From Open Source Ecology
Jump to: navigation, search

Is Morality the Same as Ethics

  • Morality comes from 'mos' from Latin moralis, from mos, mor- ‘custom’. Custom implies no choice - 'that's just the way it is.' - implying denial of new information or change.
  • Ethics - from Greek ēthos ‘nature, disposition’u. Disposition implies choice.
  • Morals don't have to be ethical, and ethics don't have to be moral. [1]. This article seems to have it in reverse.
  • The etymology of the 2 words seem to be a better guide for the subtlety.
  • The key is - what is more objective? Should the more objective viewpoint be favored? So let's go deeper.

What is Right and Wrong

Moral Objectivism

  • Teleological. One example is Utilitarianism - that which produces most happiness overall [2]
  • Deontological - Categorical Imperative - it matters what kind of act something is. If it can be claimed as a universal truth, then it is good. This assessment appears to have a fundamental flaw - as many things could depend on the situation - or could not be interpreted correctly - based on principles of General Semantics.

Moral Relavism

Comes in 2 forms - subjectivism and conventionalism. Caused by decline of religion. As Dostoevsky famously wrote "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible".

  • Cultural diversity is not a good argument for moral relativism - [3]
  • Decline of religion does not necessarily mean a decline in morality - have there been any studies that can give us a Gamma on that? [4]

Is Morality Objective

  • Psychology Today on the topic - [5]
  • there are no objective moral values - Let's break this one down. Define 'custom'. traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time. Thus, the original statement is true. If customs (morals) depend on a place, time, and conditions - there is no objective moral. Take-home message: go to the source (etymology) of morals, and note that 'objective morality' is an inherent contradiction (by definition). THus, it appears that controversy on any morals (being right or wrong) is misplaced or moot from the get-go - and the discussion should be placed on a more solid footing by discussing ethics, not morals. Ethics deal with choices of what is good or bad - which requires mental energy. There is no point in discussing 'customs' outside of what we can learn from those customs to improve the ethical nature of our current behavior.
  • Thus, anyone who uses the word 'moral' without awareness that it refers to custom is a reptart (an objective term) and anyone who discusses ethics is a libtart (an objective term). A dumb reptart is one who talks about morals without awareness that they are talking about customs. A smart reptart is one who defends certain customs - knowing that they are customs. A dumb libtart is one who thinks that the reptart is dumb. A smart libtart laughs at all of this. And there is no difference between a smart libtart and a smart reptart. LoL.

Historical Figures

Wikipedia has a whole slew of articles on philosophy and a section on Ethicists.

  • Abelard - 12th century [6] - He stressed the subjective intention as determining, if not the moral character, at least the moral value, of human action. This is consistent with later work in General Semantics, where The Map is not the Territory