about defining right and wrong. It's usually based on a set of beliefs or principles, such as religion, Kantian, utilitarianism, libertarianism, Marxism, etc. There was a thread here about having science define morality. I vote for that one. It has the potential to create the most stable world.

Ethics, on the other hand, is a philosophy on the application of morality. It is a system or set of rules or guidelines for applying what we believe to be moral. They aren't always in sync.

For example:

If one agrees that stealing is wrong - or immoral - then one could adopt a business ethic of checks and balances to ensure that customers receive value for their purchase.

On the other hand, one may not agree that teachers having sex with students or doctors having sex with patients is necessarily wrong in all instances - we can't control attraction, who we love, etc - yet you could agree that the behavior is unethical because of the power dynamic, potential for coercion, conflict of interest, etc.


I'm reasonably sure this nails it.  At the very least, it's the A student's answer.

My grandfather (may the angels sing his stern WASPy heart to Elysium) once summed it up for me when I was a kid as "Immoral acts land you in hell.  Unethical acts land you either in jail or in office."




Place me in this camp. They've covered it so well that I have nothing more to add.




catize -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 9:40:50 PM)

I view both your statements as external mandates. “You shall not kill” is external; “I will not kill” is internal.

My morals are my belief in what is right or wrong. My ethics derive not just from my actions based on my belief system, but also my reasons for doing what is right or refraining from what I believe is wrong.

If I believe it is wrong to steal, are my ethics supported by a desire to avoid jail rather than a desire to cause no harm or loss to another person?




TheHeretic -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/6/2010 10:43:36 PM)

Ethics are the guidelines we work with when we need to rationalize violations of morality. Or is it the other way around?




Wolf2Bear -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/7/2010 8:03:20 AM)

Morals: a code conduct a person applies to their own life and how they live it.

Ethics: a code of conduct a person adopts to be a part of society.




JonnieBoy -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/7/2010 1:20:10 PM)

I have morals, as well as ethics. It just doesn't always LOOK that way.

"Immoral acts land you in hell.  Unethical acts land you either in jail or in office."  ... I'm two thirds of the way through failing the course ... obviously I'm going to have to become Prime Minister or something to guarantee a 0 % mark. [sm=evil.gif]

Pirate




Termyn8or -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/8/2010 5:36:43 AM)

I think it more terminology than anything else.

Whichever is internal, that has most likely been taught. It was either taught simply by environment or maybe a carefully planned set of consequences.

Man, this place just brings out the worst in me - to wit : I stopped stealing when I got robbed. They took my damn guitar ! Who the hell would steal a Man's guitar ? Then I looked at the boosted box of tools I'd bought and thought "somewhere out there is a guy who might not be able to work because his tools got stolen". It is of little consolation to know that they were already stolen and someone else would have bought them anyway.

And do you learn not to kill from killing just anyone, or accidentally or in a fit of rage kill a loved one ?

I think the two concepts overlap to the point where they are prctically indiscernable from one another. I realize that this is an attempt to do so, or at least to better define the concepts, but there is a heck of alot of gray area to be covered. It is not all black and white to say the least.

These days I try to be as honest as my instinct for self preservation allows, but is that moral or ethical ? Is my well being more important than another's ? Perhaps that is the distinction you seek.

But a white page has no meaning without the black ink. What about those acts which are in the gray area ? Like at work, there are times I pull in money at an incredible rate. I can fully justify that because in most cases I spent alot of time figuring the problem out and now can solve it in a matter of minutes. But the first time may have taken days. In that way the cost of the original process is amortized among subsequent, similar tasks. Is that justifiable or should I kill my golden geese and sit here in the cold and dark, starving to death ?

I realize that you are looking to better define these terms, and I'm sorry I don't have answers. My ethics or morality, whichever you want to call it comes from within totally. It's a do unto others mentality, and I do the best I can. But nobody can really tell me what is right or wrong. They can talk, but unless they make a hell of alot of sense I will not be swayed. Is that the definition or is it something else ?

T




SirPumpy -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/8/2010 5:54:42 AM)

I have no Morals because I feel that Morals are imposed by the society we live in, so for me being in my 40's Ive noted moralistic changes in the past 30 years have in some cases come around 180 degrees which I find hypocritical in the extreme.

Instead I have Personal Ethics and Situational Ethics which are a basic deviance from my personal ethics.

Why?

Well because MY Ethics stem from my upbringing and have been reinforced by my experiences as I've travelled through life, Had kids, Run businesses and interacted with many different people from some very interesting walks of life.

My Pay off is peace of mind, a small but very good group of friends, a fairly idiot free existence and the satisfaction of knowing Ive made a difference in peoples lives for the better without actually trying.

And this is all down to my basic belief that you must respect yourself before you can respect anyone or anything, Do no harm (And this means physically/mentally/verbally or in gesture) and be a critical thinker (Question everything rationally).

So for me?

Morals Baaad

Ethics Goooood

And my life is a great example of the benefits.

SP




jbcurious -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/8/2010 6:34:17 AM)

Some would say that because I'm an agnostic/aetheist, that I'm incapable of having either... [;)]

I live my life by two very simple guidelines...

I do nothing that infringes upon the rights of others and I do nothing that goes against my own conscience.

I know this sounds rather simplified... but it works for me.

By the standards of society and religion...I'm both a criminal and going to hell... but I can look in the mirror each morning and be happy with who I see.




Termyn8or -> RE: Morals vs. Ethics - Your comments welcome (4/8/2010 7:27:29 PM)

"Some would say that because I'm an agnostic/aetheist, that I'm incapable of having either"

You have no idea just how diametrically opposed I am to that sentiment.

First of all I believe that God is something that noone can fathom, and is actually the whole universe, or possibly all universes if there are others. As such there is no gender, and little if any commnication to it's inhabitants. If there is it comes on a purely subconcious or superconcious level, not in any directly stated tenets or anything of the sort. As such I believe that true morality and ethics are both self imposed, for within my personal theory there is no real right and wrong. Revenge can be a tool of justice, a dirty business deal can set the books straight and so forth. It happens.

This is not something you do every day. We are all here and it is best that we cooperate, and that is possibly the true basis of either concept. That when we gain the concept(s) what really happened is that we learned to look at things objectively, and fully, avoiding the rush to judgement.

And as they say, "judge not lest ye be judged thyself" ? Yes of course. But as we judge others, we are also being judged by others. In other words, even if these were words of wisdom, inspired or not, they don't actually come out and say not to judge anyone. My interpretation is that go ahead, but look in the mirror once in a while.

And then sometimes you do, and you forgive your transgressors, I am fine with that, but not with someone else doing that. Sometimes someone will do me wrong but I might cut them some slack, because I may have done something similar in the past and either got away with it or was actually forgiven.

Forgiveness from a victim is powerful stuff, and can make a positive change. That has happened to me and I try to pay forward when possible. It depends on the circumstances of course.

I could give a bunch of exmples but don't want to type all night. Suffice it to say that I haven't hurt anyone for a long time, and I'd like to keep it that way. Because I can usually put myself figuratively in someone else's shoes, I simply do unto others as I would have them do to me. No religion with it's threat of fire and brimstone nor threat of jail and torture will change me. This is alot more powerful.

Why ? Because amidst all the crap going on in the world, in my sphere of existence there is relative peace. Despite the fact I threw the kid today out for telling me something, contradicting me on something I know about. And this pertained to the handling of my personal posessions. I don't consider that a lack of peace, it was about him screwing up a PC in my house which is sometimes used for business. I didn't even really throw him out per se but he left. That means nothing. I raised my voice. Was I angry ? Not really, I didn't raise my voice until the kid explained how he knows everything. It was time. He'll be back tomorrow when he smells that grill fired up. It's not like I excommunicated him or anything.

In other words, sometimes strong words are proper, sometimes going over the line is proper and sometimes even war is proper.

T




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875