Ethics

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

So, someone wanted to talk about Ethics... I can't remeber who. So, I thought I would finally get around to starting that thread.

I am going to open my self up to some scrutiny and post a few of my papers on Ethics.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

What is a Moral Act?

By Mark A. Frost

For any action to be a Moral act it must meet five basic criteria. The first thing we must consider is whether or not the act involved at least two distinct individuals. For it to be a Moral act an individual or group of individuals has to do something to someone or some other group of individuals. If the answer is yes, did the individual performing the act show Intent or Negligence? Were they performing the act of their own Freewill? Finally, did the act result in either Benefit or Detriment to the individual it was performed on?

Lets first look at what exactly an individual is. The definition isn’t exactly as straight forward as one might think. The simple answer is that an individual is a single person. Yet in some cases, actions are taken by whole groups of people acting in concert toward a single goal. In other cases the actions of one person, acting in the name of a group of people, reflects on the whole group.

These individuals can be broken down into two types, an Active Moral Agent and a Passive Moral Agent. Simply put, the individual performing the act and the individual that the act was performed on.

The Passive Moral Agent is by far the easier concept to grasp. This is who the Moral act affects. They don’t have to do anything except be there. “There” being where ever the act takes place. It is the Passive Moral Agent that usually receives either the benefit or detriment of the Moral Act. Without the Passive Moral Agent there is no Moral Act taking place. A tree falling in the woods is just that, a tree falling in the woods. If that tree was the last of a type that a certain species of bird nested in, then there may in fact a Moral act taking place.

That bird is the key. The tree falling goes from just being a simple act of natural process to a potential Moral Act. The bird will feel the affect of its home being smashed to the ground. It doesn’t matter if that affect is good or bad, the simple fact that the bird was affected brings the whole event into the realm of possible Moral Act.

For there to be a Moral act, the act must create a Benefit or Detriment to one or both of the agents. In most cases the Active Moral agent feels the Benefit and the Passive Moral agent feels the detriment but that is not always the case. The affect can be felt immediately or not felt until many years later. Time is not really an issue. The affect is used to determine if the act was moral or immoral. Actions that lead to a benefit with no detriments are moral acts or “good acts”. Actions that lead only to detriment are immoral or “bad acts”.

Not all actions will fall into those simple categories though. Most actions create benefit and detriment. It is then that we must weigh the benefit against the detriment so that we can come to a decision about the act. Was enough benefit seen to outweigh the detriment? How much benefit is enough? Is any enough?

Let us just assume that 20 miles down the road there is a small chemical plant that produces house hold cleaners. Part of their process has been leaking chemicals into the water table. These chemicals have been causing a slow death in the tap roots of all trees that reach the same water table. This tap root death is what caused the tree to fall and subsequently caused the bird to lose its home.

Now we have both a Passive and an Active Moral Agent. The Active Moral Agent, the chemical company, has been doing something that has affected someone else, the bird our Passive Moral Agent. If we really think about it there is more than one Passive Moral Agent. The trees that have been dying are another Passive Moral Agent. Potentially, anyone who is in any way affected by that chemical spill is a Passive Moral Agent. Most actions are like this, rarely do they only affect only one or two individuals.

Now that we have our agents, we need to determine if there was Intent or Negligence involved. This is, to me, the most important step in determining if a Moral Act has taken place. Did the individual know what they were doing? Should they have known? Did they for whatever reason do it on purpose? Did they see a danger in what they were doing and still proceeded with the action?

Answering those questions and many others that would help us make this determination are not easily answered. Intent is really an unknowable. To know someone else’s intent would require one to read minds as Intent is an internal process of the mind. So we must look at the evidence that the Active Moral Agent has left behind. Intent can be gleaned from actions and behaviors’ leading up to the action.

If, in our investigation of the act, we find that the chemical company knew that the chemicals were leaking into the ground and did nothing or were intentionally pumping the chemicals into the ground knowing what affects that act would have, we can say that we have shown that a potential Moral Act had taken place. These scenarios are evidence of Intent.

If we find that the chemical company just never bothered to do proper maintenance or skipped self inspections of all equipment, we can still say we have a potential Moral Act. We are seeing, in this case, potential negligence on the part of the chemical company.

If we find that there was no way for the chemical company to foresee the chemical leak and no way for them to have prevented it from happening, then we can safely say that no Moral act had taken place. It would be an amoral act, an accident.

We now come to our next criteria, Freewill. This is another of those intangibles that are not always very clear cut. It comes down to choice though. Did the potential Moral Agent have freewill? Could they have chosen another course of action? It’s very simple to say “I have no other choice” when a gun is pointed at your head. You don’t see very many people walking around pointing guns at people’s heads though.

