Ethics - is a suburb of London is you speak with a lisp.

~ Mystical Morality ~

~~~

Please don’t touch my ethics!
They’re as fragile as a butterfly!
I’m trying not to break them,
just like every other guy!

Play with your semantics.
Live in suburbs with a lisp.
Just remember your behavior’s,
always hanging from a wisp

Your ethics could be broken
by the pressures of your peers
Draining you remorsefully
through the flowing of your tears.

So please don’t touch my ethics,
with your voracious greedy lust!
Or you’ll impart a broken heart
and turn my soul to dust.

Deep within I keep my morals,
hidden from your view.
For they embrace the essence,
of everything that’s true.

I guard them with devotion,
through the magic of my love.
With the help of spirit angels
and the deities thereof.

Don’t ask for explanations
unless you really want to know.
For everything that lives in me
if from a mystical plateau.

~~~

(Abra 8/26/07)

Bravo! Abra, your talent is unending.

As for the topic.

Per Abra:

""I simply refuse to allow religions to steal the word “morality” from me. I consider myself to have very high morals despite the fact that they are not based on any religion. I would not feel right about calling them “ethics” because to me that’s an entirely differnet concept. I see ethics and morality as being distinctly differnet things as Joshyfox, Jess and others have suggested. Morals are personal convictions, whilst ethics have more to do with social acceptance and could change depending on the society that I happen to be living in at the time. But my underlying morals would never change. """

On this I agree, however, if you are going to adhere to some code and call it morality, then you do so with some underlying belief system. That system may be yours alone, but it is in place by some conviction that has it's basis in a belief. While your belief system does not have to have a written doctrine to be adhered to by others, it is still your belief, and is driven by the values you have given those beliefs. As you said your underlying morals would never change. This is what I was referring to by indicating that laws created from an unchanging 'religious' morality can never create a free and equal society as long as those in that society do not share the same moral values.

You also mentioned at the end of your last post that you would concede to living under ethical law rather than to allow the morals of religious convictions to be your ruler.

So for the sake of my next argument, if we can agree, for the moment, that morality has it's basis in some underlying belief structure, whether it is an individual belief or a set of doctrines that whole groups adhere to.

Further, that ethics by the definition you have conceded to, begins with a series of questions about a particular issue. That series of questions is then given a value, from the most important to the least. When the answers are assembled the pro's and cons are given values according to the priority that the questions were placed in.

What ends the calculation is a determination of right or wrong, good or bad. The degree to which this determination affects society as a whole would then indicate what course of action, if any, would be required to substantiate a law, or a regulation.

While the course of action may not agree with one's underlying morality, if calculated correctly, it would be the best way to proceed for the welfare of society as a whole.

What I have just described, in my opinion, would be the ideal atmosphere for a society attempting to develop, maintain and progress, under a predetermined set of rights, for example the Constitution and it's original bill of rights.

Anyone want to argue or question, or maybe add sceneiros? Any contingencies to the model, any question about a vote? I'll be back.

By the way, if it appears that I'm leading the discussion, I am sort of. I've been playing with some phylisophical ideas, and I wanted to get opinions and feedback that would allow me to learn and adjust my views. I actually intend to lead this discussion to a particular point, however, I'm not driven to it, as I'm enjoying the learning process. I admit sometimes I'm a slow learner, but I blame the teachers for being such good company.

Thanks everyone for allowing me to keep my brain engaged for my school work, while I take breaks to use it on topics I so enjoy discussing.

i have not said anything about this topic because my knowledge about it is limited. I'm sorry.

same thing

Red wrote:
“That system may be yours alone, but it is in place by some conviction that has it's basis in a belief.”

My belief system is extremely simple. It’s just the golden rule. I didn’t chose the golden rule. I simply decided a very long time ago that it make sense that the best way to live my life would be to treat others with the same respect that I would like them to give me. It just so happens that this is also called the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

For me that means to respect other peoples beliefs. “Respect” doesn’t mean that need to agree with them, of even necessarily condone what they believe. It simply means not to push my beliefs onto them via laws, or other mandatory rules.

I also extend the golden rule to all living things. Not just other human beings. So I guess by your definition of the words, this would be my own personal “ethics”. I call it “morals”. But what we label them is irrelevant, the concept is all that’s important.

And the golden rule does have it’s problems. Everything that I find acceptable someone else may not and vice-versa. Like the running naked through a church service. If someone else did that it wouldn’t bother me. So why should I think it would bother anyone else? But as Anoasis points out, some people might actually have a nervous breakdown over it.

