As usual, The boards have messed up the diagrams....Here is my second try at showing them as "squares" for those who can't see what I'm trying to get at. Love / Have Sex with one's own mate vs. Lust /have sex with another's
Love / Have sex with another's vs. Lust / have sex with one's own mate then , Love / Have Sex with one's own mate vs. Lust / have sex with another's GOOD / GOOD..............................................BAD /BAD Love / Have sex with another's vs.Lust / have sex one's own mate GOOD / BAD................................................BAD /GOOD nominal9 On Jan 30, 12:50 pm, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
