22
   

morals and ethics, how are they different?

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 07:32 pm
@north,
north wrote:


but aren't morals and ethics come about at the sametime

my thinking upon this is stealing

think back 5000yrs ago , stealing was thought , I assume , a threat to ones survival and/or family , by everyone

so that morality and ethics sort of grew together as an behavior of conduct understood by all



Morals as a word was coined to translate Ethics as a word into Latin... They are the same, but Ethics is the older word...
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 07:33 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Agreed ! Together always...but Ethics is more fundamental and less dependent on cultural costume...Ethics is about the protocols for the operative system network of Society to work, fundamental software...Moral is just an anti virus in the hard drive...it helps !


I see your point and agreed

so does ethics become or can it become the foundation of morality ? just putting out there
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 07:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Ok I will go down to that since you seam so confused and mixed up...

1 - Cannibalism was never practised in most places in the world since ever, is an rare aberration at best...

2 - Besides the oddity of such behaviour to modern eyes even this one has some rules and justification...namely:

2.1 - It was never practised inside the group but against an enemy group...it had for a goal dissipation of further conflict through terror...
2.2 -The only situation in which would be practised inside a social group would be out of extreme hunger and catastrophe.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 07:41 pm
@Fido,
Yes it was International sort of...but you well know what kind of international law I was speaking of concerning our misunderstanding in the previous mentioned post.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 07:46 pm
@Fido,
Formally such is the case, but that is etymology...and yet it can be room to question if the difference between them can be explored further on, aside Historical definition...I like to think there is such difference although as North pointed out Morals is yet another Layer in the chain...a complementary one !
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 08:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Ok I will go down to that since you seam so confused and mixed up...

1 - Cannibalism was never practised in most places in the world since ever, is an rare aberration at best...

2 - Besides the oddity of such behaviour to modern eyes even this one has some rules and justification...namely:

2.1 - It was never practised inside the group but against an enemy group...it had for a goal dissipation of further conflict through terror...
2.2 -The only situation in which would be practised inside a social group would be out of extreme hunger and catastrophe.

practiced at varius times in North America, South America, Africa and New Guinnea, Pacific Islands and Australia that I know of, suspected elsewhere if you can believe archeological evidence... Sure, it has mostly been a long time, but Cannibalism never stopped until slavery started...Better to exploit some one to death than turn them into a soup...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 09:10 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Formally such is the case, but that is etymology...and yet it can be room to question if the difference between them can be explored further on, aside Historical definition...I like to think there is such difference although as North pointed out Morals is yet another Layer in the chain...a complementary one !

You can see that confusion on the issue is general here, and we should expect no more and no less of society... It is like saying there is no such thing as an apron... And everyone knows what an apron is; but in the shift of time on speech, Napron became apron, and A napron, became an apron...

I think it is our job to correct mistakes in common usage, to write dictionaries and define words rather that be the victims of common mistakes.. People who define ethics and morals differently should justify their differnce unless we are all just going to define words as pleases us... Nothing much is hanging on napron, but confusion on the issue of morals/ethics has hurt us all at one time or another...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 09:25 pm
@Fido,
Fido, Thanks for your answers; they are essentially what I remember. However, it didn't end with slavery; the Fiji islands practiced cannibalism until about 100 years ago.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 09:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Fido, Thanks for your answers; they are essentially what I remember. However, it didn't end with slavery; the Fiji islands practiced cannibalism until about 100 years ago.


how does cannibalism have anything to do with morals or ethics
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 09:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Fido, Thanks for your answers; they are essentially what I remember. However, it didn't end with slavery; the Fiji islands practiced cannibalism until about 100 years ago.

A man in new Guinne died of mad human disease a few years back, and if I scanned the article correctly, he was the believed to be the last cannibal on the Island... There they ate their loved ones, and the women and children who were left the less desirable portions of brain and nervouse tissue suffered a lot of Encephalopathy... Did I spell that right... Mad cow sounds so much better... Everyone thinks cows are so contented... They look to me like they have some serious grudge issues...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 10:49 pm
@Fido,
1 - Just how this oddity, implies mostly cannibalism was practised this way ?
...and by the way, were they hunting their loved ones ? I seriously doubt that ! This is demagoguery, a cloud of dust.

2 - On Moral and Ethic divergence historical definition counts very little when it comes to admit or realize that there are forms which can be perceived as Universal and generally common to human behaviour, as others heavily dependent on costume and culture, and that´s a fact which cannot be set aside or denied...if you want to fuse moral and ethic out of convenience alone, or historical tradition that does n´t account that everywhere in the world this two senses of rules apply in the opinion of most informed people in spite of the names they might use to describe it. I care with the phenomena and not with the tag in which is sealed, nevertheless I think I made it clear in the very beginning of my first post that such interpretation was my personnel view on the matter by contrast with the classical mess made upon it...given is obviously a mess wherever I read on it !!!

