Some folks around here, like Archytas and Ornamentalmind and Chazwin, probably have an inkling about my own views on ethics and morality. My own three part separation on these questions isn't srtrictly Claccical" like Chris Jenkins'. I separate, basically Epistemology from Ontology and tlastly Ethics.... but I don't want to bore those who may not be interested. I look at Ethics and Morality, compbined, as a question of a choice betweena a variety of possible courses of action that are possible, (to a thinking being, of course) when confronted with each and every situation. I like to separate the possible courses of action (along William of Ockham's notion of Signs) possible in every such situation into the "square" of logical opposition, originally thought up by Aristotle.... this gives me something like the following, taking as an example an "amorous" situation.... Love / Have Sex with one's own mate ............. Lust /have sex with another's mate
Love / Have sex with another's mate................Lust / have sex with one's own mate from her, you have to plug in your own (or society's or religio's , or whomever 's ) assignations of moral or ethical prtedicated values. Thing is.... if you call, one completely morally proper... that makes all the others "logicallY improper to some degree or other.... let me show you. Love / Have Sex with one's own mate ............. Lust /have sex with another's mate GOOD / GOOD..............................................BAD /BAD Love / Have sex with another's mate................Lust / have sex with one's own mate GOOD / BAD................................................BAD /GOOD Whatever choice as the GOOD/GOOD any person makes I call that his or her "individual" point of view of moral or ethivcal predicated values fior that particula course of action. My own "thing" here is just to set up a "framework" to show how such "ethical" judgments vary and differ from person to ,person.... It's up to the individual person, or the author, or the society. or th, religion, or whatever, to decide for themselves what those "assignations of moral or ethical value judgments" are.... chances are that whatever they decide, someone or other will argue. nominal9 On Jan 30, 11:31 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it is important because of the fact that many people, (lawyers, you > said, but I'm thinking CEO's in particular here), rely on this to just their > behaviour. They dance among the tiers when responding to the tears. "Tut > tut, youngsters, while this action of ours (most profitable indeed!) might > not be considered MORAL by your standards, it is most certainly LEGAL, and > our advisory board tells us that it even complies with our industry's ETHICS > commission. So dry your eyes! It's GOOD after all!" > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:23 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There is a difference between ethics and morality - perhaps more > > correctly many differences. Lawyers can behave ethically whilst being > > immoral. Like Francis though, I tend to use the words > > interchangeably. Chris has given the three-tier definition I'm > > familiar with from basic class. Everyone on this thread so far has > > done something I regard as profoundly ethical and moral - admitted > > being wrong. Craig might regret asking people to take on the burden > > of defining - some just love that and I doubt any of us want to sit > > through anyone holding forth on modern deontic ethics - but I'm in a > > mean mood so everyone - ears back, eyes open, brains looking out of > > the window! > > > On 29 Jan, 23:10, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I guess it doesn't really matter what words we use, as long as we all > > > agree that that is what meant when speak to one another. If we choose > > > to use the word in a different way, then the burden is the one > > > deviating from the normal use of the word to explain what he means > > > thereby. So, for the time being, since Chris was the first define the > > > word in such specificity, I say we adopt Chris' for now. If someone > > > disagrees with Chris' definition, then they have the burden of > > > defining the word themselves. Otherwise, we will assume they mean > > > what Chris means. > > > > On Jan 29, 3:17 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I was taught that dialectically, there are three levels of authority: > > > > Legal, by which the governing body of a nation establishes a canon of > > law > > > > Ethical, which represents an established system, either internal or > > > > external, of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviours within specific > > > > paradigms > > > > Moral, by which the general concepts of good or bad are established, > > > > primarily from an emotional perspective. > > > > > This seems to differ greatly from your pespective. What are your > > thoughts on > > > > this viewpoint? > > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:38 PM, frantheman < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > I don't think so, Chris. Personally, I tend to use both terms > > > > > synonymously. Ethics may, perhaps, have a slightly more philosophical > > > > > flavour. > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > On 29 Jan., 21:19, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Aren't we conflating two separate issues when we use the words > > ethics and > > > > > > morals interchangeably? > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:04 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > In a different thread, fran suggested an exploration of morality > > in > > > > > > > the context of economics and society. Rather than rephrase him, > > here > > > > > > > are his words: > > > > > > > > "…Most importantly, for me at least, many contributions > > (including > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > own appeal to charity) seem to point to some kind of primacy of > > the > > > > > > > "ethical" in the organisation of human societies, be it within a > > > > > > > "capitalist" or a "socialist" framework. This point came home to > > me > > > > > > > after reading the thought-provoking article by Howard A. Doughty > > (and > > > > > > > doesn't he live up to his name! :-)) in the link provided by Don. > > Of > > > > > > > course, this insight raises many more questions: how do we > > achieve > > > > > > > more consciousness of the primacy of moral values in > > society/markets/ > > > > > > > public life, how do we educate for real morality in society, and, > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > fundamtentally, what do we really mean by morality and what > > systems > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > morality can we propose for our complex, splintered, > > internetworked, > > > > > > > interdependent, open/closed contemporary societies? > > > > > > > What a wriggling can of worms! Back to Plato, Aristotle and all > > the > > > > > > > others ... ;-)" – fran > > > > > > > > I agreed and wish to explore the area…what we mean by morality, > > how to > > > > > > > educate for it etc. My responding post: > > > > > > > > "Fran, I find that you have pointed to the heart of the matter… > > > > > > > ethics. > > > > > > > As far as I see it, if different people have different ethics, it > > is > > > > > > > probable they will espouse differing economic and/or social > > systems > > > > > > > based upon their personal point of view. This seems so obvious. > > > > > > > Many here have studied the subject, formally and informally. And, > > of > > > > > > > course, each person has an opinion. For me, some sort of > > empathetical > > > > > > > or at least sympathetic analysis of how differing ethoses > > function > > > > > > > would be appreciated. And, yes, even in this simple request, my > > > > > > > personal ethos/morality shines through. > > > > > > > I have a few ideas on how to progress, however I'll wait and see > > if > > > > > > > those better versed in the topic can guide us towards a more > > fruitful > > > > > > > discussion. " – orn > > > > > > > > So, since the other topic continues to appear to include > > > > > > > contradictions to this notion, I'm starting a new one to address > > it > > > > > > > for those who wish to explore rather than reject.- Hide quoted > > > > > > > text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
