On Paths Unknown discussion

Morality and ethics - what does it mean?
It is easy to call something or someone "immoral", but what exactly does this term mean? I will post more on the subject soon - I'm a bit short on time at the moment.

In the meantime, Stanford says: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mor...

haven't been getting notifications on this group combined with a tooth extraction...whoa...a lot going on here.....
this is an interesting question and deserves a thoughtful answer. in the meantime I'll just add my off the top response...morality is being true to your own values I think...but I also think the system we live under is immoral... so...hypocrisy is the ultimate immorality

Nice to see some activity here, and glad you've re-discovered us, Magdelanye!
Hope you've recovered from the tooth.

Are you going to be reading some Borges with us at the end of August?

I too, would like to come back to this thread a bit later, -there's actually so much to say on this subject, especially when you start to look at issues of ethics and morality as they are relevant to our everyday world.

Yes indeed!(to yr comment on ethics...unfortanately tooth taking a while to heal, thanks for your sympathy)

I love Borges but not into rereads right now, same with Calvino.

Some of you may be interested in a book I finished recently...perlman's silence. An ethical and successful professor goes through an existential crises that is both tragic and hilarious.
The book is not for everybody, very long and introspective, and (refreshingly for me anyways) and NO sex. ( not that I have anything against sex, just a bit bored, especially with all these aging writers and the Lolita syndrome)

rats its time for me to log out.
Ill get back to the Hittites....later

Morality is a slavish devotion to fact.
Ethics is an exploration of the facts.

Without the ego, it all goes.

are you implying that without the ego imposing morality people would be totally immoral? Ethics are not the sole domain of those who consider themselves morally evolved. Every level and subset have their code of ethics. Our morality is in some kind of ratio to our desire to contribute to good of others, I think

Magdelanye wrote: "are you implying that without the ego imposing morality people would be totally immoral? Ethics are not the sole domain of those who consider themselves morally evolved. Every level and subset have..."

A moral person is not themselves. Either by shame or pride, they have no self-control.

An ethical person is in full control of themselves and owe allegiance to no-one.

Hmm, I think we are addressing surface semantical differences here. I won't comment on Greg's ego comment yet, (because I disagree with what it seems to say, but I have noticed from his other posts that Greg likes to play semantic games with some of his statements) but yes, I do agree that making a distinction between ethics and morality is important.

A 'moral' person tends to be self-righteous and panders to the ideas of someone outside of themselves (such as religious leaders or tribe elders) as to how they should think and behave.

An ethical person adheres to a universal code of correctness which tends to have as its aim a fair dispensation for all humanity, and in some ethical codes, animals, plants and the environment is also taken into account.

it appears that these definitions are rather biased. is it possible to be one without the other?
without getting all judgmental, I think the so-called moral majority has given morality a bad rap

...but I did say "tends to" I didn't say definitely is.
...meaning that morality is often tied to specific creeds and religions, and the codes tend to change along with the creed.
Whereas ethics is something more objective, and the codes involved there, tend to go more with occupations and the like, if you see what I'm saying. As for example, the surgeon's code of ethics. If you are one, you need to adhere to their ethics which is something totally separate from what that surgeon's ideas of morality might be. But ethics do fit in with morality when we get to moral philosophy and beliefs on how we should treat other people, the earth, our environment and so forth.

How is it going with City of Saints, Magdelanye, did you find our threads for it?

hmmm...are you saying that morality is subject to v

Subject to? Well, whatever you were going to say, I think that every person has a sense of morality, of course- but there are people or schools of thought who think that "they" and /or certain religions or schools of belief have the right idea about what is 'moral' or right and wrong and what is not - for example, some would say it is immoral to have more than one spouse or to have extramarital sex, and others would say it is not. So yes, I do actually think that morality or ideas about what is "right and wrong" tends to be subjective in many respects.

Certain things most people seem to agree on, such as that it is wrong to kill another person, but even on that issue there is not consensus the world over.

To me, morality is nothing more than another person's opinion which is completely ungrounded in science.

what happened there? it cut off where I had moved the little curser to correct a typo.... I meant to ask if you were saying that morality is subject to the vagaries of fashion, or creed, and ethics is eternal
and to Derek, I never heard of science as a reason to be ethical, bit love is a reason and that is totally irrational

Magdelanye wrote: "what happened there? it cut off where I had moved the little curser to correct a typo.... I meant to ask if you were saying that morality is subject to the vagaries of fashion, or creed, and ethics..."

One cannot tell right from wrong without empathy and observation, love is another matter.

Traveller wrote: "Subject to? Well, whatever you were going to say, I think that every person has a sense of morality, of course- but there are people or schools of thought who think that "they" and /or certain reli..."

"War is organised murder, and nothing else."
Harry Patch

"War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil."
George Orwell

Magdelanye wrote: "what happened there? it cut off where I had moved the little curser to correct a typo.... I meant to ask if you were saying that morality is subject to the vagaries of fashion, or creed, and ethics..."

Magdelanye, to the vagaries of fashion - unfortunately, yes! It certainly seems so, doesn't it? Just look at how incredibly Western mores have changed in the last 2 000 years. In the ancient days in which the Judaic bible plays out, through the days of the Roman Empire and right through the days of European empire-building, everyone thought slavery was fine and dandy. That it is deemed "wrong" was only a recent development. Note how, for example, something else, being democracy, has been in and out of fashion for as many years. etc.etc.

..but it is debates like this one, over issues of what constitutes right and wrong that are the really important aspect of the issue. ...because then people are at least thinking about the issues instead of just blindly accepting them; and I thank you for the fact that you are not just doing that, but wrestling with the problem and thinking about it.

Whether I think ethics are eternal - I see how I could perhaps have made it look like that, so I apologize for not being clearer, but no, they are not either, of course. Ethics is something more practical; a code of conduct, whereas morals are more concerned with the BELIEF of what is right or wrong.

...in other words, if you are a teacher, you might not believe that it is morally wrong to have a love affair with your student (some teachers will believe it is wrong and some won't - depending on what their moral codes say) but the teacher's ethical code would forbid them from doing such a thing.

I suppose I should have made clear that one can have a set of personal ethics and you have professional ethics; and the latter is usually an objective set of rules that all members of that profession must follow.

A bit like laws - most people in democracies tend to agree with the laws of their countries because those laws are in line with their own feelings of morality. The laws aren't in themselves moral,but they echo the morals of the people who made them. Ethics echo morals in a similar way. ...and it is when a government's policies and laws start to diverge from the people's beliefs that you get insurrection, not so?

As to your comment about love and the eternal - I think you might be commenting on that "inner voice" that most people have that instinctually tells us what seems right and wrong? Sadly that voice seems more blunted in some people than others, and they say that psychopaths don't have that inner voice.