Some claim that actions are predetermined, fated. I don’t buy this concept. I don’t think that previous actions somehow lead to one set outcome. Determinism is a concept that people came up with when they ran out of ideas and were only left with excuses. After all, you can always choose to take the bullet.

There are though cases where Freewill has been taken away. In my case of the chemical plant, perhaps a series of catastrophes has lead to a decision between dumping the chemicals into the ground or letting an explosion occur that would lead the immediate death of thousands. In this case, Freewill has been taken away. Neither choice is all that palatable, but one must be made. This scenario would render the act amoral.

The last thing that must be considered is the adequacy of the Active Moral Agent. That is, they must be able to understand not only what their actions are but what affects those actions might have. They must be able to understand the act on both intellectual and psychological levels. The act and its repercussions also must fit within the Active Moral agent’s experience.

Intellectual adequacy is most likely the easiest of the three to determine. Would a reasonably average person in the same situation be able to gauge the affects of the action? Is this individual at least of reasonably average intelligence? Is the Agent being willfully ignorant? That’s a hard question to answer. Yet, like intent, a person’s previous actions leave clues to their intellectual adequacy.

Understanding on an intellectual level does not equate to understanding on a psychological level. A person may fully understand “right” and “wrong” on an intellectual level but be unable to distinguish them psychologically. There may be some mental defect that prevents them from connecting the dots between action and affect. There may be some mental defect that compels them to a certain action that they know intellectually to be “wrong”.

The last aspect of adequacy is experientially. Is it reasonable to assume that the act is within the agent’s experience? You can’t hand a pistol to a person who has never even heard of a gun let alone held one and then hold them responsible for anything that might happen.

It all sounds rather more complicated than it really is. We all use these same criteria everyday as we watch the world around us. We just fail to realize, as least most of us, what the thought process is behind our judgments. None the less, we analyze every act we see and/or experience with this simple set of “rules”.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Teleology and Deontology

by. Mark A. Frost

There are two major schools of thought when it comes to ethical systems, Teleology and Deontology. Almost every other system of ethics is a subcategory of either Teleology or Deontology. Both systems seem to have everything covered. One just has to choose a system and run with it, trusting that the system of choice will be our guiding light through every moral dilemma that we encounter.

This is where the break down seems to happen. There are times when each of them leaves us wondering just what to do. I am not sure if this is a failure of the various systems or some flaw in us as a people. I tend to think that if there was a perfect system, we would have figured out what it was by now. We have been debating the subject a very long time. I don’t think I am going to figure it out while writing this paper, but I am going to give it a try.

Teleology deals with consequences. Simply put, "If you do A; then B, is going to happen". No matter how many words people tend to use to explain Teleology, the aggregate is that simple. The consequences of an action define whether the act was moral or immoral.

One of the great benefits of Teleology is its simplicity. Even our pets can understand it. We use it when teaching our children how to behave. It doesn’t take a great deal of thought to make a Moral judgment when using one of the many systems of Teleology. At least, it appears that is the case.

That simplicity is seen by some as a major drawback. They see it as an oversimplification. How can you really know what the consequences are going to be to any given action? Simple actions are easy to forecast, i.e. if I start a campfire and walk away, I will start a forest fire or; If I start a campfire, tend it and put it out carefully when I am done with it, I will not start a forest fire.

When one gets into a more complex moral dilemma, what consequences do you look at? Simple doesn't cut it anymore. How far into the future do you look? How far removed do you look? An act that brings much needed rain to a farming community one day could bring flooding to another community days later. So was making it rain a "good" act or a "bad" act?

This is where Teleology breaks down. Consequences beg so many questions. How do you decide which consequence or consequences are the ones that matter? How far into the future do you try to predict? How do we choose whom of the affected and their reactions, count and which ones do we ignore? Who decides or quantifies the "good" or "bad" of the consequences? How do they make that decision?

These questions bring us to my next point, Moral Relativism. If people can pick and choose what consequences to pay attention to and which to ignore, no set of rules can ever be established. No two people would be operating with the same Moral code. The world would be utter chaos.

Another drawback is that many take it to mean that the "Ends justify the Means". It’s not the act that matters, only the results of that act. If that were the case some very bad things could be justified because they brought about some great good. Slavery is a good example of this. I doubt you will find a rational person that thinks that slavery was a good thing but without it, most historians agree that our nation would not be anywhere near as prosperous as it is. Does that mean that slavery was a "good" and moral act?

Teleology does have some rather compelling aspects. For one, it's rather motivational. Used properly, it can be used to bring about great good and inspiring works. I can't think of one politician that doesn't use Teleology when crafting speeches and proposals. Just this week I watched one try to justify a multi-trillion dollar national debt and the total devaluation of our currency with a far off time of prosperity and the warm fuzzy feelings of fairness.

