It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the difference between Ethics and Morality

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: wasaka

can you do a thread about the difference between Ethics and morality I want to discuss more but it is kind of off topic here


Okay.... here you go....




posted on May, 1 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   


originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: wasaka

Morality is not just a religious code. morality is something that defines how you handle life situation's Can an atheist or agnostic person be morally grounded? yeah.

Morality is something that comes from the heart and is set by a mindset.



When you say it comes "from the heart," that tells me it is based on emotion. I'm not say emotions are bad, but they are often unduely influenced by family, friends, and peers. These influence are OUTSIDE the individual, and that which is an EXTERNAL influence is a false authority. True moral principle (be ethical) come from WITHIN.

Atheist and agnostics can believe things based on emotion (just like religious people) and they can uphold a standard of morality which merely repeats the beliefs of other people. This is called social conditioning, and that is what morality really is... it is our programming.... the believes we hold (with emotion) without critical thinking.

Ethics = logic (from WITHIN the individual)
Morality = emotion (from Outside the individual)



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka





Brilliant.







Edit: okay seeing as you added to the most original response to a thread request ever...


I'll say that it is subjective to each individual.
Personally they are the same to me, & the dictionary...

Others like yourself choose to take a philosophical approach.

edit on 1-5-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   


originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: wasaka

Your post redefines morality a bit, its not a religious thing.
www.diffen.com...
My definition would be that ethics are external and define boundaries, morals are internal, and inspire direction.


"Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong."

Yes, one's own principle regard right and wrong are largely
based on religious teaching and the consensus reality of
society and large (i.e., social conditioning).

Beliefs effect behavior, that is true.

The question is where these believes
come from.... if they are memes of our
social conditioning then these so-called
"principles" may not be ethical.

A lot of religious beliefs which shape
behavior are arrived at second hand
and fall short of being principles of
the individual themselves.

What humanity need most is to bring
a full stop to valuing the valueless, and
in this regard we only change the world
by changing ourselves. Lead by example.
This is an individual principle, not some
moral judgement about other people.

Morality, like money, is a false authority.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   


originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: wasaka

You're still using the word different than I would, so its hard to fully argue or agree with what you are saying. Example usage:

The atheist scientist ruled out the experiment because it would cross ethical boundaries, but worked hard to find another way to prove the efficacy of the medication, anticipating not just the recognition, but also moral achievement of helping the millions suffering with the condition.


Yes, this is common usage.

However, I point out that "beliefs" lead to Beliefism.

Beliefism does not question itself, rather it is held with conviction.

Convictions (strongly held moral beliefs) are dangerous because
they leave out "critical thinking" and ethical considerations and
rely on emotion, religious instruction, and peer pressure.

Beliefs we hold can be based on:
A) our programming, or
B) our experience

The former is called "morality" and later is ethical.
The former is based on external opinions (false authority)
and the later is based on common sense and empathy.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: wasaka

Yes, this is common usage.

However, I point out that "beliefs" lead to Beliefism.

Beliefism does not question itself, rather it is held with conviction.

Convictions (strongly held moral beliefs) are dangerous because
they leave out "critical thinking" and ethical considerations and
rely on emotion, religious instruction, and peer pressure.

Beliefs we hold can be based on:
A) our programming, or
B) our experience

The former is called "morality" and later is ethical.
The former is based on external opinions (false authority)
and the later is based on common sense and empathy.


"I kinda see your philosophy here, and sofaras you are saying reason and empathy should be uppermost I agree. I was arguing that we need scientists and informed people to play a more formative role. Morality and belief are tough words. With the first, I can warn you that some new atheist Dawkins fans will rip you a new one if you say "Atheists have no morals", which follows from that definition of morality as programming or belief driven. "Belief" itself has two meanings, it can denote faith based belief, which is can be unshakeable and held, or it can denote uncertainty about something. "I believe it will be a nice day". The latter is connected to my definition of morality: The scientist in my example may not know that curing the disease is the best thing for the world, but still feel a draw to do so, to be the sort of person who does that thing. That's her moral conviction, and its okay. Its good. She should share it with the world." --tridentblue



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The usual definition of "ethics" is a variation on "a system of moral principles." It's really as simple as that.

