22
   

morals and ethics, how are they different?

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 11:20 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

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...


I do seem to agree with much of what you say!

Your quote: [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..]


This is a old post of mine that only one replied to and many will find to be crazy but I am ok with that!

I would like to ask you and all of the other readers a few hypothetical questions!
I will try to keep this simple.
If your mother was a maid and cleaned houses for a living, "her pay very well may be at the bottom of our pay scale. Let us imagine that her car broke down and she only had enough money for the parts, "You just happen to be a mechanic. "You look at her car and you see that the water pump is bad and that it will take you about six hours to replace it, because the water pump is in a hard place to get to. I can only guess that you would probably help her free of charge?

Now lets say that your mother did not want to see you labor for her free of charge and instead she asked if it would be ok if she cleaned your house washed your cloths and cooked you a good dinner instead.

Would it be immoral of her to ask such a question of you being that you earn $60.00 per hour and she only earns $10.00 per hour? From what you have already shared with me on the love of your mother, it would not be immoral as she may only be trying to say thank you in the only way she knows how.

Now I would like to bring into question our philosophy of competition and rank as it will seem to be what guides her pay scale. [so to speak] We can see how it may seem immoral for us to take advantage of our love ones intellectual and environmental challenges in a direct way.

We can overcome this view of immorality against our love ones by taking advantage of their environmental and intellectual challenges in a indirect way!
They are not as smart as us so they will not see this! You can take advantage of my love ones and I can take advantage of yours and we can trade their labors between ourselves. We can rule and be happy!

We can call this competition and rank! we can teach this philosophy to our love ones in so many ways that it will become the norm and it may seem as a Devine right. Who knows we may even go to war over this one day.

Example. If I was a dentist and your mother had bad teeth and needed help I could fix them in about 2 hours and charge her 1 months worth of her labor. It is not all that bad because you are a mechanic and I have a few cars, a couple of personal water crafts and a boat that will need to be repaired and you will be able to profit off of your own mother as well.
I will give you a cut of what I have gained from your mother. Their will be no need to have sorrow for your mother who has labored so hard to feed you and your siblings when you were growing up.
I am sure that many of you will give some of this money back to your own mothers, being that this money was recieved from your mothers laboring right? yes? If Not Then it does appears to me that you also have indirectly raped your own mother of her labors because you have agreed with this philosophy. [money economy]
Is this the wrong way of viewing this? If so please explain the correct way.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 11:29 am
@reasoning logic,
Money being the source of all evil, we can say without doubt, it is here to survive for eternity.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 11:41 am
@cicerone imposter,
Yes to be realistic we will always have some sort of problem that money is able to buy which is [substance]. I do hope that we are able to get a better understanding of the injustice that we cause on each other by the way that we govern or society.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 01:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Money being the source of all evil, we can say without doubt, it is here to survive for eternity.
I would not doubt that human vanity is the root of all evil, for even primitives without money suffered their vanity, and money, avarice and cupidice combined only equal vanity exposed...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 01:24 pm
@Fido,
Is it vanity or ignorance ? You are far to demanding..."you shall not judge..."
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 01:52 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I don't think it's vanity, but greed. I relate excessive greed to ignorance.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 03:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't think it's vanity, but greed. I relate excessive greed to ignorance.

Socrates said knowledge is virtue... In what sense is knowledge virtue... Certainly ignorance justifies all manor of injury and injustice; but what does that have to do with an honor society, without money??? Is it possible to be greedy for honor because honor is the only wealth??? I am not asking because I want your opinion... I have enough of those...

I want you to think about it... Because people seem to think that in primitive communistic societies that people were deprived of their personalities, and they were not... Their personality, character was one they got, more than ourselves, from their communities... Like the last of the Mohecans, he identified with his people first, and not last... Yet always there was vanity, and where condititons forced equality, people were even more desparate for distinction... But it was true honor they were after, glory, and reputation... Now people care little if they are famous or infamous, but nobody wants to be a nobody... I think the problem is the same whether people are born communists or born capitalists... People want to be recognized so they can feel real...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 03:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Agreed, Ignorance was my perspective on the matter also...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 04:29 pm
@Fido,
People may have repressed their true personalities based on who governed them, but they were not deprived to express who they were. Providing one example such as the Mohicans doesn't do much for all of human experience.

Many cultures shared their food and shelter, and some even their mates. Human experience provides all the varieties of what is possible from what we now term as heinous to hedonistic. Humans apply terms to human activity that can give it a negative impression, but they are all "natural" human behavior. We are conditioned to think otherwise.

Humans dropped two atomic bombs in Japan that killed and maimed thousands, but that's only one example of what humans have done to other humans over time.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 05:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Money being the source of all evil, we can say without doubt, it is here to survive for eternity.