Deontology is the other side of the coin. Deontology, otherwise known as Formalism or Absolutism, is based on a formal set of rules. An act is considered moral only if it is done out of a sense of duty. The consequences of the act don’t really matter all that much, if at all. As long as a person is following the rules with the belief that should, then it is a moral act.

That is not to say that blindly following all the rules means you will always being doing the “right” thing. Going to church every Sunday, reading the Bible without any thought about what you are reading doesn’t make you a good Christian either. It takes belief and faith, that what you are doing is what you should be doing.

These rules need to be universal. That is, they need to be applied to everyone equally and without any prejudice. This is a core need for Deontology, without universalism of the rules the system would fall apart. They also need to be absolute. They cannot be rewritten to better fit the current moral dilemma that one might find their self in.

To achieve the above all systems of Deontology must have some absolute authoritative source of the rules. This source can be one of a few things, Godhead, Just Authority, or Reason. Whatever that source may be, it is the ultimate authority of what is moral or amoral.

The problems with Deontology stem from its strengths. Being absolute, Deontology is seen as too rigid. There is no room to wiggle around. If the rules say an act is moral, the act is moral no matter what circumstance forces the act or what consequences the act brings about.

The other major problem with Deontology is interpretation. The rules have all been set in stone but not all of us are reading the same thing. One person may find that to them, the rules justify an act as moral whereas another person may read those same rules and find the act to be amoral. This only brings about confusion and division.

This is why, I think anyway, that people tend to use a hybrid of the two systems. I don't think it's done on any conscious level. I think that we know on a deeper level that neither system works on its own. Deontology can't come up with an intelligible rule for every possible act that a person might do. Teleology can't justify every act with its consequences.

We use Teleology for the simple things like teaching our kids not to spit into a fan or the dog to not pee on the carpet. Teleology is the tool of choice when teaching about morals. Even the Church uses Teleology to back up the Deontology that is its core. "If you break these rules, you will go to hell". We also tend to use Teleology when it comes to nonhuman consequences. "If we don't all go Green now, the world will die tomorrow."

We also use Teleology to handle those situations that we can’t seem to find a rule for in Deontology and then to write a new rule within the Deontology system that we do use to cover that situation. Take the "global climate change" situation that we seem to be in. There are no rules right now that cover this. There are a number of possible consequences though. So, a great number of people are trying to turn those possible consequences into things we "should do" to save the world. They then want to get those new "shoulds" turned into new laws and chiseled into the stone of the various Deontological systems that we use.

I don't really believe that are two separate systems. I think there is one system that evolves out of human experience. Teleological beliefs evolve into Deontological maxims and it’s all tied together with a nice social contract.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[taysteewonderbunny]

What is a Moral Act?

By Mark A. Frost

For any action to be a Moral act it must meet five basic criteria. The first thing we must consider is whether or not the act involved at least two distinct individuals. For it to be a Moral act an individual or group of individuals has to do something to someone or some other group of individuals. If the answer is yes, did the individual performing the act show Intent or Negligence? Were they performing the act of their own Freewill? Finally, did the act result in either Benefit or Detriment to the individual it was performed on?

Lets first look at what exactly an individual is. The definition isn’t exactly as straight forward as one might think. The simple answer is that an individual is a single person. Yet in some cases, actions are taken by whole groups of people acting in concert toward a single goal. In other cases the actions of one person, acting in the name of a group of people, reflects on the whole group.

These individuals can be broken down into two types, an Active Moral Agent and a Passive Moral Agent. Simply put, the individual performing the act and the individual that the act was performed on.

The Passive Moral Agent is by far the easier concept to grasp. This is who the Moral act affects. They don’t have to do anything except be there. “There” being where ever the act takes place. It is the Passive Moral Agent that usually receives either the benefit or detriment of the Moral Act. Without the Passive Moral Agent there is no Moral Act taking place. A tree falling in the woods is just that, a tree falling in the woods. If that tree was the last of a type that a certain species of bird nested in, then there may in fact a Moral act taking place.

That bird is the key. The tree falling goes from just being a simple act of natural process to a potential Moral Act. The bird will feel the affect of its home being smashed to the ground. It doesn’t matter if that affect is good or bad, the simple fact that the bird was affected brings the whole event into the realm of possible Moral Act.

For there to be a Moral act, the act must create a Benefit or Detriment to one or both of the agents. In most cases the Active Moral agent feels the Benefit and the Passive Moral agent feels the detriment but that is not always the case. The affect can be felt immediately or not felt until many years later. Time is not really an issue. The affect is used to determine if the act was moral or immoral. Actions that lead to a benefit with no detriments are moral acts or “good acts”. Actions that lead only to detriment are immoral or “bad acts”.

