On 25 Sep, 16:47, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Umm interesting Pat, I mean the way you see ethics and morality. I
> ways though that Morality was subjective both on a personal level and
> a social level, whilst ethics was confined to 'doing that which is
> right'
>
To me, ethics IS 'social morality' whereas morality is completely
individual. 'Doing that which is right' is subject to both ethics and
morals. That is a person may always consider that they act morally,
however, they may find that, if they move to a different country, that
what they feel is moral is considered unethical in their new
environment. Which can be most confusing and confounding to those who
move into a community whose ethics are vastly different that those the
individual grew up with.
> So Morality is the 'thought' of right and wrong, whilst ethics is the
> 'action' of doing right?
>
Nah, Morality is personal ethics; ethics are social morals. Nothing
more, nothing less. Or, put in another way, morals are purely an
individual's views of 'moral subjects', whereas ethics are societal
views of 'moral subjects'.
> What say others about that one?
>
> On 25 Sep, 16:27, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Sep, 13:55, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Umm 'doing the right thing' and 'more to do with ethics than morals'
> > > would suggest that Honour is bound up in ethics. Just an aside then
> > > if ethics is concerend with doing what is right, and morals are
> > > concerned with questions of what is right or wrong, then can it be
> > > true that ethics are as subjective as morality?
>
> > As I've said before, ethics is a societal thing and morals are
> > personal. Ethics are subjective to a society and morals are
> > subjective to an individual. Right and wrong, whether perceived by a
> > society or an individual are still just perceptions based on a
> > profound lack of information (in that every act we perform has
> > reactions that carry on from that point forward and, as we have no
> > access to the future, we should endeavour to ensure that our actions
> > should lead to predominately positive results.). And, it might seem
> > contradictory in light of our free will conversations, but, I think
> > that, if the person about to commit an honour killing has the
> > opportunity to speculate that they don't HAVE to kill, then they
> > should feel obliged NOT to, if for no other reason than that they may
> > not know the full circumstances regarding the original killing (which
> > MAY have been in self-defense) and are, by taking up their 'right',
> > may, actually, be giving the other family the true 'right' to return
> > like for like. And the cycle continues. It's for reasons like THIS
> > that I feel the ability (and opportunity) to speculate about an
> > unknown future is just as important (and still makes us liable) as
> > having free will in its usual sense.
>
> > > Aside over.
>
> > > More I need more people, I'm trying to understand this concept of
> > > honour. Honour killings for example strike me as well not really
> > > honourable at all, the honour of the family, what does that actualy
> > > mean?
>
> > Honour killings were based on the old 'Eye for an Eye' rule,
> > which, of course, meant not more than an eye for an eye... So, if
> > someone killed a member of your family, the code allowed the injured
> > family to kill a member of the originally offending family to offset
> > their murder. However, to those that abide by that code, I would
> > remind them that "'Vengeance is mine', saith the Lord" and let God
> > deal with it, as only He has access to ALL the information regarding
> > it. So, whilst the law (or code) may permit the retaliation, it would
> > be more 'Godlike' if the offended family acted more godly and
> > exercised their mercy and let God dole out the judgements, rather than
> > assume that their retaliation IS God's judgement.
>
> > > On 25 Sep, 13:32, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, an individual must abide by the code of his/her culture although
> > > > one can walk away from dishonour and generally pay a steep price for
> > > > it. I think it means doing the right thing despite the cost.
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 6:48 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 25 Sep, 12:13, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > It seems an easy enough question. What is it, what does it mean to
> > > > > > have it, what acts are honourable and what not?
>
> > > > > It mostly depends on culture. It was honourable to the Aztecs to be
> > > > > sacrificed to Quetzalcoatl, I doubt many today would feel the same.
> > > > > Thieves, at one time, had a code of conduct, making some theiving
> > > > > honourable and other thieving not honourable. Seppuku (harakiri) is
> > > > > considered honourable in Japanese culture, but viewed as simple
> > > > > suicide and damnable by the West. Roughly, honour (like good and
> > > > > evil) is, like its opposite, shame, an opinion/perception and is
> > > > > relative.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
