Ethics and morals

What does ethics mean for you?

Someone once told me;" You lack ethical responsibility, you simplify philosophy in a immoral way.... You need guidance from a mentor.. "
I understand the principles, but if i take into consideration the philosophical work from a subjective viewpoint and disregard science as a method and instead embrace philosophy at first hand as a method i will be just another bullshlting philosopher others try to understand..

The problem with philosophy today;" no one understands a single thing about what is important in society " The basic of philosophy is dualism to venture forth into the middle path.. When in science its "Love and Fear" in philosophy its "Love and Hate" How do you turn love and hate to a middle path? Idealism? No wonder the young looks at the elders as lying "mf#"

Isnt better to teach virtues and responsibility, offer character Instead of choices? Cause really when you hit puberty, choices is just another word for;" I want to f*** anything that moves " How about we teach them to court? Maybe even to pull out the chair? Cause it when comes down to choices, if you lack morals, the ethical approach wont matter..

So my question to all of you? What does ethics mean for you?

a reply to: tikbalang

ethics , to me is a usefull benchmark for how far i have deviated from the " norm "

a reply to: tikbalang

Broadly speaking, ethics to me is a concern for others outside of my own needs and wants. A reasoned consideration of the effect of my actions to others which influences my life choices.

I have no issues with consenting people of legal age having as much sex as they like with whoever else consents. That is not an ethical consideration to me.

Considering that ethics are generally defined as a set of moral principles in most definitions of the word I've seen. I usually consider ethics a way for people to try to stand apart from the religious and still maintain morals. They want to paint morals as strictly religious thing, but really ethics are morals by another name.

All they really are trying to say is that they set themselves apart by not being religious.

And as Shakespeare wrote, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

In other words, ethics, morals ... they're the same thing.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree, and might add that I see it as a positive move away from the silly archaic religious idea of absolute morality.
Wahabbi Islam blows away any idea that religious teaching has any logical part to play in morality debates.
Same with the old testament.

a reply to: grainofsand

Have a problem with the idea of the Golden Rule do we? Or what about the ideas that one should not murder, steal, or covet?

Those are all pretty good standards regardless of the fact that they are pretty openly found in the Bible. Now if we're talking about things like not eating shellfish, well, that's a different kind of law.

a reply to: ketsuko

Nope, just the silly idea that religion of any flavour invented the idea that murder is bad for a functioning society.
Religions just exploited morality and claimed it as theirs.

Morals involves cosmic absolutism. Ethics does the best you can in the real world. Try reading up on rule consequentialism and David Ross. And don't get involved in dualism. Interaction problem. Look up Spinoza for a cleaner philosophy.

originally posted by: ketsuko

In other words, ethics, morals ... they're the same thing.

That is my take on it too! ..... however any conclusion is dictated by the position

of ones own moral compass? which is different for everyone?