Not all actions will fall into those simple categories though. Most actions create benefit and detriment. It is then that we must weigh the benefit against the detriment so that we can come to a decision about the act. Was enough benefit seen to outweigh the detriment? How much benefit is enough? Is any enough?

Let us just assume that 20 miles down the road there is a small chemical plant that produces house hold cleaners. Part of their process has been leaking chemicals into the water table. These chemicals have been causing a slow death in the tap roots of all trees that reach the same water table. This tap root death is what caused the tree to fall and subsequently caused the bird to lose its home.

Now we have both a Passive and an Active Moral Agent. The Active Moral Agent, the chemical company, has been doing something that has affected someone else, the bird our Passive Moral Agent. If we really think about it there is more than one Passive Moral Agent. The trees that have been dying are another Passive Moral Agent. Potentially, anyone who is in any way affected by that chemical spill is a Passive Moral Agent. Most actions are like this, rarely do they only affect only one or two individuals.

Now that we have our agents, we need to determine if there was Intent or Negligence involved. This is, to me, the most important step in determining if a Moral Act has taken place. Did the individual know what they were doing? Should they have known? Did they for whatever reason do it on purpose? Did they see a danger in what they were doing and still proceeded with the action?

Answering those questions and many others that would help us make this determination are not easily answered. Intent is really an unknowable. To know someone else’s intent would require one to read minds as Intent is an internal process of the mind. So we must look at the evidence that the Active Moral Agent has left behind. Intent can be gleaned from actions and behaviors’ leading up to the action.

If, in our investigation of the act, we find that the chemical company knew that the chemicals were leaking into the ground and did nothing or were intentionally pumping the chemicals into the ground knowing what affects that act would have, we can say that we have shown that a potential Moral Act had taken place. These scenarios are evidence of Intent.

If we find that the chemical company just never bothered to do proper maintenance or skipped self inspections of all equipment, we can still say we have a potential Moral Act. We are seeing, in this case, potential negligence on the part of the chemical company.

If we find that there was no way for the chemical company to foresee the chemical leak and no way for them to have prevented it from happening, then we can safely say that no Moral act had taken place. It would be an amoral act, an accident.

We now come to our next criteria, Freewill. This is another of those intangibles that are not always very clear cut. It comes down to choice though. Did the potential Moral Agent have freewill? Could they have chosen another course of action? It’s very simple to say “I have no other choice” when a gun is pointed at your head. You don’t see very many people walking around pointing guns at people’s heads though.

Some claim that actions are predetermined, fated. I don’t buy this concept. I don’t think that previous actions somehow lead to one set outcome. Determinism is a concept that people came up with when they ran out of ideas and were only left with excuses. After all, you can always choose to take the bullet.

There are though cases where Freewill has been taken away. In my case of the chemical plant, perhaps a series of catastrophes has lead to a decision between dumping the chemicals into the ground or letting an explosion occur that would lead the immediate death of thousands. In this case, Freewill has been taken away. Neither choice is all that palatable, but one must be made. This scenario would render the act amoral.

The last thing that must be considered is the adequacy of the Active Moral Agent. That is, they must be able to understand not only what their actions are but what affects those actions might have. They must be able to understand the act on both intellectual and psychological levels. The act and its repercussions also must fit within the Active Moral agent’s experience.

Intellectual adequacy is most likely the easiest of the three to determine. Would a reasonably average person in the same situation be able to gauge the affects of the action? Is this individual at least of reasonably average intelligence? Is the Agent being willfully ignorant? That’s a hard question to answer. Yet, like intent, a person’s previous actions leave clues to their intellectual adequacy.

Understanding on an intellectual level does not equate to understanding on a psychological level. A person may fully understand “right” and “wrong” on an intellectual level but be unable to distinguish them psychologically. There may be some mental defect that prevents them from connecting the dots between action and affect. There may be some mental defect that compels them to a certain action that they know intellectually to be “wrong”.

The last aspect of adequacy is experientially. Is it reasonable to assume that the act is within the agent’s experience? You can’t hand a pistol to a person who has never even heard of a gun let alone held one and then hold them responsible for anything that might happen.

It all sounds rather more complicated than it really is. We all use these same criteria everyday as we watch the world around us. We just fail to realize, as least most of us, what the thought process is behind our judgments. None the less, we analyze every act we see and/or experience with this simple set of “rules”.

Interesting. I think it's a good start. I've yet to read your second essay. Will do.

