Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Morality Vs. Ethics      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Morality Vs. EthicsPage 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Mojo, sorry for the delay in responding.


Again, I disagree. Religion is a set of beliefs, and since morality doesn't flow from religion, it cannot flow from beliefs as you suggest. What you're describing is more like an ethical code. Ethics govern behaviour, morality governs ethics.

Your assessment of Law is not wrong, but your interpretation could use some revising. I've said Law is designed to promote the goals of those in power. The "common good" is usually one of those goals because when it isn't the common folk tend to depose those in power. "When is a crime a crime?" It's when the local power says so. Slavery is a good example. Once, it was entirely legal, yet many consdered it immoral. Law and morality are only indirectly related.[quote/]

I see in the first paragraph above a possible oversight. Religion is a set of beliefs. Can you tell me the religions that have simple believe without a moral code in place to uphold those beliefs? If one said, I am a Christian because I believe in one God and that this God took human form in the man called Jesus. That is indeed a simple believe. Do you actually know any Christians who do not take this belief into the realm of morals that dictate how they are to act in accordance with this belief? Now, given a society completely populated by Christians, can you make an educated guess as to what the code of ethics, those values that become the law, might be?

In a society governed by a staunch and powerful dictator, I would very much agree with your evaluation. Those living under such rule have no say in the laws that govern them and the laws are not indicative of a majority rule. In the case of a single person rule, the law is designed to promote the goals of that leasership.

In most societies you will find that no matter what laws are in place, those who subscribe to a religious set of values, that are morals according to the dictates of that religion, will continue to follow the code of those morals whenever they do not go against the societal code of ethics which is the law.

Another view might be to look at the role that religion has played in developing larger societies and cultures. So important was the "moral" directive of a religion that those who sought to create massive societies, actually created religions for the purpose of providing mass moral directives. In this, your idea of 'law' has a basis, in that a person developing a religion for the purpose of creating a mass moral code, is actually designing the foundations of laws to suit the purpose and achieve the goals desired by the person/s that wish to govern.

Great leaders throughout history have been wise enough to incorperate the use of the religious moral directive to appease and control the masses as they continued to promote their reign and power.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 8/23/2007 9:36:34 PM
xssve - if I'm reading you correctly we basically similar views. I have enjoyed reading your viewpoints.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 8/23/2007 10:10:27 PM
iamamadscientist has made some good points and I think I can take them farther.

If a free society were faced with creating laws surrounding the issues of ones choice to die, there would be many thing to consider. madscientist points out some of these, as what is the financial burden of a terminally ill patient, what is the gain or loss of insurance companies, what is the emotional burden on the family and loved ones, what is the anguish and pain the person will suffer if life is allowed or forced to continue.

These are all questions that require that a value be placed on them. As a society we might look at all the questions and come up with some law that regarding what freedom an individual has to determine the continuence of thier own life.

Now, in a society that includes a vast number of people with religious convictions, among those convictions are, directives for, or relating to, such situations. These directives are the moral code that they must follow to be in good standing with their beliefs. For them, the greatest amount of value given to such an issue, is not given to the general questions, but rather to the moral directive, or code which they already have in place for such a situation. If a society looks at the 'logical' questions of cause and affect to determine the values of the questions, those questions will not include whether suicide, assisted suicide, or euthenasia is right or wrong. To include such a question implies a religious moral directive. Religious moral directives are not part and parcel of the code of ethics that develop the laws for a free and equal society.

