That is exactly what I meant earlier, though I may have spit the words out different, when I said, "I think morality takes the form of the individual situation in question and evolves along with the tides of change societies deem suitable for their time and place. Morality is generational and lives and dies with it's following." What was moral to our grandparents has been re-written to suit our generation, our society, our lives. Rules die with the generation that writes them. Is my stark separation of ethics and morals too hardline, radical or abstract? I know there is a gray area where they are conjoined but I guess I'm looking at the outer reaches. The gray area seems rather small to me. PETA uses the word ethical in their namesake, but I wonder if they really mean moral, but for the sake of a convenient acronym use ethical. I don't see the sense in having two words to mean the same thing, such as a similar issue I had with egoist and egotist in an earlier thread. They are close but obviously different.
On Jan 31, 10:48 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Rules are always being re-written aren't they? Re-inventing the wheel- > ists that we are. > > On Jan 31, 11:36 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Kant really thought morality was needed because we can trust to do > > much without it. I broadly agree, especially as moral pretences are > > so easy (Machialvelli etc.). I would, of course, wish no ism on my > > friend Vam If we are ists at all in this particular game we are > > likely to be re-inventing-the-wheel-ists. Years back, our media used > > to depict strikers as holding the country to ransom - yet we seem in > > fact to have been held to ransom by the rich. This leads me to think > > we need new rules. > > > On 31 Jan, 07:22, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I do not see why I have to be any -ist, Neil. Especially since I > > > believe in Orn's premise regarding innate value - system ! > > > > Ethics is guided by the nature of consequences our conduct -- thought > > > and behaviour -- causes to ourself, to other people, animals, > > > environment, future life, etc. It is in the light of these > > > consequences that we categorise certain behaviours and thoughts as not > > > acceptable, not welcome, punishable ( law ), etc. > > > > On Jan 31, 11:37 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So you are a consequentialist then Vam? > > > > > On 31 Jan, 04:31, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It is not just about freedom of choice or about arguments post facto. > > > > > It is about consequences : e.g. Israeli attack on Gaza ; al Quaida > > > > > terror bombings ; murders ; robbery ; child abuse ; etc. etc. > > > > > > Morality and Ethics takes its norms from the consequences of the > > > > > choices we exercise. > > > > > > On Jan 30, 10:50 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, > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