Just a couple of notes. Your definition of a moral act requires that there be two distinct agents. Does this preclude suicide from being a moral act? [see edited yellow text] I suppose you could argue that is a moral act in the sense that it affects the survivors of the suicide. [like you said, no one lives in a bubble] But if the last living human were to kill himself, would it then fail to be a moral act? Or would you consider the possibility that the passive and active moral agents can in some instances be the SAME individual--which is the modification that I'm suggesting.

Secondly, I am not disagreeing with your definitions, but I am wondering about the aptness of your examples. That the tree fell seems to be a direct consequence of gravity regardless of its affect upon the bird and the bird's nest. The later example is NOT problematic, except that if there are differing criteria for who can be an active moral agent and who (or what) can be a passive moral agent, I think you should expound on those. To explain myself, I am referring to the text in orange. In this FIRST example, you seem to be suggesting that the tree, subject to gravity, is, in fact, an active moral agent, even though it does NOT have, in this instance, the free will you say is necessary for a moral agent, nor is its intent, intellectual capacity, or experience relevant; in fact, you seem to suggest, very much in opposition to what you posit later, that the only necessary thing making this a moral act is the bird, that it was negatively affected. I don't think this is consistent with your intention as your SECOND example does NOT present this same difficulty. And though both the bird AND the tree were negatively affected by the actions or inactions of the corporation, neither has, what I would consider, moral capacity.

Edited April 7, 2009 by taysteewonderbunny

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Moral has two meanings, Moral acts are neither "good" nor "bad", they can be either moral or immoral. See the difference there? It may seem trivial, but one must be sure to use the proper word when talking about Moral and moral acts.

As for Suicide... yes, it is a Moral act because no one lives in a bubble. There are actually very few things that truly affect no one else. I think one of the big problematic areas of Moral acts, Ethics and Meta-Ethics is where exactly do we draw that particular line.

I was actually commended on my tree example. The tree falling in and of itself is not a Moral act. It was going to fall someday without outside help. The fact that the tree feel prematurely because it was poisoned is.

BTW... I used the word amoral a few times when I meant immoral. I need to correct that....

Edited April 7, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[taysteewonderbunny]

BTW... I used the word amoral a few times when I meant immoral. I need to correct that....

I'd like to see what the essay looks like with the corrections. Amoral and immoral vary greatly in meaning and intension.

As for the rest, I modified my original objections. I hope the edit makes my thoughts more clear.

Edited April 7, 2009 by taysteewonderbunny

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK, lemme see if I can nail this down for you.

The felling of the tree is not the Moral act. Trees fall all the time. It can be a Moral act if the tree was caused to fall via either negligence, indifference or malice.

This is where Ethics get fuzzy. Some people would consider the Tree a Passive Moral agent (tree hugging hippies one and all). Others would say the Environment was the Passive Moral Agent (more damn hippies... wait... I'm one of them) even more would say the Birds that nested in the Tree were Passive Moral agents. This list can go on... anyone who can find real fault in the felling of the Tree is technically a Passive Moral agent.

In this case, we would first have to determine why the tree fell. If it was just that trees time... No Moral act took place, so there is no Passive Moral Agent. BUT, if, as I stated, the tree fell do to chemical contamination of the ground water due to a leaky pipe at a chemical plant... We have potential for a Moral act. We then have to determine if the Chemical plant was an Active Moral agent or if it was a true accident.

PS> I will edit my mistakes in a bit. There are only a couple of places where I typed the wrong thing.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Oh, one place. Fixed.

[taysteewonderbunny]

OK, lemme see if I can nail this down for you.

The felling of the tree is not the Moral act. Trees fall all the time. It can be a Moral act if the tree was caused to fall via either negligence, indifference or malice.

I get it. I just don't think it's clear in your paper. In the paper, it looks like two examples wherein the first, the tree is posited as the active moral agent when you don't mean that. It's not about your argument. I'm merely recommending you edit it to make it more clear.

What your paper does imply, but does not overtly state, is that there are different requirements for the active moral agent v. the passive one. Birds and trees do NOT have the free will and intellectual adequacy you demand of your active moral agents. I think you should say so.

[Scary Guy]

Technically depending on who you ask NONE of us have free will anyway. Although that's more philosophy.

Ethics like most things vary from person to person and depends on ones point of view.

This all sounds more like domino theory/cause and effect to me.

As far as morals go, those are defined by the majority. There is no good or evil, there is only life and social karma.

[taysteewonderbunny]

Technically, depending on who you ask NONE of us have free will anyway. Although that's more philosophy.

Ethics like most things vary from person to person and depends on one's point of view.

This all sounds more like domino theory/cause and effect to me.

As far as morals go, those are defined by the majority. There is no good or evil, there is only life and social karma.

If there is no free will and determinism is true, what does ethics matter anyway?

