One of the dangers in this area is to run back to absolute authority or somesuch. The classic form is in Hegel and the Marxists in terms of historical laws, even in terms of what 'art' is. I have some sympathies with some of socialism and some 'collective views', but once these are negating the person, something I believe individualism does too, I'm pretty sure we have got something wrong and are stuck with power rhetorics, not morality. If we can't get past the individual Lee, we also can't get past the fastest gun argument, so I doubt that one, even though it clearly has application (we have very few offences in western law that do not require guilty knowledge in an individual). Like many discursive areas, this one has many existing arguments that have adherents, yet they all fail and have been seen to fail already. History should have more meaning for us in this latter sense. Rigsby's last point on rehab for individuals, but no rehab for societies forever at war is a good one, the immoral lunacy of those of us sheltering under the US umbrella being the current case in point. Here, I would still fight with many cousins, reluctantly, under my general 'dirty hands' view, but really wish to bring an end to dirty hands and the madness on all sides. I suspect Orn is partly right and in important aspects. We have some moral abilities; questions remain on how to get them more into practice with more decent outcomes than we manage at the moment, and how we stop aspects of what we (incorrectly) call the 'barbarian temperament'. One thing I would suggest is that it is likely we are all 'right' in aspects of our address to this question. I think we need to remember that a bit more in order not to end up, say, in my disagreement on what Lee has said, turning to 'Lee is totally wrong or some kind of immoral prat'. I know my mate don't reason like this and won't poison my curry - but we could all probably do more to recognise we all struggle to get out our thinking on stuff this hard.
I'm off out now, but would leave this in mind. I'm an old fart these days and have forgotten what I was going to say! I'll need some help from 'Lee' to get to the pub for an hour - now there's morality for you (actually Angela is calling for me, but it amounts to the same). Upstairs is a massive leftie tome called 'Beyond Capital' - it's utter - well you know. Downstairs, a range of neo-con economics is available to browse, equally fit for down the toilet. All broadly immoral. My mate Angela ain't (immoral that is), though I sometimes wish both of us were a bit more. On 15 Mar, 12:13, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Heheh very strange what we all take as common knowldge isn't it. > > I had always understood the diffrance between morality and ethics to > be this. Morality is one personal definition on what is good or bad. > Ethics is concerened with doing that which is right. So one > descriptive and the other more concerned with the doing, or actions. > > I had always had this in mind when talking about morality here. > However a little while back, and by that I mean less than a year. We > had another debate about morality, some questions where asked abotu > what I mean when I say 'Moral' and when I say 'Ethical', it seemed > that my ideas where just a little out and due to the helpfull people > here I re thought teh definitions that i had always belived where > correct. That is: > > Morality is still ones personal opinion on what is good and what is > bad, but Ethics deals with a more social morality. That is you and I > could have differing ideas due to our morality, but our ethics come > fro the society or other groupings we find ourselves in. > > Now you say that this is also wrong? Hhahah gees, a little help > anybody? > > On 15 Mar, 11:54, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I disagree. Morality is not a personal decision but a communal one and > > is not innate but taught by the family and society. Morals are loose > > enough to change according to current trends and therefore not fixed- > > they are a cousin to "situation ethics". > > > On Mar 15, 6:31 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think that is wrong mate. Morality is no more than ones personal > > > definition of what is right and what is wrong. > > > > On 14 Mar, 06:27, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > And no: morals are not based on reason, ethics are based on reason. > > > > Morals are the "spiritual " measure of right and wrong and ethics are > > > > the intellectual/societal force that makes living in groups possible. > > > > > Ethics are what we get when we apply logic and concern for others to > > > > ourselves. Morals come from illiterate bronze and iron age paedophiles > > > > and misogynists in silly little collections of quaint tribal > > > > stories. > > > > > On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, Staples <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Fiddler: > > > > > > "Morals are far too fluid...to be a guide in any dilemma; > > > > > reason...provides the ability to make decisions." > > > > > > Assuming you actually meant this, you implied that: > > > > > > 1. Morals are not a constant. > > > > > 2. Morals are not based on reason. > > > > > > How could anyone live with a system of morality like that - one > > > > > divorced from rationality and is "fluid", e.g., changes from day to > > > > > day - on what basis? Irrationality? I suppose so.- 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.