You are splitting hairs that need not be split, and doing so doesn't add to any deeper understanding, just like debating how many angels can fit on the edge of a pin.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

Ethics is a two edged sword. First is the legal ethics related to your behavior in the workplace. Example: it is an ethics violation for a psychiatrist to date a patient.

The other edge is the less formal legal verbage: corporate code. In that vein you still have legal implications, but likely would not serve jail time or recieve a fine. Punitive action would relate to a loss of job and reporting to the licensing authority (if one exists).

A good summary: ethics are the morals that have collectively been agreed upon to the extent which they were formalized.

Morality....that is individual viewpoints on what is right or wrong. Typically, unless a contract is present, morality carries no legal or employment implications. Example: it is commonly believed to be immoral to be an adulterer, but some people do have different views and you aren't likely to lose your job or freedom over it.

A good summary: morals are ethics that are held on an individual level, we don't have an overall consensus, and there is no formalized process related to them.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Well, I can give you one personal dilemma that I faced time over in my work when a government department employee.

one part part of my job was to authorise payments of cheques, actually payable orders. One day a memo came from the department's accountant to say that, 'No more notification' is to be given to suppliers or companies who have not cashed their cheques, something that was quite common for those who might see a fiscal need to do so until a certain time, and something we locally, chased up before the payable order limit ran out, as well as it making our job in balancing the books easier. I ignored it and continued to ring up the people to remind them, because to my mind I thought it morally wrong not to, even though it may well have been 'Ethical' in business practice. So who's to say here? was I misguided, or was there/is there something wrong with that business ethic?
I should say I never was detected, and most of the rest of the staff pretty much agreed with me.
edit on 1-5-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

I'm having trouble with this whole idea. Talk about making simple things complex.

Ethics. Morals. Are they not both just ideas? Both originating from the same place; from a belief.

Ethically speaking. My ethics, or somneone else's? Morally speaking. My morals, or someone else's? It could go either way.
I think it's based on emotions; both ethics and morals. Unfortunately, they are usually just excuses to support an idea, behavior, or action.

How do you decide? You decide on how it makes you feel. Does it make you feel good? Happy? Right or rightgeous? Bad? Sad? Shame?

It was ethical. Usually means I agree with the idea or action and others support me. It was morally right. Means I agree with the idea or action, and a belief system supports me.

Ethics. Law and science and a general consensus. Morals. Beliefs and religions and a general consensus.

You still end up on the same foot.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: wasaka

I'm having trouble with this whole idea. Talk about making simple things complex.

Ethics. Morals. Are they not both just ideas? Both originating from the same place; from a belief.

Ethically speaking. My ethics, or somneone else's? Morally speaking. My morals, or someone else's? It could go either way.
I think it's based on emotions; both ethics and morals. Unfortunately, they are usually just excuses to support an idea, behavior, or action.



It was ethical. Usually means I agree with the idea or action and others support me. It was morally right. Means I agree with the idea or action, and a belief system supports me.

Ethics. Law and science and a general consensus. Morals. Beliefs and religions and a general consensus.

You still end up on the same foot.


That's kind of where I was as, and I saw it.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Yes, all true.

I just find it help me to parse the meanings of words
in my own way to make important distinctions. That
is my thing, my thinking process, and it is not one
that expect other to accept without question.

EXAMPLES:
- Belief is not necessarily faith.
- Morality is not necessarily ethical.

Where do our beliefs come from, and what value
to they have? If our beliefs cause us to value the
valueless then we have missed the boat.

Out task is to think critically, and not just be
repeaters (under the influence of others).



edit on 1-5-2015 by wasaka because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: wasaka

A good summary: ethics are the morals that have collectively been agreed upon to the extent which they were formalized.


Yes, that is true. However from the perspective of the individual
what is ethical? Simple this: First, to do no harm... and from that
point of beginning to practice the Golden Rule.


A good summary: morals are ethics that are held on an individual level, we don't have an overall consensus, and there is no formalized process related to them.


Here I would tend to disagree. Morals (morality) is largely
the individual accepting their social programming. There
is often little or no thought involved. Morality is influence
by external forces, like the fear of authority, force of law
and the "structure of order" that also accepted without
question, without critical thinking.