It sounds like you generally prescribe to relativism.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Technically depending on who you ask NONE of us have free will anyway. Although that's more philosophy.

Ethics like most things vary from person to person and depends on ones point of view.

This all sounds more like domino theory/cause and effect to me.

As far as morals go, those are defined by the majority. There is no good or evil, there is only life and social karma.

You are not making sense.

First you make a statement that hints that you subscribe to Determinism.

then you say that Ethics vary from person to person... but morals are defined by the majority.

Which is it?

If you subscribe to Determinism, there are no Morals or Ethics...

If not...

You need to realise that Morals are determined by Ethics. Ethics are the rules by which we make Moral choices.

then you say there is no Good or Evil.. but you say there is Karma... and Karma is all about Good and Evil.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

If there is no free will and determinism is true, what does ethics matter anyway?

It sounds like you generally prescribe to relativism.

and Relativism is something that Ethicist avoid.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I get it. I just don't think it's clear in your paper. In the paper, it looks like two examples wherein the first, the tree is posited as the active moral agent when you don't mean that. It's not about your argument. I'm merely recommending you edit it to make it more clear.

What your paper does imply, but does not overtly state, is that there are different requirements for the active moral agent v. the passive one. Birds and trees do NOT have the free will and intellectual adequacy you demand of your active moral agents. I think you should say so.

I thought I had that covered when I said that to be a passive moral agent one only need to have something done to them that has either Benefit or Detriment.

[TitsMcGee]

Good paper, Gaf.

All I have to add is, that Washington has no ethics.

[Scary Guy]

If there is no free will and determinism is true, what does ethics matter anyway?

It sounds like you generally prescribe to relativism.

It doesn't and I do.

You are not making sense.

First you make a statement that hints that you subscribe to Determinism.

then you say that Ethics vary from person to person... but morals are defined by the majority.

Which is it?

If you subscribe to Determinism, there are no Morals or Ethics...

If not...

You need to realize that Morals are determined by Ethics. Ethics are the rules by which we make Moral choices.

then you say there is no Good or Evil.. but you say there is Karma... and Karma is all about Good and Evil.

Just because you don't understand me doesn't mean I'm not making sense. Also relative to relativism Either you're not smart enough to figure it out or I'm just insane. More likely a combination of the two.

This is all philosophy, and some think that the universe expands and collapses eternally with the universe playing out the exact same way each time. Meaning we're doomed to do this forever. No I don't prescribe to that theory since I like to believe in some free will. However cause and effect control the universe.

Morals are defined by the majority of people who's ethics coincide. But they do very from person to person. The MAJORITY is the largest group of people that agree on what is ethical/moral.

There is no good or evil other than personal viewpoints on what good and evil are. I know I sound like a sociopath but murder is just the ending of a life. A true sociopath would feel nothing taking that life due to a lack of guilt though. Babies die, puppies drown, people get sad, and life marches on. Say for example I kill someone, which is bad. However say I was hungry and they were the only source of food for miles around and I'd die of starvation otherwise. Kind of like stealing bread to survive, only taken to the next level. Technically both are "bad", but screw your good and evil, I'm hungry, meat's meat, and mans gotta eat!

Also you'll note that I didn't say karma I said social karma, which is quite different. Karma is the universes way of rewarding or punishing you for doing something good or bad (which I think is bunk). Social karma is society's way of doing the same from observing your actions and then rewarding/punishing you accordingly based on what society thinks is good or bad.

Take for example THE LAW, which when enforced isn't always justice, but it is THE LAW. Let's look at a traffic violation...

Say I'm at a red light, with a sign that says "NO TURN ON RED". Pretty simple and easy to understand, if I turn on red I should get a ticket because I'm breaking THE LAW. However cross traffic stops and gets a green arrow in their left turn lane and I'm turning right. No traffic is coming and I know I won't get hit if I go forward but this light doesn't have a green arrow, I will still get a ticket.

Society says I'm breaking THE LAW and should be punished, but society can go fuck itself because society is WRONG (note I've never gotten a ticket for this, it's just a good example).

Explaining this situation to a police officer would yield one of two scenarios. The first is the officer understands my point of view, gives me a warning but secretly agrees with me, and waves me off. The second and more likely is he gives me a ticket because he can and I look like a freak and that's how he makes his money.

Everything depends on the point of view, and points of view can change in an instant or they can be cemented and kept forever. This can be narrowed to the scope of one person or widened to an entire society. However it's harder to change the opinion of a society on what is and is not moral but it can be done over time, like for example gay marriage. As a friend on another forum stated it "used to be a secret that had to be kept at all costs". Today you can be openly gay and not be stoned to death for it, even though a lot of fundies don't agree with it at all and probably vomit when they think of two guys making out (hell I get a little sick to the stomach myself but I'm not so close minded as to say they're going to burn in hell for all eternity for it).