If money is the root of all evil is there any concept that could be taught to all of man kind that would help them to understand this?
When I speak of a concept I am refering to something like a measurement such as time, length, width,distance and so forth!
If your answer no, are you sure that your answer is a absolute?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 05:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
well c.i. I'm probably wrong but I'm thinking it was actually written that the love of money is the root of all evil, would that imply that love is here to stay for eternity? beats me, eternity might very well be even longer than eons, kinda beyond my comprehension.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 06:19 pm
@dyslexia,
dys, I hope that's not true, because most humans "love" money. Maybe, love is a stronger word than I want to use. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 08:55 pm
Thanks for the invite RL Smile Nice topic. Morals and ethics are the same thing just words from different languages that come to meet up in English (just like cat or feline....) The underlying issue is "standards" who or what sets the standards for what is collectively considered moral or ethical. One could even toss up the word virtue and it means the same thing also. A standard is a rule of measurement. Whether liberal or conservative every person has their own standards. They are developed from what is called a frame of reference. We base our standards upon our own personal frame of reference. We all have some sort of frame of reference whether it be our parents example, that of the religious world, that of psychology and/or science. From either a narrow frame of reference or a broad reference we draw lines and these lines we call boundaries and this is the basis of our own measurement of standards. Smile
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 09:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

People may have repressed their true personalities based on who governed them, but they were not deprived to express who they were. Providing one example such as the Mohicans doesn't do much for all of human experience.

Many cultures shared their food and shelter, and some even their mates. Human experience provides all the varieties of what is possible from what we now term as heinous to hedonistic. Humans apply terms to human activity that can give it a negative impression, but they are all "natural" human behavior. We are conditioned to think otherwise.

Humans dropped two atomic bombs in Japan that killed and maimed thousands, but that's only one example of what humans have done to other humans over time.

And; dropping the bomb was ethical and morals as all what one does in defense of ones own is ethical, and moral...

Calling your self -one of- was only one example of group moral behavior... The flat heads used boards to flatten the heads of their children... Some more noble girls in some tribes had their heads bound which gave the whole head a bee hive appearance... Others wore a distinctive stone in their nose, and some practiced distinctive facial tattoos that made them, in their words, more beautiful than beauty... If you asked them, they would admit that is just what they do, but surrounded by enemies such people needed to tell friend from foe, and it also reinforced group identity... The other thing reinforcing group identity was the fact that to all others they were all the same, each standing equally as well for the guilt of another, and they knew it, friend and foe , and all knew that fact, so the extent of law was the influence of ones group over its members...Each person standing for his group is the source of character... I don't want to give you the wrong impression.... Only outside of his group was a person restrained in his behavior... The whole purpose of the group was absolute freedom, as absolute a social freedom as humanity has known... Look at the Franks, who took over Europe and stopped the tide of the Muslims.... The Romans beat up on them, but speaking frankly means freely because the Franks called themselves the Free... That is what their name means...Individual freedom reached its pinnicle within the confines of ones village, and outside, people used their heads, behaved themselves, and reflected honor on their people... This is what Ethics was originally about... Things have changed, and ethics has only a shadow of its past meaning
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 11:00 am
@Fido,
Fido, That you consider the dropping of a-bombs in Japan as ethical and moral is your personal opinion; it's not fact or truth. You put value into the killing of innocent humans as ethical and moral, but contradict yourself when you talk about morals. You can't have it both ways.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 12:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Fido, That you consider the dropping of a-bombs in Japan as ethical and moral is your personal opinion; it's not fact or truth. You put value into the killing of innocent humans as ethical and moral, but contradict yourself when you talk about morals. You can't have it both ways.

There are as yet no human morals... Menelaus at Troy said it best: kill them down to the child in the mother's womb, a justification for total war if ever there was one... Morals and ethics guide a person's relationship with his own people, and his people's enemy is his enemy, so that treason is the greatest crime, and cowardice second to it.... You must know that the bomb saved our lives and theirs; and we had to show them we were capable of the same cruelty they so often evidenced, and since they only held us in contempt we had no choice but to teach them fear, for you can hate those you fear, but not hold them in contempt, as that is reserved for victims and idiots...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 02:37 pm
@Fido,
That's where your narrow perspective of humanity losses. We are all humans first and foremost. Race has no real value when we talk about homo sapiens.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 04:53 pm
@RexRed,
Wow RexRed I surely could have not have said it as well as you did. You have brought a new view point into the subject.
I have not thought of in that way but it does seem to be true. It sure would be nice to hear more from you in this thread and others that deal with ethics!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 04:58 pm
@Fido,
Morals is a judgment of goodness or badness. You don't seem to recognize this dichotomy in human values.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 08:15 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Morals is a judgment of goodness or badness. You don't seem to recognize this dichotomy in human values.

No it isn't... The judgement is made by genetics... People related to you are good, and strangers are bad... Were you never a child, and have you never seen children... Where is the child that fears his parents, and runs to strangers... You were probobly raised by wolves so we have something, at least, in common...Most of us were not, and those raised by humans have a different natural outlook... The facts are sad to admit...Clearly, children know more than you...
 

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 0.03 seconds on 07/23/2019 at 05:01:23