Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged.
On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way around! > > To dictionary.com! > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your distinctions, Lee; you're > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are not "opposing labels > > of the same thing", though. > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is "ethical" or > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a thought or action is > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed (by ordination, > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" values. It is this > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that Marks "deconstructs" > > so eloquently in his article. > > > Or so it seems to me, i may be wrong. > > > On Aug 25, 9:51 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ethics vs Morality as opposing lables for the same thing? > > > > That is not how I understand the two terms myself. > > > > Ethics is concerned with the correct course of action, both as > > > individuals and on a larger scale, whilst morality is an individuals > > > understanding of what is correct or incorrect. > > > > That is I may have a moral system that agrees or disagree with my > > > socities ethical values. > > > > Perhaps then my issues are merely semantic, but I do not belive that > > > any human can be berift of a morality. That is to say a personal > > > understanding or what is right or wrong. > > > > When he talks about his dislike of animal cruety, he says that this is > > > no longer a question of morality but one of desire. Excuse me for > > > mentioning Ayn Rand now, but she would have it that our greatest > > > moral porpouse is our own happiness. This sure looks like moralyity > > > equated with our desires here. > > > > On Aug 25, 7:42 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > He's a very lucid thinker. > > > > > There is a basis, some basis, to questions of morality (though i > > > > prefer the word "ethics" personally, so perhaps i'm closer to Marks > > > > than i might realise). A deconstructionist approach might lead one > > > > inexorably towards "biological value". If i recall (it was quite a > > > > while ago now), Matt Ridley presents this approach in his book "The > > > > Origins Of Virtue". > > > > > On Aug 22, 2:59 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > By Joel Marks- plus reader comments > > > > > >http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/confessions-of-an-ex-...text > > > > > - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
