posted
My definitions. May not agree with Webster.
Morality: a system of behavior and beliefs, backed up by religious, supernatural, or some other external authority. Usually general to the specific religion an individual is a member of, and not subject to modification. (Example: "Thou shalt not kill." --OT)
Ethics: a system of behaviour and beliefs, arrived at by reason and experience. Generally extremely personal, may vary greatly from one person to another. Subject to modification and growth. (Example: "I'm not going to kill today."-- Kirk)
Group Ethics: An Ethical system arrived at by the consent of the majority of a group. Varies between groups, thusly you have "scientific ethics," "military ethics," "librarian ethics," "forum ethics," etc.
Being of a religion that does not support external moral authority, I cannot say I have morals. I have a rather strong, and, I think, valid and complete system of Ethics. I live by Group Ethics when I must, in order to maintain harmony.
------------------ Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
posted
Well, most everyone has morality, but today people have morality at different degrees or perspectives. Morality in this country and the world is changing. The stereotypical Christian response may be "we don't have any morals anymore." But really the "intellectual discovery" that the world has been going through for the past 500 years now is a good thing.
posted
Hooboy. You just had to ask this while I'm reading the Republic, didn't you?
Firstly, to grab the dictionary definition, (or in this case the glossary definition):
Ethics: The branch of philosophy which studies the meaning of good and evil, right and wrong, and moral obligation.
From a different source: The study, questioning, and justification of moral rules.
Morals: The rules and attitudes that we live by, or are expected to live by.
Morality really has nothing to do with religion, in the sense that to be moral one must be religious. Many moral theories are completely unreligious, such as Kant's or Plato's or Nietzsche's.
Ethics, as technically understood, is that branch of philosophy concerned with these moral values. What are they, why do we have them, etc. In this usage, almost everyone has morals, but very few are ethicists.
To answer the original question, which I sense was probably a tad facetious, morals are simply an expression of what any society values, and hence they will always exist so long as society exists.
------------------ "20th Century, go to sleep." -- R.E.M.
posted
I would go further and say that it is a society's morals/ethics (6 of 1, half-a-dozen of another) that define it. It is also, IMHO, the most important definer of who a PERSON is.
------------------ "I cannot live out that life. That man is bereft of passion... and imagination! That is not who I am!"
posted
Yes, I know all that. It's just that I hear the Fundies use "morals" so much when what they REALLY mean is "living your life exactly the way WE want you to, and to hell with freedom of thought" that I HAD to change my personal definitions of them.
------------------ Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
posted
Do you mean YOUR societies morals? Or the morals of society in general? Because shutting yourself off from society when creating your morals isn't good.
------------------ "Sorry Wendy, I just can't trust something that bleeds for five days and doesn't die."
posted
Social Morals are things of convenience. (Say for instance the moral stance on Serbia). Personal morals and values are more likely to be adhered to, but I believe in most cases survival instincts will override morals.
------------------ Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".
Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".
posted
Ah, this is why I somewhat dislike Group Ethics and Group Morals. For example, the Catholic Church. They, as a group, dislike homosexuality. Okay, they flat-out hate it and think that all gay people wil go to hell. Now, I think that there's nothing wrong with being gay, and that it doesn't affect who you worship and believe in. I still go to Church on Sundays, I still pray, I agree with a lot of what the Church preaches, except their view on homosexuality. I believe and follow my own personal ethics and morals. It's easier on myself.
------------------ Sometimes I run Sometimes I hide Sometimes I'm scared of you But all I really want is to hold you tight Treat you right, be with you day and night Baby all I need is time
posted
In the interests of sounding as silly as possible, I'll add that I think people are talking about mores here, rather then morals. (Mores being the types of group standards here refered to.)
------------------ "20th Century, go to sleep." -- R.E.M.
posted
Disclaimer: The following study in Catholicism is the result of a mandatory religion research project at Ramona Convent Secondary School. It is by no means the opinion of the writer (moi).
"They, as a group, dislike homosexuality. Okay, they flat-out hate it and think that all gay people wil go to hell."
I believe you're mistaking Catholics with fundamentalists. They condemn homosexual acts, not homosexual people since the homosexual orientation is involuntary for some. Why are they against homosexual acts? Instead of following "anti-homosexual" passages (which really are not), they interpret the Creation story as God's original intent for marriage, which includes two inseparable aspects: procreation and union of two people. Since the procreative aspect is completely lost in the homosexual act, the act is condemned. So basically gay Catholics can never have sex. Go figure.
------------------ --Then, said Cranly, do you not intend to become a protestant? --I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?
James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
[This message has been edited by Tora Ziyal (edited January 16, 2000).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