You may argue that the United States is proof that my statement is incorrect, however, as I previously pointed out, many laws that are derived from ethical questions, have values equal to the morals within a religious dictrine. This is not surprising. It is also not surprising to find that a society whose majority subscribes to similiar religious moral directives will have laws influenced by those morals. Often this is in conflict with the idea of equality for all, as the values used to create the societal code of ethics (laws) were based on a religious moral directive. This is the case and the struggle that the United States has had to deal with from it's incention.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 8/25/2007 7:54:52 AM
xssve,
You have brought up the sub-levels that ethical laws must consider, or grow to encompass. In the United States, many are opposed to scientific studies of cloning. Most of that opposition is directly related to religious values/morals. Just as in the example of when and who can decide discontinuance of life.
Often it is the basic statement that comes into conflict with religious morals. As in;

One has the right to decide to live
Scientific studies of cloning should is ok
Stemcell reseach and use of such research is a valid course of action
There should be a death penalty

When such statements come into conflict in the public view, we must decide if there should be laws against, or if there should be laws with contingencies. These contingencies are the sub levels of the law that may include some moral implicative as well as it addresses the ethical.

Such overall statements are how a free society with, a contributing voice to it's own governing, begin to place values that will include both moral and ethical foundations.

For all those who question "WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO SEPARATE THESE TWO WORDS, ETHICAL AND MORAL" In a country where freedom, liberty, and equaltiy are the foundations to which you clink and desire to maintain, it is necessary to draw a line between what is moral and what is ethical. That line is the difference between maintaing that society. To adhere to morals, in all matters of laws, over ethics is to destroy the foundations of the very thing that entitles you to live in a country that considers freedom, liberty and equality, above all moral directives. If such a country is maintained, it will allow, all, the right to follow the moral codes of their religious choosing, and not affect the equality and freedoms of others.

It is most important in such a country that the highes official in the land, enter that office with a COMPLETE awareness of the difference between these two words, and an understanding of the affects that his/her decisions have on society as a whole. It is with an oathe that those in power take their positions, and that oathe is promise to this society to govern through ethics and not by their own moral directive.

It is with great risk to this society that we put any person of true religious conviction into the seat of this Presidency. As with the current administratrion, we see just how the foundations of our Constitution can be destroyed by the "moral" directive, while the ethical is dismissed. We must, all, understand the relation between morals and ethics, for our very freedoms, our very society is at risk when we elect officials who also do not know the difference.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 8/30/2007 11:05:33 PM
A very good addition to my comments. Again, this is the reason we need to see beyond our personally held morals and understand the underlying ethics that were created to guide our laws and justice systems. If we can see outside our 'moral' convictions, we can more easily detect when others attemp to decieve us or patronize.

In the United States, we are facing an upcoming election. In my view, this is the most important election we have ever had the privelege of participating in. We have allowed, for far too long, the conditions of this participitory democratic republic to erode. We are faced with a future we, as a country, are not prepared for. We have governing officials setting their own agenda's, creating laws and legal precident that are inconsistant with the 'ethics' that the foundations of our rights are based on. We, the poeple, are being divided by internal 'moral' conflicts. While we bicker and fight each other, globalization is affecting our economy and our abilities to remain a country of plenty. In March our President signed into law a bill that prohibits dog fights. While, on numerous occations he has upheld the bias that divides us, by denying equlity to all, on the basis of a 'personal moral' that says marriage can only be between one woman and one man. This is the same man who answered the outcry of people to fund research into AIDS. His answer came in the bill of another law of his 'personal' choosing. "Celebasy Only - Before Marriage" For this there is an entitlement that ALL the tax payers subsidise, even those who are prohibited by law to ever marry.

Can you see the difference when 'personal morality' is allowed power to rule over the ethical structures of our nation?

Those who take office after this next election MUST be held accountable for their ethical actions. For there is so much work that needs to be done to correct the errors that divide this country. And this work must also be done as they pick up the pieces and put back together our failing economy, addressing as well our deficeit, and all the entitlements that depleat funds from our treasury, the use of which should be strengthening the value of our dollar while providing the opportunity for a free and equal soceity to provide for themselves.

Choose wisely, and choose those who will set aside their personal morals for the sake of upholding an ethical system, the system that maintains our freedoms and our opportunities.