I don’t think it says anywhere in the Bible that thou shalt not run naked through church services though. So I’m not sure how religious morals would prevent that anyway. It just says that Adam and Eve knew they were naked when they sinned. And so all of a sudden it’s a sin to be naked! When it obviously wasn’t a sin prior to eating an apple. People who are turned on by voyeurism should by a bag of apples to heighten their ecstasy.

Morels is something snooty French
people use pigs to dig up.

Ethics is something they taught
you in Sunday School. A long time ago.

Hillfolk - Are you trying to say that your ethics allow you to value your own opinion and thoughts above others, but your morals are telling you that's wrong? If you look to your left shoulder do you see a little devil? and if you look to your right one, is there an angel? And is there a pink elephant anywhere in the room?

I needed some sleep, too. I value my opinions and thoughts. Above others, hmmm. Yeah, I have been guilty of that. My experiences are telling me that's wrong. Yeah, I make value judgements. Yeah, I have a conscience. Aw, I think pink elephants are cute. Don't you?

Hi All, no time to reply, on my way to work and have a deadline, midnight tonight, to complete some school work. I will be back, some great discussion ahead.

We are all learning about this topic, anyone can post. Don't be left out, we have more to go. Ask questions or state opinion. No judgements, we're just walking around a bit.

Later All

Hey Redy-

Re: "...morality has it's basis in some underlying belief structure, whether it is an individual belief or a set of doctrines that whole groups adhere to.

...ethics... begins with a series of questions about a particular issue. That series of questions is then given a value, from the most important to the least. When the answers are assembled the pro's and cons are given values according to the priority that the questions were placed in.

What ends the calculation is a determination of right or wrong, good or bad. The degree to which this determination affects society as a whole would then indicate what course of action, if any, would be required to substantiate a law, or a regulation.

While the course of action may not agree with one's underlying morality, if calculated correctly, it would be the best way to proceed for the welfare of society as a whole.

What I have just described, in my opinion, would be the ideal atmosphere for a society attempting to develop, maintain and progress, under a predetermined set of rights, for example the Constitution and it's original bill of rights."

I'm re-capping because I got a bit behind and had to figure out what the actual question was at this point.

I'm not sure I understand your point that an action may be against a person individual morals but yet be overridden by some greater good for society and therefore ethical.

Are you talking about the classic "would you kill Hitler" kind of thing? E.g. You believe killing is wrong (it is against your morals) but then are asked if you would kill Hitler if given an opportunity?

Is this the kind of thing you mean or am I totally off track?

What happens when your personal belief system, the 'morals' that you have accumulated over your lifetime, (that fit you well), are challenged by the ethics of a job, that you agreed to work under?

How to reconcile those beliefs, those morals, with the ethics of a wider section of the community...

I feel 'cause no harm, intentionally' is the foundation of my moral codes and beliefs...and yet at times within my workplace, I have to step back and be a passive observer, without judgement, to situations that do cause harm to others...trying to reconcile those situations within myself, does cause challenging times.

And 'the greater good for all' sometimes helps, sometimes doesn't.

Ah, the work quandry. For me, I've found I have a very judgmental attitude when it comes to the higher good of all. I have found it is impossible for me to stay in a situation that requires production over quality. It surprises me every time, yet I can't seem to "give in". Perhaps I'm a perfectionist, but when it comes down to the medical well being of individuals and I know all pertinent information is not being considered in the diagnoses of such, I just have to open my mouth. Ironically, its never the doctors that have a problem with my "weirdness", its always been administration.

Herein lies the importance of separating the word morals from ethics. If you read all the excerpts I’ve taken the liberty of posting here, you have to admit, there are areas of confusion, in fact some of the confusion shows that conflict can arise between the two words. That conflict does exist. It exists because these two words have different meanings, because moral values and ethical values are not based on the same conception of right and wrong.

So Abra, while you’re moral directive is subjective I can see why you consider the use of one label or another as irrelevant. Your particular belief, happens to be ethically proportionate in value to society. In that frame of reference there is no difference. However, in society at large, this one belief is not enough structure to affectively govern a structured civil society.

To bring clarification to the topic, let’s discuss morals on a subjective level, having to do only with the individual, and ethics on a social level, having to do with societies.

Please see next post.

Abra :
“”I guess by your definition of the words, this would be my own personal “ethics”. I call it “morals”. But what we label them is irrelevant, the concept is all that’s important.””


Mnhiker
“”Ethics is something they taught
you in Sunday School. A long time ago””



Anoasis
“”I'm not sure I understand your point that an action may be against a person individual morals but yet be overridden by some greater good for society and therefore ethical.””


Jess
“”What happens when your personal belief system, the 'morals' that you have accumulated over your lifetime, (that fit you well), are challenged by the ethics of a job, that you agreed to work under?