In short morals are for morons and I'd sooner go with my internal compass of right and wrong than what society defines as such for me. This will probably eventually land me in jail but at least I'll be standing up for what I believe in.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Your scenario is one that fits in Denontology. "The Law" is the ethical system we use as a society , with Reason as the Meta-Ethic to back it up and from this we make our Moral choices.

Stop using Morals and Ethics like they mean the same thing. They don't. They are not inter-changeable.

Morals are the choices we make.

Ethics are the Rules we follow to make those choices.

Meta-Ethics is the authority behind it all.

BTW... I have a 4.0 in Ethics and Philosophy... I am going with you being crazy. Anyone that says "morals are for morons and I'd sooner go with my internal compass of right and wrong" has to be crazy or a moron. As your internal compass is your Morals.

[Scary Guy]

Your scenario is one that fits in Denontology. "The Law" is the ethical system we use as a society , with Reason as the Meta-Ethic to back it up and from this we make our Moral choices.

Stop using Morals and Ethics like they mean the same thing. They don't. They are not inter-changeable.

Morals are the choices we make.

Ethics are the Rules we follow to make those choices.

Meta-Ethics is the authority behind it all.

BTW... I have a 4.0 in Ethics and Philosophy... I am going with you being crazy. Anyone that says "morals are for morons and I'd sooner go with my internal compass of right and wrong" has to be crazy or a moron. As your internal compass is your Morals.

"Nic said he told Becky that Obama's nick name in high school was nigger and she believed him and was about to tell other people until he finally told her no just kidding but you are retarded.

I think becky has a bachelors degree also

They just hand those things out like candy"

A 4.0 you say? :D

[taysteewonderbunny]

Ethics v. Morality, ethic v. moral : what is the distinction?

Stop using Morals and Ethics like they mean the same thing. They don't. They are not interchangeable.

I understand that some people feel they mean something different in connotation, but in denotation, I am not convinced that they are not interchangeable. Please provide a counterexample (a case in which something is moral and NOT ethical or vice versa). You have said:

Morals are the choices we make.

Ethics are the Rules we follow to make those choices.

But I am not convinced that it could just as easily be:

Ethical choices are the choices we make.

Morals are the rules we follow to make those choices.

So, please elaborate.

Merriam Webster definition: ethics

eth·ic \ˈe-thik\ noun; Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek ēthikē, from ēthikos Date: 14th century

1. (plural but sing. or plural in constr.) : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2. a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics><Christian ethics> b: (plural but sing. or plural in constr.) the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c: a guiding philosophy d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>

3 (plural) : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

Merriam Webster definition: moral (1)

mor·al \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\ adjective; Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom; Date: 14th century

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

2: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>

3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>

Merriam Webster definition: moral (2)

mor·al \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-; 3 is mə-ˈral\ noun; Date: 15th century

1 a: the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b: a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story

2 (plural) a: moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct b: ethics

3: morale

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Definition of Morality

There is no separate definition for "ethics" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy--the search brings up moral methodologies.

[taysteewonderbunny]

I would also like to say that I think it would be most constructive and more enjoyable if we could lay off of the ad hominem.

It has been my experience that most people drawn toward either DGN or serious ethical discussion have better than average IQ's. It is therefore my sincere hope that, since you two qualify on all counts, an exceptional and classy debate would ensue. Please don't disappoint me. Please refrain from the following assaults on each other's mental acuity:

Either you're not smart enough to figure it out or I'm just insane. More likely a combination of the two.

I am going with you being crazy. Anyone that says "morals are for morons and I'd sooner go with my internal compass of right and wrong" has to be crazy or a moron.

Yo mama!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Ethics v. Morality, ethic v. moral : what is the distinction?

I understand that some people feel they mean something different in connotation, but in denotation, I am not convinced that they are not interchangeable. Please provide a counterexample (a case in which something is moral and NOT ethical or vice versa). You have said:

But I am not convinced that it could just as easily be:

So, please elaborate.

Merriam Webster definition: ethics

eth·ic \ˈe-thik\ noun; Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek ēthikē, from ēthikos Date: 14th century

1. (plural but sing. or plural in constr.) : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2. a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics><Christian ethics> b: (plural but sing. or plural in constr.) the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c: a guiding philosophy d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>

3 (plural) : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

Merriam Webster definition: moral (1)

mor·al \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\ adjective; Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom; Date: 14th century

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

2: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>

3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>

Merriam Webster definition: moral (2)

mor·al \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-; 3 is mə-ˈral\ noun; Date: 15th century

1 a: the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b: a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story

2 (plural) a: moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct b: ethics

3: morale

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Definition of Morality

There is no separate definition for "ethics" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy--the search brings up moral methodologies.