So, Fido instead of supporting in the typical transcendental "magichery" most of your correct assumptions on moral principles and behaviour, bring it a bit down to Earth closer to Darwinism and Evolution far from the rotting dichotomy of matter versus spirit specially when this days nobody can quite well to tell the difference any more...
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 10:49 pm
@Fido,

what-ever
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 11:10 pm
@north,
...if ever...
0 Replies
 
deepthot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 02:23 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

It is not possible to teach ethics and such an effort has always met with failure... I you want to teach, teach to be unethical as michiavelli..(sic.). The effort to make a science of ethics was doomed,...... The last cause the rich wanted to fight for was international democracy, or any sort of democracy.. Democracy and equality are essential to morality, and political equality falls with economic equality... Poverty and wealth both corrupt people, so the desire to teach what is daily untaught in the market place is natural, and doomed...

Fido believes strongly that Ethics cannot be taught - except to those who are already moral or ethical; that it would only be "the saved talking to the saved." What it seems that he can't see is that what my writings attempt to do is to strengthen the strong, so to speak: to encourage the (morally) healthy to be even healthier - given the fact that even the morally-sensitive people have their falibilities, their imperfections, that they don't always practice their ethics ...something that he and I would agree upon. I am seeking full moral health, knowing that it is highly probable that I'll fall short, but will have at least made some progress in furthering human well-being and human flourishing.

The following link is must viewing for any student of moral philosophy who is interested in ethics !! I say that unequivocally, and thank reasoned logic for bringing it to my attention. It is an illustrated lecture by Professor Sam Harris. Do not pass it up! It says everything I wanted to say only says it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrA-8rTxXf0.

You will want to watch this video (and stick it out for the Question period.).

It confirms what I have been driving at in my series entitled A Unified Theory of Ethics - the latest sequel of which is ASPECT OF ETHICS; Views through a new lens. Here, in case you have missed the discussion, is a link to that:
http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo

If you like what you read there, or if you liked the Sam Harris lecture, then spread this information around.

Comments? Questions?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 05:35 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

1 - Just how this oddity, implies mostly cannibalism was practised this way ?
...and by the way, were they hunting their loved ones ? I seriously doubt that ! This is demagoguery, a cloud of dust.

2 - On Moral and Ethic divergence historical definition counts very little when it comes to admit or realize that there are forms which can be perceived as Universal and generally common to human behaviour, as others heavily dependent on costume and culture, and that´s a fact which cannot be set aside or denied...if you want to fuse moral and ethic out of convenience alone, or historical tradition that does n´t account that everywhere in the world this two senses of rules apply in the opinion of most informed people in spite of the names they might use to describe it. I care with the phenomena and not with the tag in which is sealed, nevertheless I think I made it clear in the very beginning of my first post that such interpretation was my personnel view on the matter by contrast with the classical mess made upon it...given is obviously a mess wherever I read on it !!!

So, Fido instead of supporting in the typical transcendental "magichery" most of your correct assumptions on moral principles and behaviour, bring it a bit down to Earth closer to Darwinism and Evolution far from the rotting dichotomy of matter versus spirit specially when this days nobody can quite well to tell the difference any more...


I trust that it was much more common than you let on especially in places like New Guinnea where protean sources were very rare...

To say there is a difference between ethics and morals is like saying there is a difference between hate and fear... They are differnt sides of the same coin, so to speak; and the very confusion surrounding the possible differences of meaning of morals and ethics is a vote for an identical meaning since all difference since the coinage of Morals as a word have resulted from opinion and not fact...

Normally I would say that a different word has a different meaning, that we do not call different objects by the same name, but by different names... And yet there are examples like heather and pagan that have the same meaning springing from different countries, of hayseed, or yokel...

I do not hold any metaphysical notions of human creation; and true ethic recognizes genetic relationships as metaphysics does not... When I say Ethics has to do with the life of the community I say so in the gentic sense; and this is true of primitive peoples as well, because ethics were national, that is, springing from a common mother, Natal, and Navel pointing to a genetic connection... Metaphysics in looking at spiritual creation is false, and it is nice that Jefferson and the Catholics we had a creator, but that has never resulted in ethical behavior...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 05:38 am
@north,
north wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Fido, Thanks for your answers; they are essentially what I remember. However, it didn't end with slavery; the Fiji islands practiced cannibalism until about 100 years ago.


how does cannibalism have anything to do with morals or ethics

Friends did not generally eat friends, unless they died of natural causes...You can see the echoes of the behavior is the symbolic sacrifice of Jesus in the Mass... Hoc es Corpus, where we get our word Hocus pocus, says a lot..
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 06:52 am
@deepthot,
deepthot wrote:

Fido wrote:

It is not possible to teach ethics and such an effort has always met with failure... I you want to teach, teach to be unethical as michiavelli..(sic.). The effort to make a science of ethics was doomed,...... The last cause the rich wanted to fight for was international democracy, or any sort of democracy.. Democracy and equality are essential to morality, and political equality falls with economic equality... Poverty and wealth both corrupt people, so the desire to teach what is daily untaught in the market place is natural, and doomed...

Fido believes strongly that Ethics cannot be taught - except to those who are already moral or ethical; that it would only be "the saved talking to the saved." What it seems that he can't see is that what my writings attempt to do is to strengthen the strong, so to speak: to encourage the (morally) healthy to be even healthier - given the fact that even the morally-sensitive people have their falibilities, their imperfections, that they don't always practice their ethics ...something that he and I would agree upon. I am seeking full moral health, knowing that it is highly probable that I'll fall short, but will have at least made some progress in furthering human well-being and human flourishing.

The following link is must viewing for any student of moral philosophy who is interested in ethics !! I say that unequivocally, and thank reasoned logic for bringing it to my attention. It is an illustrated lecture by Professor Sam Harris. Do not pass it up! It says everything I wanted to say only says it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrA-8rTxXf0.

You will want to watch this video (and stick it out for the Question period.).

It confirms what I have been driving at in my series entitled A Unified Theory of Ethics - the latest sequel of which is ASPECT OF ETHICS; Views through a new lens. Here, in case you have missed the discussion, is a link to that:
http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo

If you like what you read there, or if you liked the Sam Harris lecture, then spread this information around.

Comments? Questions?






It does appear that science and ethics are merging. Does anyone disagree?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrA-8rTxXf0
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 08:18 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

deepthot wrote:

Fido wrote:

It is not possible to teach ethics and such an effort has always met with failure... I you want to teach, teach to be unethical as michiavelli..(sic.). The effort to make a science of ethics was doomed,...... The last cause the rich wanted to fight for was international democracy, or any sort of democracy.. Democracy and equality are essential to morality, and political equality falls with economic equality... Poverty and wealth both corrupt people, so the desire to teach what is daily untaught in the market place is natural, and doomed...

Fido believes strongly that Ethics cannot be taught - except to those who are already moral or ethical; that it would only be "the saved talking to the saved." What it seems that he can't see is that what my writings attempt to do is to strengthen the strong, so to speak: to encourage the (morally) healthy to be even healthier - given the fact that even the morally-sensitive people have their falibilities, their imperfections, that they don't always practice their ethics ...something that he and I would agree upon. I am seeking full moral health, knowing that it is highly probable that I'll fall short, but will have at least made some progress in furthering human well-being and human flourishing.

The following link is must viewing for any student of moral philosophy who is interested in ethics !! I say that unequivocally, and thank reasoned logic for bringing it to my attention. It is an illustrated lecture by Professor Sam Harris. Do not pass it up! It says everything I wanted to say only says it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrA-8rTxXf0.

You will want to watch this video (and stick it out for the Question period.).

It confirms what I have been driving at in my series entitled A Unified Theory of Ethics - the latest sequel of which is ASPECT OF ETHICS; Views through a new lens. Here, in case you have missed the discussion, is a link to that:
http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo

If you like what you read there, or if you liked the Sam Harris lecture, then spread this information around.

Comments? Questions?






It does appear that science and ethics are merging. Does anyone disagree?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrA-8rTxXf0


Science seen as a narrow exercise of will is too easily divorced from Ethics which of necessity looks at the whole person, his life as a product of a society, his obligations to society, and his behvior in regard to all of humanity... Ethics considers all that science is blind to...
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 08:29 am
@Fido,
Yes it does seem that Ethics considers all that science is blind to... but if I m not mistaken I think we need science on our side with ethics to help us understand what our ethics is blind to as well.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 10:33 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Yes it does seem that Ethics considers all that science is blind to... but if I m not mistaken I think we need science on our side with ethics to help us understand what our ethics is blind to as well.

If by science you mean reason, then my thought is that reason does not help people to understand ethics unless one is willing to explore as logical and reasonable all that works, because the key to morals is the moral person... What gives him his positive sense of character, and what allows him to put all in perspective when it seems as though character is fate, to be able change your fate with courage, as Beowulf suggested.... There is a reason people with nothing, living on the sharp edge of extermination so prized their honor... They paid a great deal for their honor with ethical behavior toward friends, but also strangers; and for all we know, those people swallowed by fate in prehistory were more moral than those who survived, but we do know that those who survived were ethical and set great value on their ethics, so it can only be presumed to be a survival skill like their democracy and their communism... People would be ethical today if they did not think they could afford to be otherwise, and it is for money that they are usually unethical... So you can be sure that where money is dear, honor is cheap... Ethics suffer a withering fire in a money economy... But in a money economy technology does well and science too...Advancements bought at great price are sold cheap, like labor, for the price of keeping meat on bones...So it is not always for the money that science toils, but for the stuff that dreams are made of: Honors, fame, and power...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/22/2019 at 05:00:14