On 01 Sep 2012, at 19:26, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/1/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.

I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?

In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work. It's personal. It doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it would be unethical for you to not work and to be supported by others. That's the point of making a distinction between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical (consistent with social values, 3p).

OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By "OK with you" I mean you are free to use personal definition orthogonal to the use of the majority.
By "orthogonal" I mean ...

But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle. Do you see no distinction between standards by which you judge yourself and those which by which society may judge you?

i just don't understand what is moral or immoral in the fact of eating too much pizza and not doing work. It might be stupid, but I don't see anything immoral.

To call it stupid is a value judgement.

Not necessarily.

That's all I mean morals; having values about your own actions so that you can recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things - by your own standards - but which are not unethical because they have little or no effect on other people.

OK. May be it is a difference between english and french, where, at least in my country, moral is just a common term for ethical.

Maybe you can suggest a different word, but the morals/ethics distinction I suggest seems close to common usage. And even if you want to keep the two words as coextensive, it's still useful when someone refers to "immoral" to think whether he means something he would regard as bad in himself (like enjoying some pot)

(I can understand but I have to replace pot by alcohol, for which statistics exists that it is bad in himself).

or he means it harms other people and should be discouraged by society.

I appreciate that you seem to think that the society can only discouraged behavior which harms the others.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to