the difference between Ethics and Morality

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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.

Are we engineered that way, or conditioned that way?

If we are hard wired for groupthink and worship of authority, then from age two I was identified as socially challenged. I never wanted to do what the crowd wants, and still don't. I am frequently, labelled as difficult, because I won't do something that doesn't make sense to me, just because somebody said to do it.

I guess my wiring is faulty. I do consider myself a lover of humanity, and I truly am in love with nature and the majority of the other creatures that call our tiny marble home. I just don't need to be around people. I am not antisocial. I am more socially selective. This is not a bad thing, it is just a different way of thinking and behaving. Of course, society is not very tolerant of different.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Engineered...conditioned...isn't it the same thing? One is a means to the other?

Can a human exist without an ego? Without a psyche? Can a human exist in a purely logical form, and still function in day to day society?

Everyone wants to please someone. Or a few someones. There are no exceptions. If you don't want to please anyone, then you will by default live a non socialized life. And while that is perfectly ok, and I wish anyone doing so the best in their life...it is decidedly not a normal human behavior.

In the same way a bear dancing in a skirt isn't normal behavior. Or tigers living in a pride like a lion. Not that any of it is an impossibility.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Engineered...conditioned...isn't it the same thing? One is a means to the other?

Can a human exist without an ego? Without a psyche? Can a human exist in a purely logical form, and still function in day to day society?

Everyone wants to please someone. Or a few someones. There are no exceptions. If you don't want to please anyone, then you will by default live a non socialized life. And while that is perfectly ok, and I wish anyone doing so the best in their life...it is decidedly not a normal human behavior.

In the same way a bear dancing in a skirt isn't normal behavior. Or tigers living in a pride like a lion. Not that any of it is an impossibility.

I never said I didn't have an ego, or a pysche for that matter. I didn't even say that I have a nonsocial life. I work in an extremely social environment. I come from a huge family. I have five brothers and four sisters. I said I have a socially "selective" life, because I don't like crowds. I don't like big groups, outside of family.

It isn't that I don't like people, I just prefer being alone most of the time. Blame my Irish-Jewish grandfather and his wild tales. He had the true gift of gab and I think he most have kissed the Blarney Stone quite often, because he could spin a yarn without thought. So, I grew up doubting anything anyone told me.

So I too was conditioned but in a totally different way.

a reply to: wasaka

Making up your own definitions?

The best starting point for a reasoned discussion is the accepted definition(s) of the terms.

Making it up as you go, is a horrible waste of time and leads to massive miscommunication.

The best short definition I’ve heard, courtesy of my friend Stirling, is that morals are how you treat people you know. Ethics are how you treat people you don’t know.

Your morality is what makes you a good wife or husband, dad or mother. A good daughter or son. A good friend. Even a good employee or boss to the people you know personally in the company.

Your ethics are what makes you a good politician. It is what makes you a statesman. It is also what makes you a good, humane CEO of any large company (and yes, you can make money and pay your employees well as Costco proves.)

www.ianwelsh.net...

I think when we think of ethics we think of that term in the business world. Do you have an ethical practice. Are you doing things that are ethical in regards to co workers.

Morality is yes maybe a form of judgement but I think judgement is for you more on the situation it is judgeing on how you handle a situation for yourself.

I think Wasaka you mentioned that morality depens on a repeated programming type of thing that leads to a social condition.

I dont think so if you see a homeless man on the street and five people walk by him and ignore him while you acknowledge him and maybe give him some money is that not your morality defying the social condition if you will that you just saw five people ignore him wouldnt you ignore him as well?? if indeed it was social condtioning

The best short definition I’ve heard, courtesy of my friend Stirling, is that morals are how you treat people you know. Ethics are how you treat people you don’t know. Your morality is what makes you a good wife or husband, dad or mother. A good daughter or son. A good friend. Even a good employee or boss to the people you know personally in the company. www.ianwelsh.net...

Yes, I like that!

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: wasaka

Making up your own definitions?

Yes, I make up my own definition. so what?

The best starting point for a reasoned discussion is the accepted definition(s) of the terms.
Making it up as you go, is a horrible waste of time and leads to massive miscommunication.

First, nothing in this thread is a horrible waste of time....
Second, I am not making it up as I go... this is my view
of the world. It has been my world-view for years.

> leads to massive miscommunication

What miscommunication?

If I said red is blue, we could have a reasoned discussion
as long as that new "definition" for red was accepted. The
problem is not the definition of red, the problem would be
the other person not accepting blue in place of red. Even
though the new meaning was explained in detail and that
new definition was understood.... AND AGREED ON
....there would still be ....a problem.

Why? because it is NOT about get the definition right,
and is NOT about "having a reasoned discussion" but
rather is about static thinking, obtuse thinking, and
the unwillingness to bend or shift. It is about one
of us being too goddamn conservative.

originally posted by: wasaka

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

I like the distinction. Ethics is a Greek words, and was discussed by Greek philosophers. Most people use it interchangeably and will probably get confused with those definitions (unless you keep clarifying every time). Probably best to just talk about a virtue without words like morality/ethics and use words like empathy or compassion instead.

a reply to: wasaka

No, ultimately, it's about communication. When you make up your own definitions and describe your own perception of reality with those words - nobody else can understand you.

The issue here - is 1) clarity of thought and 2) clarity of communication.

And for both a commonly agreed upon starting point is required.

a reply to: wasaka

Yeah, its an interesting topic, I thought about it too for awhile after posting you.

As far as the key difference, ethics violations will tend to draw real world, systemic punishments while moral ones not necessarily. For instance, using the moral scientist metaphor, suppose another scientist, scientist B worked at the same place, some non-profit working on disease cures. While scientist B did lip service to the cause, he didn't really dedicate himself fully to it, and though he was really capable of doing a much greater job, just followed the rules and did the minimum.

This could be described as a moral failing, but not an ethical one: Externally, he's working within the rules and expectations, and not lying. But the idea of morality says there's more to good action than just that, it guides us in a good direction beyond just being within the rules. Its focused on optimal behavior not just boundaries.

a reply to: tridentblue

I think you just made an example for what FryeByrd said. Your example works because there are agreed upon rules and expectations that were communicated.

The failure of the one scientist to go beyond this expectation may appear as a moral failing to some, but, it may appear an upholding of his moral standing to give only what is expected and no more.

This is like saying "I use the hand of my ring finger". Most people will say you are using your right hand, but, you are going to have some that are going to say you are using your left.

We are an amazing lot. A general consensus is not always an easy accomplishment. Even a majority count means nothing electorally. We are indeed an amazing lot.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Yeah, Fyrebird makes a good point, I was saying that too. Its one thing if Wasaka wants to go against - he described it something like a programmed sense of right and wrong without rational backing - that's fine. But the game that changes the meaning of words is bad. Its like that thing I had a while back about people saying "thug" actually means the n-word. If someone is using "thug" with what you think is racist intent, tell them why you think its racist but don't try to change the meaning of the word so people using it without racist intent are branded racist. There's enough bad intent in this world, we don't need to create more by secretly changing the meanings of words so people can interpret neutral go statements as offensive.