And 'the greater good for all' sometimes helps, sometimes doesn't “”


DKW
“”Ah, the work quandry. For me, I've found I have a very judgmental attitude when it comes to the higher good of all. I have found it is impossible for me to stay in a situation that requires production over quality. …..Ironically, its never the doctors that have a problem with my "weirdness", its always been administration.””

I think history documents the fact that morals, within a specific society, almost anywhere in the world, are a direct reflection of beliefs. Example: a belief that the Sun god will be unhappy with you for sleeping while it sheds light, could create a moral. That moral being, unless one is sick, they should not waste the light by sleeping. Which in turn becomes a law within that society. Perhaps a fine for sleeping or a sacrifice is in order. You see? Morals that are handed down from one generation to the next, do not always have a valid place in every society. In fact they are often considered restricting and biased, especially when and where differing societies merge.

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 or belief system of the majority of a society, that those who sought to create massive societal social structures, actually created religions for the purpose of providing mass moral directives. In this way, the person or people 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 incorporate the use of the religious moral directive to appease and control the masses as they continued to promote their reign and power.

So, if we were to create a ‘society’ with much diversity of culture and backgrounds and belief systems, what would be the best way to create laws to govern such a diverse people?

Keep in mind, In this case, laws need to be created for the common good. Example: When is a crime a crime and who decides quilt or innocence and what is the punishment. In the case of morals, in a Christian society, one might say that it is a crime to perform labor on Sunday. Truth is, this was a law in many ancient societies, and it is still a moral of many individuals. Yet it would not serve the common good, nor would it have a basis in value to be considered a legal issue.

So how do we make laws? Do we adhere to individual ‘moral’ beliefs?

I’ve always had moral conflicts everywhere I’ve ever worked. I had to deal with them because there was no other choice. Some might say, well you can quit that job and get another. Well, I’ve actually quit jobs for that very reason, but unfortunately trying to find one that doesn’t conflict with my morals is almost impossible. All companies that are in the business of making money will almost always conflict with my morals. And this is true whether they are product, or service oriented.

When I worked in research and development I ended up being involved in the design of “smart bombs” and “smart guns”. It wasn’t my choice to work on military projects, it just where my expertise was required. There was a moral conflict going on within me. Am I saving lives by helping to make weapons smarter thus reducing civilian casualties should the need for war arise? Or am I contributing to war?

I do believe in defense. I believe in protecting loved ones and freedom. I believe in defensive war if there is no other choice. But at the same time, I know that yo-yo’s like Bush exist. Of course he wasn’t president when I actually worked in that field thank god or I think I would have quit!

It’s not just the work place. Living in today’s society forces a person to live a certain lifestyle. We simply don’t have the choice to live in a completely natural style of life similar to a caveman. If we attempt to live that way we’d be arrested and charged with vagrancy, trespassing, as well as other charges. We simply don’t have that choice. We must live in a technological society whether we like it or not. So we have no choice but to accept these things.

It’s not that I’m against technology. It’s just that technology is being produced in ways the demand that it is “throw-away”. Things simply become obsolete and are no longer useable. It’s also difficult to keep or repair older things especially things such as vehicles, etc. We are forced into a throw-away situation.

Later I become a college instructor and taught math and physics. However, even in that situation I did not agree with many of the policies of the institution that I worked for. I felt that they were ripping off the students in many different ways that was totally unjust. Yet again, what’s a person to do? No sense in quitting, I’d just be upset with the next employer’s behavior.

It’s simply impossible to maintain perfect morals when living in a society where that just isn’t a choice. So you do the best you can do and deal with it. I’m not happy with the way humanity has evolved. But then I know a lot of other people who aren’t happy with it either. There’s really not much that can be done. It’s too large. Society has become too dependent on mammon. They worship mammon. Everything is structured on an economical basis rather than on an ecological and humanitarian basis. How can we, as individuals change that? I don’t see how we can. Even the war in Iraq is ultimately about mammon. The attack on the world trade centers was originally about mammon. The world trade centers represented our worshiping of mammon.

People in the USA think they are Christians, but in reality they are Mammonites.

Red wrote:
“So how do we make laws? Do we adhere to individual ‘moral’ beliefs?”

It’s simple. If it’s a dictatorship the dictator makes the laws. If it’s a democracy then George W. Bush makes the laws. Morals don’t even enter into the picture.

to me,
moral= personal code of conduct
ethic= code of conduct influenced from ones surronding environment

Red wrote:
“So how do we make laws? Do we adhere to individual ‘moral’ beliefs?”

I’ve been thinking about this question overnight. Even with individual ‘moral’ beliefs, it can become quite difficult to come to a consensus on what’s “good” for society. Also, it isn’t always clear of who’s a member of society.

