I'd broadly agree that Ralph, especially that we need revision and something new.
On 5 Feb, 14:01, bruce ralph <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
