The reason for this, as I understand it, comes down to one of the most base and universal behavior patterns that is prevalent and visible in every living creature: self-interest. That is not to say men and women of virtue are selfish. But it is because of the difference in reasons for choosing that behavior.
Laws, judgment, and punishment are a carrot and stick affair. You either follow them with possibly a reward for doing so, or you don't, and face punishment. But a person who chooses a standard that they aspire to emulate have an desire to meet that standard. It is the internal working outward, vs. the external working inward. Ethics are the former. The latter is already dubious in its success, as the old adage, "You cannot legislate morality" seems to support. "A person can't change unless they want to." is another. And it's true. Ethics are chosen, not forced upon you. They are not base right and wrong, but usually an agreed upon decorum in whatever field the address that the majority of that group consider paramount to the success and social viability of their aims within that context. Medical ethics for example, the Hippocratic oath specifically, are a direct reflection of what the study of medicine's collectively agreed goal is.
"No morality, only ethics." I think in this regard, and if my understanding of the terms and their full context are valid, that ethics are something both individuals and societies should seek. The world is not static, it is in constant flux, and seldom are the extremes applicable in anything but the most rare of circumstances. Morals seem to focus on those extremes, where ethics are much more organic and mutable. "Teach not the law, study instead right and good conduct."
A final non-sequitur thought.jerawolfeDecember 22 2009, 13:01:10 UTC
Vestigial organs are one of the greatest arguments for biological evolution. Why would any creator who created creatures that do not mutate and change include organs that serve no purpose? If your answer is “To build faith,” as in God is testing us, I will request you do not respond with such. I have a very low tolerance for such idiotic rationalization to deal with facts that don't fit in with a world view.
Regardless if biological evolution is the original genesis of mankind or not, society does evolve. And often laws and understandings of right and wrong, once enshrined as law, are never addressed and remain in practice long after the need for those rules have passed.
Let us take “Kosher” foods, for the Jewish community. They are not allowed to eat certain foods, the foods being considered unholy. Many of these foods, however, are also quick and dangerous carriers for food borne illnesses. With the advent of proper hygienic practices and refrigeration, this is much less a concern.
Yet the practices still go on. That is the problem with morality, or black and whites. If you set a standard that makes some actions or behaviors out to be 'a bad idea', one should also understand the reasons of why that is a bad idea. If you don't readily see them, I have no problem keeping them, perhaps you don't have all the information yet. But by all means, it is most likely unwise to enforce this baseless rule set upon others, and expect them to adhere to it.
~Jera
Note: I know I mentioned the Jews twice, and do not think me prejudiced against them. But I spent most of my life practicing an Abrahamic faith. The Jews proscriptions against certain foods may no longer be relevant, or as relevant, as it once was. But they were practicing both care in food preparation and basic hygiene long before the importance of either of these were understood and validated by science. I find this to be an admirable trait that shows they were a very wise people in this regard.
Re: A final non-sequitur thought.raccaldin36December 23 2009, 00:40:49 UTC
Responding just to this non-sequitur thought; I'm at work and I need to re-read your other responses before I say anything.
This is why I distinguish between truth and morality. The ritual of kosher is powerful, and it's not actually bad for Jews. It's an agent of community--these other people who follow the same rules for eating as I do. That makes it an actively good thing.
It only becomes bad when you stuff the practice down someone else's throat. When you take a personal (or communal truth) and make it moral (societally enforced).
There's nothing wrong, for instance, of taking a morning jog every day. And maybe a couple other people do it with you. Maybe you're all doing it because your phys. ed. teacher told you to when you were a kid, and that's the only reason you do it. There's no substantial difference, there, from religion or faith.
Re: cont...raccaldin36December 23 2009, 08:17:01 UTC
I do agree that ethical stupidity (I wouldn't call it deviance) is fairly self-correcting. A stupid belief will naturally get culled by the influence of people around you. When that stupidity graduates to a moral standard, though, we have a problem.
I disagree that we shouldn't have morals as a society. As individuals, no, we shouldn't. Individuals need to be more flexible and more honest. As a society, though, we ought to take stands, even if it's wrong, and thoroughly challenge new ideas even if it means a bit more inertia, before accepting the new idea as a society.