For example, in the case of abortion, even putting morals aside altogether, is the unborn fetus a “member” of society that should be protected by the same laws as everyone else? Or should society ignore the unborn member of society and give the mother priority to do as she like with “her body and fetus”.

These are tough issues even when no ‘moral’ values are present. Just from a purely logical point of view of what’s best for society they could go either way. The logical question then becomes one of whether or not the fetus is a member of society and should be protected by their laws.

Some thing would go for cloning, genetic engineering, and other biological issues. These topics often give atheists pause for though. There are purely logical arguments to support or challenge all of these issues without any need to even ask about moral questions.

Even laws concerning environmental issues have logical problems, where does resource usage become abuse? Everyone won’t agree on what constitutes a detrimental problem. Some prefer to try to think ahead and take precautionary measures to protect the environment, others claim that the world is like a natural biological filter and will recover over time so there’s nothing to worry about. Both parties can produce logical arguments to support their positions without any need to even discuss morals.

I know many atheists who are vegetarians and don’t believe in killing animals. For them it’s not a “moral” issue. For them it’s just obvious that animals have just as much right to this planet as we do and it’s our responsibility to respect them and protect them. So they would vote for laws against hunting, fishing, and raising livestock for food, and/or fur etc. Again, a purely logical decision that has nothing to do with “morals”. They simply view the environment as part of our society and therefore subject to being protected by our laws.

There are also good moral arguments against certain laws. For example, I personally feel that property taxes are immoral. I seriously do. Why should people have to pay other people just to live on this planet? I can understand income taxes because that’s a social thing. In order to partake in an income a person must interact with society in order to partake in the economy. However, someone who isn’t employed or who is trying to live a back-to-basics self-sufficient lifestyle shouldn’t have to pay taxes to a society that he or she is not interested in participating with economically. So property taxes are just plain wrong on every level. Yet as a society we seem to accept them.

Attempting to remove morals from a law-making process isn’t going to solve every problem by far. As you point out there are laws that have no basis in logic at all, such as the blue laws of keeping a Sabbath day holy. That is a purely religious-based ideal that has no logical grounds outside of a faith in that particular religion. There are religious laws like that on the books sadly even today in the 21st century.

However, most of the issues that are facing our society today would not go away or become logically clear just by doing away with morals as a guiding principle for making laws. There are atheists who will argue against publicly condoning same-gender relationships as being socially acceptable purely on logical grounds. They simply feel that it is unnatural and they will even point to AIDS as being an obvious logical problem associated with that behavior. There are no “moral values” in their arguments whatsoever. They just see it as being unnatural and, in their view, obviously detrimental to society as a whole. So from a purely logical point of view they would vote against it. Morals have nothing to do with their position.

These kinds of issues aren’t always moral issues. They are far more complex than that.

Abra, your overall take on such a huge undertaking is correct. Not every member of society will have things their way in every case. This makes you approach the undertaking with a defeatist attitude. Almost as if you would rather just throw your and hands and say, I'm done, I want no part of society and it rules and regulations and restrictive measures. I don't see that as part of your make up. Even if I did, I would have to say, you are a hypocrite. For you live you life, with the freedom to follow your moral directive as far as it does not cross the lines of legality. It can't be too bad, or you would do more than just throw up your hands and quit. If it were that bad, you would move or you would fight, or you would hide. Instead you live a life free to follow whatever gives you the most satifaction, within the law.

So stop looking at this as an impossible undertaking. Let me help you.

Let's start our process by saying that we are a new nation who has adopted the U.S. Constitution and the bill of rights. We will not adopt any amendments or additions after the bill of rights were completed.

Now we have an ethical basis from which to begin. When discussing what should or shouldn't become law, we know that there is a certain critera that must be met in order that a law will not interfere with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

So in a diverse society, a group has decided to voice a loud opinion against abortion. In fact, their voices have been portrayed in every media we have and their federal repesentitives, must now consider how to proceed with this issue.

First they must make statements through all manner of media, in order that all citizens become aware of the 'issue' at hand. Then they must wait to see how the factions of society view this issue.

In some cases, some federal officials may feel enough preassure from constituants to propose a bill to be reviewed.

NOW HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION. How do we expect our representitives to act? Let's say they don't get enough responce from who they represent to put together some argument based on their wishes. Do they take a fall back position and act according to their personal 'moral' convictions? Or do we expect them to act in an ethical manner and review and research and question, even to the point of sending people out into the public of their state to discuss this action and get opinions and reasons behind those opinions? Then is it as simple as bending to the will of the majority? What about the basic ethical directives of the Constitution?

I know this discussion has been boring to many so I will skip many steps and post more directly to the point I'm trying to get to. next post please!