This thread helps to demonstrate the subjectivity of all words and concepts.
Personally, I have never divided the two terms, morals and ethics, to individual and cultural states. But, then again, the words are subjective and I would guess that each of us have a unique set of luggage traveling with each term. I do use the term ethos quite often and have been ‘working’ on innate virtues etc. I find the following article on ethos to be of note for this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos Oh, and as to the current specific of honor killing (“customary killing”), even though the following article starts out using the term ‘murder’, I would say that while it is killing, it is not always murder. The article also includes terms like ‘shame’ and ‘purification’. I would suggest that these notions are key to understanding a specific from another culture. In the west, in some occasions, In flagrante delicto is recognized as a defense even in murder cases. Here, passions are recognized as blinding an individual’s notion of right/wrong, and can lead to no punishment. So, when any individual is filled with passions, whether they be at the center of a sort of culturally induced shame or even a rage based upon a sense of ownership and/or shame, humanity (many cultures) recognize this common situation. So, in the States, on occasion, a husband who walks in on his wife in bed with someone else is relieved of punishment for a similar reason even if he murders the ‘other’. Recently, in an attempt at a separation of theologies as I see it, this close to home example is left out of such discussions. http://www.stop-stoning.org/faq_honour http://stop-stoning.org/cases On Sep 25, 9:08 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