"Money has always been the ubiquitous control architecture
for every political system. It works best when people under
such false authority remain ignorant of how they are being
manipulated."

In the same way, Morality, is ubiquitous control method
where by the Church has historically supported the State.

Morality = church control (false authority)
Money = government control (false authority)

I reject both and call for more individual responsibility
and less undue influence by church or state.

Just my humble opinion.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
The usual definition of "ethics" is a variation on "a system of moral principles." It's really as simple as that.

You are splitting hairs that need not be split, and doing so doesn't add to any deeper understanding, just like debating how many angels can fit on the edge of a pin.


Yes, I am splitting hairs. I enjoy splitting hairs.

Is "belief" the same as "faith" or can a distinction be made?
Perhaps you think I am splitting hairs that don't need to be,
and doing so doesn't add to any deeper understanding...

...but that is your opinion.

As long as you hold that opinion, it will remain true (for you).
I, however, find that splitting hairs does in fact lead me to
deeper understanding. Perhaps you are just being obtuse.

I am not debating how many angels can fit on the edge of a pin.
Rather I asking a fundamental question: what is false authority?
and are you under it's influence. Merely accepting the meaning of
words as they are currently defined (by common usage) is obtuse
because words do in fact change their meaning all the time.

The important thing is thinking for one self, not conforming
to some structure or external order or false authority.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler




The usual definition of "ethics" is a variation on "a system of moral principles." It's really as simple as that.
I have though of ethics as a procedural code depending on the field of operations . Conflicts of interests codified in ethical procedures .You have to put the horse ahead of the cart it is hauling .imo



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

At the heart of it then is "What does it mean to be human?"

Human behavior is encoded in our morality. And vice versa. I would say that most species have similar. Of course, to be sapient of your sapience likely indicates that you are aware of the species defining behaviors to a point that you can analyze them and call them "morals".

A decent read that kind of touches on the concept of human behavior, and its adaptation around smaller populations:

Taming The Mammoth

In short, what you call morality is a blend of your own personal choices and the social pressure you feel from others, and what they prefer. That is why drugs are considered immoral by so many people: because the likes/dislikes of others are projected onto them, and social pressure forces conformity.

We all have that mammoth telling us what to think as a proxy for human social networks. Its part of what makes us human...its a human trait. Humans have mammoths.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

Where would you place integrity into the discussion ?



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: wasaka

Where would you place integrity into the discussion ?


Integrity is word I like very much, and it linked to
this discussion as you point out.

For me, the best guild to integrity can be found
in the book "The Four Agreements: A Practical
Guide to Personal Freedom" www.amazon.com...

Agreements are:
- Be Impeccable With Your Words
- Don't Take Anything Personally
- Don't Make Assumptions
- Always Do Your Best

When you have integrity you don't care what other
people think or say... because you know the people
who matter (those who really know you) will not
believe "false witnesses" against you because
they know you have integrity.

It simply means practicing what you preach,
that is what a leader does. They lead by example.

In context of this discussion, integrity is upholding
your ethical standard (i.e., Oath, etc) without being
a self-righteous (moralizing prick) who judges others.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

"...this lesson isn’t just limited to me and my debacle of a childhood—it’s a defining paranoia of the human species. We share a collective insanity that pervades human cultures throughout the world: An irrational and unproductive obsession with what other people think of us."

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed that.

"A Puppet Master is a person or group of people whose opinion matters so much to you that they’re essentially running your life. "

A Puppet Master = false authority.

When you establish your own integrity, you can
leave the Puppet Master behind. When you can
identify the false authority, you can stop being
a pussy and empower yourself.

Self-empowerment feel good.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

But don't forget:


We share a collective insanity that pervades human cultures throughout the world:


humans are social creatures. we have spent over a million years developing the tools around our intelligence to help us cope as social creatures. Our behaviors are refined around that. Everything about our march up to today has been to disempower us, and endear us to groupthink.

While it may feel good to empower yourself...it is abnormal from the perspective of "human design specifications". We just weren't engineered that way, and this engineering is prevalent across all human cultures the world over.

All authority is a false authority, unless it is the authority of your own self. That said....that is more suitable for nonsocial creatures. its all give and take.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join