Having the whole constantly playing catch-up to its parts seems like a good model: the radicals have their chance and their ideas are tested with reasonable safety, but society nevertheless moves. On the other hand, radicals with bad ideas can't break society as easily. They're forced to fight a substantial amount of inertia in order to get traction, and that's a good thing. I mean, it sucks for the radical, but a good idea transcends its progenitor.
Sure, the model could use a bit more substance, but it seems like a good plan.
Laws, judgment, and punishment are a carrot and stick affair. You either follow them with possibly a reward for doing so, or you don't, and face punishment. But a person who chooses a standard that they aspire to emulate have an desire to meet that standard. It is the internal working outward, vs. the external working inward. Ethics are the former. The latter is already dubious in its success, as the old adage, "You cannot legislate morality" seems to support. "A person can't change unless they want to." is another. And it's true. Ethics are chosen, not forced upon you. They are not base right and wrong, but usually an agreed upon decorum in whatever field the address that the majority of that group consider paramount to the success and social viability of their aims within that context. Medical ethics for example, the Hippocratic oath specifically, are a direct reflection of what the study of medicine's collectively agreed goal is.
"No morality, only ethics." I think in this regard, and if my understanding of the terms and their full context are valid, that ethics are something both individuals and societies should seek. The world is not static, it is in constant flux, and seldom are the extremes applicable in anything but the most rare of circumstances. Morals seem to focus on those extremes, where ethics are much more organic and mutable. "Teach not the law, study instead right and good conduct."
My two cents.
~Jera
Reply
Regardless if biological evolution is the original genesis of mankind or not, society does evolve. And often laws and understandings of right and wrong, once enshrined as law, are never addressed and remain in practice long after the need for those rules have passed.
Let us take “Kosher” foods, for the Jewish community. They are not allowed to eat certain foods, the foods being considered unholy. Many of these foods, however, are also quick and dangerous carriers for food borne illnesses. With the advent of proper hygienic practices and refrigeration, this is much less a concern.
Yet the practices still go on. That is the problem with morality, or black and whites. If you set a standard that makes some actions or behaviors out to be 'a bad idea', one should also understand the reasons of why that is a bad idea. If you don't readily see them, I have no problem keeping them, perhaps you don't have all the information yet. But by all means, it is most likely unwise to enforce this baseless rule set upon others, and expect them to adhere to it.
~Jera
Note: I know I mentioned the Jews twice, and do not think me prejudiced against them. But I spent most of my life practicing an Abrahamic faith. The Jews proscriptions against certain foods may no longer be relevant, or as relevant, as it once was. But they were practicing both care in food preparation and basic hygiene long before the importance of either of these were understood and validated by science. I find this to be an admirable trait that shows they were a very wise people in this regard.
Reply
This is why I distinguish between truth and morality. The ritual of kosher is powerful, and it's not actually bad for Jews. It's an agent of community--these other people who follow the same rules for eating as I do. That makes it an actively good thing.
It only becomes bad when you stuff the practice down someone else's throat. When you take a personal (or communal truth) and make it moral (societally enforced).
There's nothing wrong, for instance, of taking a morning jog every day. And maybe a couple other people do it with you. Maybe you're all doing it because your phys. ed. teacher told you to when you were a kid, and that's the only reason you do it. There's no substantial difference, there, from religion or faith.
Reply
I disagree that we shouldn't have morals as a society. As individuals, no, we shouldn't. Individuals need to be more flexible and more honest. As a society, though, we ought to take stands, even if it's wrong, and thoroughly challenge new ideas even if it means a bit more inertia, before accepting the new idea as a society.
Having the whole constantly playing catch-up to its parts seems like a good model: the radicals have their chance and their ideas are tested with reasonable safety, but society nevertheless moves. On the other hand, radicals with bad ideas can't break society as easily. They're forced to fight a substantial amount of inertia in order to get traction, and that's a good thing. I mean, it sucks for the radical, but a good idea transcends its progenitor.
Sure, the model could use a bit more substance, but it seems like a good plan.
Reply
Leave a comment