No morality, just ethics?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2014, 11:40 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(19-10-2014 10:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  And if other people's actions are a threat to people other than yourself?
Then it depends on how it impacts me.
If a person spanks my kid then I will get involved.
If my neighbor spanks his child then I will not get involved.

If people get in fights on the street, I will not get involved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 03:41 AM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(19-10-2014 07:29 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  In the end, whatever we can make them agree that we have, they'll say we got it from God even though we don't know it. (Or want to admit it)

There's no winning either way. No

You would be surprised how used to indoctrination and rote the christian mind is. Best response I ever had to my reformed Jehovah's Witness partner that finally broke the hold wasn't carefully constructed arguments. It was getting pissed off. When you outwit christians their mind turns off, however when their lazy responses set you off it makes them reconsider.

And that specific argument isn't a hard one to shoot down. Behavior is by and large learned from a young age. And culture changes peoples insticts over time. You only need look at the ethics of primitive tribes to realise the christian morality isn't ingrained and natural. Or Muslim ethics. Genetically - look at wolves (the evolutionary ancestors of all dogs) they are nasty and viscous but given enough domestication even big scary dogs become natural placid attention hogs. Humans are the same we all used to be wild. Romans anyone?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 05:21 AM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(18-10-2014 11:35 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  I've never read anything in philosophy, no classes, so I'm a total noob. Read a few things here and most philosophy goes right over my head.

I've been thinking about many of the morality debates I've had on youtube (<waits for choking, gagging, laughing to stop>). I've come to think that when we discuss atheists having morality, we're playing into theist hands. They define morality as obedience to god, and we've been socially programmed to think that morality is a desirable trait. As such we argue that we have morality, too. Instead, perhaps we should be saying we have ethics, not morality. Ethics, as I understand it, is basically the analysis of whether a given activity unduly harms or endangers another's person or property without sufficient cause. This would avoid the entire trap. We would also avoid terms such as 'good' and 'evil', instead referencing 'unethical' and 'ethical'. It would mean that 'moral', 'good', and 'evil' are appeal to emotion buzzwords.

Thoughts? How far off base am I? Not that I might not use the argument on YY anyway since commenters there are generally about as philosophically literate as I am. Angel
I think you're quite on spot. Endangering someone else or property is a bad idea. And doing it deliberately is downright evil. Evil people always tell others to sacrifice lives and property for a good thing, but it's always someone else's life and property and it's usually a bad thing.

I'd say this rule of a thumb is better than thinking of how much good does this or that - that's an argument from effect and we can never know that in advance. Good things often have both good and bad consequences and we can't know them all before we take action. The only thing we really control is what we do deliberately, do we attack, threat, lie, manipulate or we don't? This acting to harm deliberately is called aggression and the stance that it's absolutely, always immoral it is called the Non-Aggression Principle. If you take a NAP, defense is still OK.

My five cents to that is just an observation, if we stick with this rule of thumb, then it increases the "overall variability of a system", which is something like collective-individual freedom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
20-10-2014, 05:46 AM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(18-10-2014 12:54 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  ..
The term "ethics" is typically used to describe the moral standard of a group.
...

(19-10-2014 02:01 PM)MadDog Wrote:  ...
Ethics: Set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
...

Yabut, not just groups.

Here's what I'll be teaching on Wednesday:

Quote:-- Organisational Ethics determine the values by which the enterprise want to live (its code)
-- Individual ethics determined by each person’s personal values and dependent to some extent on external factors not always under the enterprise’s control.
-- Individual behaviours which collectively determine the culture of the enterprise and is dependent on both organisational and individual ethics.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 06:35 AM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
It was just that dictionary definition. Many dictionaries have the same definition but in my time at university it was impressed on me ethics were a individual thing and I agree. The culture today, only a group is valid not an individual :/. To my mind only an informed individual will really care and be passionate about their own ethics, a group think will instill laziness and the individual to be aloof. Your thoughts as you teach?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 06:44 AM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 06:35 AM)MadDog Wrote:  It was just that dictionary definition. Many dictionaries have the same definition but in my time at university it was impressed on me ethics were a individual thing and I agree. The culture today, only a group is valid not an individual :/. To my mind only an informed individual will really care and be passionate about their own ethics, a group think will instill laziness and the individual to be aloof. Your thoughts as you teach?

Yup. Pretty much.
Although I'd argue that all individuals have their set of ethics whether or not those are consciously considered.

My thoughts as I teach are mainly:
a) Will we finish on time (particularly on the last day of the course and I have a plane to catch)?
b) Are these delegates going to pass the exam (or ruin my 100% record)?
c) Would it really be so unprofessional to say yes if the cute one asks if I'd like to go for a coffee afterwards?

Blush

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 06:44 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 06:35 AM)MadDog Wrote:  It was just that dictionary definition. Many dictionaries have the same definition but in my time at university it was impressed on me ethics were a individual thing and I agree. The culture today, only a group is valid not an individual :/. To my mind only an informed individual will really care and be passionate about their own ethics, a group think will instill laziness and the individual to be aloof. Your thoughts as you teach?

Yup. Pretty much.
Although I'd argue that all individuals have their set of ethics whether or not those are consciously considered.

My thoughts as I teach are mainly:
a) Will we finish on time (particularly on the last day of the course and I have a plane to catch)?
b) Are these delegates going to pass the exam (or ruin my 100% record)?
c) Would it really be so unprofessional to say yes if the cute one asks if I'd like to go for a coffee afterwards?

Blush

Laughat I'm in the wrong profession! Yes people aren't stupid but so often we talk past one another. I personally found the distinction between morality and ethics enlightening as words do mean something. One can be more 'ethical', the other have more 'morality'. Raising consciousness here may make some students consider that passing with distinction is ethical, and not doing so immoral. Others probably bored out of their brains lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 08:15 AM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(19-10-2014 11:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-10-2014 10:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  And if other people's actions are a threat to people other than yourself?
Then it depends on how it impacts me.
If a person spanks my kid then I will get involved.
If my neighbor spanks his child then I will not get involved.

If people get in fights on the street, I will not get involved.

You lack empathy. How sad.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-10-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-10-2014 11:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Then it depends on how it impacts me.
If a person spanks my kid then I will get involved.
If my neighbor spanks his child then I will not get involved.

If people get in fights on the street, I will not get involved.

You lack empathy. How sad.

Interesting. How would you respond the child being smacked or a fight on the street? I'm not being a pain in the ass I'm genuinely interested how you would respond. My response wouldn't be the same as Stevil's either
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  You lack empathy. How sad.
Don't know where that garbage comes from, but whatever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: