As a social species, we do require some boundaries (ethics?) to provide some order. For the individual, I think you could broadly categorize order within the group as encompassing the values of freedom, respect and service. Overall, I think western democracies do a fairly good job in cultivating these ideas. The problem lies within some of the traditional societal directions such as economic growth at any cost, technology overcoming any obstacle, economy before ecology. These ideas are not going to serve us well in the 21st century and are important ethical questions going forward.
On Jan 31, 11:29 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > That is a real outside in approach, Vam. Ethics, or a common > definition of good, rises within us from somewhere. Many of us go > through life rarely feeling consequences of an ethical breach. And yet > we are (or aren't) ethical people living in (more or less) ethical > societies. I like Jung's idea that ethics are an expression of race > soul, and our ability as a culture to live up to our collective > expression of ethics reflects our ability as a collective to > understand our unconscious expressions - soul! I think that the > reason that many of the world's modern thinkers predict our entry into > the age of ethics may be that the soul of humanity is being understood > more and more by the individual, and expressed in integration more > collectively. > > On Jan 31, 2:22 am, 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > interdependent, open/closed contemporary societies? > > > > > > > > > > > > What a wriggling can of worms! Back to Plato, Aristotle > > > > > > > > > > > > and all > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > others ... ;-)" – fran > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