This, then, in the importance I refered to in understanding the difference between the values of morals and the value of ethics and why it requires both to have a caring, proud and productice, free society.
 yna6
Joined: 1/21/2007
Msg: 42
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 9/2/2007 7:39:57 PM
I figure I have "morals". Society has "ethics". Tied together because of upbringing, culture, religion, but each individual must explain to themselves why they did what they did, at the end of the day!

Some of the things I figure are ok, may seem unethical...to society in general. But to some individuals I may seem immoral. To others, I may seem "enlightened", or they may be in full agreement with me.

Laws are based on what either a group of people want, or, laws are placed by those who can PAY to have them so. Is it moral to actually pay to have a law passed? Is it ethical? Depends on the law.....
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 4/1/2013 4:27:18 PM
Defining ethics and morality as different things...hhmm...
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 4/2/2013 10:27:07 AM
^ Well, "technically", all words are words that were created by man. But words are symbols that we develop and use to represent concepts in our minds/brains. It would be an issue of developing the concepts behind those words, and deciding if there would be any useful difference between what would be called ethics and what would be called morality. I think what you're trying to hit upon here is whether or not morality/ethics are valid because we created them, or because they are innate in some way...or the extents to which, and cases in which, they are created or innate.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 4/9/2013 6:33:21 PM
morality (n.) Look up morality at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "moral qualities," from Old French moralité "moral (of a story); moral instruction; morals, moral character" (13c.) and directly from Late Latin moralitatem (nominative moralitas) "manner, character," from Latin moralis (see moral (adj.)). Meaning "goodness" is attested from 1590s.

Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct. [William H. Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," 1847]



ethics (n.) Look up ethics at Dictionary.com
"the science of morals," c.1600, plural of Middle English ethik "study of morals" (see ethic). The word also traces to Ta Ethika, title of Aristotle's work.


from online Etymology Dictionary
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 4/9/2013 6:33:38 PM
"
Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. "

(to those who claim morality is "ordered/demanded/ ask of" by "god", and therefor is the moral "way".)

 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 47
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 4/9/2013 11:19:49 PM
Morals = natural law = the set of (often uncodified) moral principles which an individual adheres to and which define the extent of his/her morality within a social group.

Ethic = A prioritized set of (ostensibly) moral principles (or dictates) which, when codified, define an ethical code for all members of the group subject to them. (e.g. the Hippocratic Oath and the Ten Commandments are ethical codes expected to be followed by doctors or members of the Abrahamic religions respectively)
 SpringMataLeao
Joined: 10/12/2012
Msg: 48
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 4/11/2013 5:32:21 PM
Morals are the beliefs you develop through life experience.

Ethics are the beliefs of the society as a whole, as to what is right or wrong.
 Bachelorette.Number1
Joined: 4/18/2013
Msg: 49
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 4/27/2013 9:02:39 PM
Right.
Morals are one's own set of guidelines, usually initiated by religion.
Ethics are a societies guidelines for which there are laws.

There are Codes of Ethics, there are not codes of morality. Morals vary. Ethics do not.
Ethics are how you conduct your self or whether or not you follow laws/guidelines. Morals are what you believe.
They are closely related.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 50
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:37:53 AM


Morals are one's own set of guidelines, usually initiated by religion.


That depends on one's definition of religion. Presumably, the reference is to some scripture or other, in which case guidelines initiated by religion would be ethics.

Morals are initiated by conscience and may not even be clearly defined in the mind of the moral agent, except as feelings of something being right or wrong. Ethics are (usually prioritized) prescribed values and are not necessarily moral.

A good case in point is the corporate ethic of shareholder profit being the primary duty of a corporation as manifested in the duties of the board. Profit has no moral value, and a solid case can be made that an ethic of profit above all (overriding all moral considerations) is in fact, an amoral (and IMO immoral) ethic.
 cesska
Joined: 11/7/2011
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 5/6/2013 9:48:18 PM
morals or ethics are what u do when no one is looking
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Morality Vs. Ethics