Morality and Ethics

[pixelero]

I suggest that there is no "objective morality", by definition. The word "morality" is cognate with the Latin mores (customs: singular mos.) What is moral in one culture can be immoral in another.

Ethics, in contrast, is cognate with Greek ethos (which can also denote customary behavior, but has a further denotation of character.) In precise modern usage, "morality" denotes what a particular culture considers right behavior while "ethics" denotes a branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine what is right behavior based on a set of accepted premises. For example: "life is preferable to death" - "happiness is preferable to suffering" - "truth is preferable to falsehood" and so on. (One premise that was only formally adopted by most thinkers fairly recently, historically speaking, is "freedom is preferable to bondage." Hence the persistence of slavery as an institution well into the Enlightenment.)

I would like to know: are there any believers who accept this distinction between morality and ethics, or any non-believers who reject it? Why?

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 9 by dominicastar]

Well, to me morality and ethics is synonymous.

Many people do consider the terms synonymous. The first definitions you find in most dictionaries when you look up "ethics," for example, is something like "sense of right and wrong." You have to have to look lower down the list of definitions to find the more technical definition something like "a branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine right from wrong."

By the way, this is a serious question, what does objective morality mean?

When some, usually religious, people use the term objective morality, they mean a sense of right and wrong, supposedly instilled in us by god, which is absolute and unchanging. As an example they usually offer some hypothetical case of sexual violence against children, in order to maximize the emotional impact of their argument. Ironically, they are often unaware, (or in denial,) of the fact that the bible not only fails to condemn sexual violence against children but actually condones it. (They also usually don't appeal to the Ten Commandments as objective morality either since the commandments omit so much nastiness and include some silliness.)

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 10 by Darias]

While the Russian law in question may well be a troubling violation of human rights in terms of free speech, it is not "criminalizing homosexuality."

It does appear that, under the law, one could speak in favor of gay rights in an adults only venue, so it doesn't completely prevent people "talking about homosexuality."

I apologize if this appears to be a quibble, but I'm of the opinion that exaggeration is not conducive to understanding.

[Artie]

I suggest that there is no "objective morality", by definition. The word "morality" is cognate with the Latin mores (customs: singular mos.) What is moral in one culture can be immoral in another.

Ethics, in contrast, is cognate with Greek ethos (which can also denote customary behavior, but has a further denotation of character.) In precise modern usage, "morality" denotes what a particular culture considers right behavior while "ethics" denotes a branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine what is right behavior based on a set of accepted premises. For example: "life is preferable to death" - "happiness is preferable to suffering" - "truth is preferable to falsehood" and so on. (One premise that was only formally adopted by most thinkers fairly recently, historically speaking, is "freedom is preferable to bondage." Hence the persistence of slavery as an institution well into the Enlightenment.)

I would like to know: are there any believers who accept this distinction between morality and ethics, or any non-believers who reject it? Why?

The actual distinction between morality and ethics is that ethics are impersonal and morality is personal. Simply use a criminal defence lawyer as an example. According to legal ethics he is required to defend a killer to the best of his ability and even get him aquitted if for example he can show that somebody didn't follow correct procedure, even though his personal moral code is totally against putting a killer back on the streets. You can simply say that ethics are the codes of conduct expected by the group to which the individual belongs. That is why we have expressions like "company ethics" or "professional ethics", so as to make it clear that a person working for a company is expected to follow the "company ethics" and not his own personal moral codes.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 13 by Artie]

That's one of the technical definitions of ethics. I was speaking of another technical definition, the branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine right and wrong.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 13 by Artie]

That's one of the technical definitions of ethics. I was speaking of another technical definition, the branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine right and wrong.

Please link to a page explaining this in detail. Seems interesting.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 15 by Artie]

Please link to a page explaining this in detail.

The obvious would be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Also:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

[Darias]

[Replying to post 12 by pixelero]

I appreciate your attention to detail and I corrected myself, but I'm not willing to go to Russia to find out for sure how much of my speech authorities might tolerate.

In this specific instance, I don't think the details matter quite so much, when my point was that it's wrong for the collective to tyrannize the individual -- whether it means death or life imprisonment or fines or simply no recognition of marital status.

My point still stands that the voters and rulers in Uganda and Russia respectively have this mindset when considering homosexuals:

'If you go ahead and do things we as a collective deem incorrect, we, as a collective, will take action to protect ourselves against you.'

This is an example of an appeal to the people, and you cannot claim, as Goat has, that this is the standard by which society determines right from wrong. It is not a standard for ethics; it is rubbish. To sit there and tell a believer with a straight face that this is how humans are to determine right from wrong is either dishonest or ignorant.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 15 by Artie]

Please link to a page explaining this in detail.

The obvious would be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Also:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

No, you said "the branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine right and wrong." I would like a link to a page explaining this branch of philosophy you speak of. The articles you linked to above don't even contain the word logic.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 12 by pixelero]

I appreciate your attention to detail and I corrected myself, but I'm not willing to go to Russia to find out for sure how much of my speech authorities might tolerate.

In this specific instance, I don't think the details matter quite so much, when my point was that it's wrong for the collective to tyrannize the individual -- whether it means death or life imprisonment or fines or simply no recognition of marital status.

My point still stands that the voters and rulers in Uganda and Russia respectively have this mindset when considering homosexuals:

'If you go ahead and do things we as a collective deem incorrect, we, as a collective, will take action to protect ourselves against you.'

This is an example of an appeal to the people, and you cannot claim, as Goat has, that this is the standard by which society determines right from wrong. It is not a standard for ethics; it is rubbish. To sit there and tell a believer with a straight face that this is how humans are to determine right from wrong is either dishonest or ignorant.

No, it's not the standard, it's the way things get implemented. There are the 'rights of society', and there are the 'rights of the individual'.. and there is a constant struggle to find a balance.... not consciously, but that is the way it happens
And no, it is not an 'appeal to popularity'. That is a misuse of the fallacy.

Sometimes, the 'society' gets too much say, and individual rights get trampled on.
Sometimes, society gets too weak, and you get chaos,and the development of fractured groups, or you get the development of corporationism. That is the problem with libertarianism.. it allows the corporations to get too much power, and it is purpose is self defeating. You can see what happens when the rich folk who push free market get too much power.. you find environmental disasters, poor working conditions, and pollution.

[Haven]

I appreciate your attention to detail and I corrected myself, but I'm not willing to go to Russia to find out for sure how much of my speech authorities might tolerate.

In this specific instance, I don't think the details matter quite so much, when my point was that it's wrong for the collective to tyrannize the individual -- whether it means death or life imprisonment or fines or simply no recognition of marital status.

I agree completely.

My point still stands that the voters and rulers in Uganda and Russia respectively have this mindset when considering homosexuals:

Which is why the rights of conscious beings should never be put up for a popular vote.