You most likely won't find a good definition on-line. I have as yet to find the Dictionary of Ethics on-line. The definitions in it are rather more precise. Yet, even in your examples, the two terms are only interchangeable at a glance... you cant define one without mentioning the other. They are tied together but are not the same thing.

you will note that in the definition of Ethics... "the discipline dealing with" "a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values" "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group" "a set of moral issues or aspects" Boiled down.. the rules. and under Moral "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" "conforming to a standard of right behavior" "sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment" The actualy actions/decision we make.

[taysteewonderbunny]

You most likely won't find a good definition on-line. I have as yet to find the Dictionary of Ethics on-line. The definitions in it are rather more precise. Yet, even in your examples, the two terms are only interchangeable at a glance... you cant define one without mentioning the other. They are tied together but are not the same thing.

you will note that in the definition of Ethics... "the discipline dealing with" "a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values" "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group" "a set of moral issues or aspects" Boiled down.. the rules. and under Moral "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" "conforming to a standard of right behavior" "sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment" The actualy actions/decision we make.

I guess I still don't get it. Other than the parts of speech which they primarily comprise ("ethics" being a noun primarily and "moral" being an adjective first), what again is the distinction? One is the foot and the other the steps taken by that foot? I am not familiar with such a distinction. Please first elaborate and then provide the source for the material. I have always been told that they were interchangeable, so I welcome further education on this point.

[Scary Guy]

I would also like to say that I think it would be most constructive and more enjoyable if we could lay off of the ad hominem.

It has been my experience that most people drawn toward either DGN or serious ethical discussion have better than average IQ's. It is therefore my sincere hope that, since you two qualify on all counts, an exceptional and classy debate would ensue. Please don't disappoint me. Please refrain from the following assaults on each other's mental acuity:

Yo mama!

If the shoe fits. It's like if he called me white, I am white, so I accept it. I've also never calmed to be sane.

Apparently you can see and understand what I'm saying which either means great minds think alike, or we're both mad as a hatter.

Please note that I didn't call him stupid, I just said not smart ENOUGH, because I do believe he's smart.

You most likely won't find a good definition on-line. I have as yet to find the Dictionary of Ethics on-line. The definitions in it are rather more precise. Yet, even in your examples, the two terms are only interchangeable at a glance... you cant define one without mentioning the other. They are tied together but are not the same thing.

you will note that in the definition of Ethics... "the discipline dealing with" "a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values" "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group" "a set of moral issues or aspects" Boiled down.. the rules. and under Moral "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" "conforming to a standard of right behavior" "sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment" The actually actions/decision we make.

Take it to the grammar thread, and go get a spell check. Maybe those are all typographical errors but yeah you tend to misspell one or two words. Try Mozilla Firefox as it has a built in spell check and underlines errors in red. Obviously that won't help with grammatical errors such as interchanging the words affect and effect but it's at least some help.

Also aint isn't a word, but it's become one through time (or at least generally accepted). Talking to your general run of the mill average person they wouldn't know the difference between morals and ethics either. I didn't know because I've never paid attention to either. So congratulations on teaching me something new and giving me more power, because knowledge is power and I will use that power to CRUSH YOU ALL LIKE ANTS!

If you really want to point out fallacies in the English language though lets start with ebonics, dawg.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Routledge Encyclopedia of Ethics

the systems of value and custom instantiated in the lives of particular groups of human beings are described as the ethics of these groups.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

Encyclopedia Britannica

the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles.

The terms ethics and morality are closely related. It is now common to refer to ethical judgments or to ethical principles where it once would have been more accurate to speak of moral judgments or moral principles. These applications are an extension of the meaning of ethics. In earlier usage, the term referred not to morality itself but to the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral philosophy

and again, a pretty good summing up.

I'm not sure I can provide a better definition.

[Rev.Reverence]

What is a Moral Act?

By Mark A. Frost

It all sounds rather more complicated than it really is. We all use these same criteria everyday as we watch the world around us. We just fail to realize, as least most of us, what the thought process is behind our judgments. None the less, we analyze every act we see and/or experience with this simple set of “rules”.

Very nice..long..but you have to be in these cases..I liked that you were not to repetitive with your vocabulary (many people do this in a longer piece of writing, or they are very obvious in avoiding it)...

..I was not following the tree-bird bit until the factory came in (as the tree can not be held as an active participant in a moral dilemma)...I got that it was passive #2 as soon as the factory was mentioned...[note: my attention span is very bad right now, as I am in a creative flux...so there is not much concentration to go around]

I am now off to read the second paper...see you all in what, 3-4 days?