Morals and Ethics

[iago]

The words "morals" and "ethics" are commonly interchanged.  But there's no such thing as "business morals." 

The question is: what is the difference?  What is the meaning behind morals and ethics that makes them different?

[d&q]

Morality is the innate understanding between right and wrong, good and bad, etc. Ethics are theories and views that have been determined through the application of morals. I think..

[Chavo]

IMO, morality stems from religion, what an individuals religion teaches them to be right and wrong defines the individuals morals.  Therefore a person with _no_ religion would have no morals.

However, the same person can still have ethics.  Ethics stem from ones own experiences/personality/respect for others.  Loose definition I know, but its best explained with examples.

If we assume the above to be true:
"business morals" don't exist because a [modern] business does not affiliate with any kind of religion.  However, a business with good business ethics is reflected by the presence of good ethics AND morals in its members (or at least those in charge of the actions of the business).

up for debate, I don't think I did a very good job of getting my point across.

[iago]

Morality is the innate understanding between right and wrong, good and bad, etc. Ethics are theories and views that have been determined through the application of morals. I think..

Sounds like a promising start.

IMO, morality stems from religion, what an individuals religion teaches them to be right and wrong defines the individuals morals.  Therefore a person with _no_ religion would have no morals.

I disagree with that.  I think that if religion had never been invented, morals would still exist.  But it's hard to prove that. 

[Sidoh]

I disagree with that.  I think that if religion had never been invented, morals would still exist.  But it's hard to prove that. 

Me too.  I think our morals would probably be somewhat different, but we'd definitely still have them.

[iago]

Here's a situation:

The ancient Greeks (and, to a lesser extent, Romans) accepted pedophilic and homosexual behavior as normal.  It would be common for an older man to have a younger boy that he would be with romantically, before he married a woman.  It was common and accepted in their culture. 

Now, the question is: is romantic involvement with young boys moral? Ethical?  Was it moral for the ancient Greeks to do it?  Was it ethical for them? 

[Sidoh]

Here's a situation:

The ancient Greeks (and, to a lesser extent, Romans) accepted pedophilic and homosexual behavior as normal.  It would be common for an older man to have a younger boy that he would be with romantically, before he married a woman.  It was common and accepted in their culture. 

Now, the question is: is romantic involvement with young boys moral? Ethical?  Was it moral for the ancient Greeks to do it?  Was it ethical for them?

Obviously, society has a huge impact on the way morals and ethics are adopted too.  Religion is also a big part of it, but that's sometimes entailed in society anyway.  It was obviously moral/ethical for them within their own culture because it was accepted.  We can say it's not moral or ethical that they did that, but that would be because we're applying our own morals and ethics to the ways they lived.

[Ergot]

They are synonymous.

[d&q]

Here's a situation:

The ancient Greeks (and, to a lesser extent, Romans) accepted pedophilic and homosexual behavior as normal.  It would be common for an older man to have a younger boy that he would be with romantically, before he married a woman.  It was common and accepted in their culture. 

Now, the question is: is romantic involvement with young boys moral? Ethical?  Was it moral for the ancient Greeks to do it?  Was it ethical for them? 

Depends. It would all depend on the setting and their culture. Today, ethics/morals as we see it are based on popular views. If most people think murdering is wrong (and most do), commonly, it would be accepted that murder is indeed wrong. However, if one person truly believed that murder was right, and if he was not a sociopath, he would still be prosecuted by the ethical code of the court. It should be safe to say that no principles are everlasting. To say that as people change, cultures change, and ideas change, that moral values would stay ever unfaltering and never diverge, would be in correct. Albeit most peoples views on noteworthy actions are the same (murder, rape, torture, etc) it isn't true to say that we, as the human race, will always believe that murder is wrong, or torture is immoral. Answering the main question, whether the Greek's men/boys homosexuality was just, I face the following questions:

1. What beliefs did the majority of Greece hold, pertaining to pedophilic homosexuality?

2. What beliefs does the majority of the world today hold, pertaining to pedophilic homosexuality?

3. Does the morality of views ever change?

Answers:

1. As iago previously stated, back then, it was generally accepted as normal to be in a homosexual and pedophilic relationship with a young boy.

2. Today, while the views on homosexuality have softened, I am pretty sure that pedophilism is not accepted by the majority of cultures today.

3. Also previously stated, morals can change, and each person's code will differ, and so any judgment passed onto the Greeks would not, and should not, be everlasting.

Final Conclusion: By the views of today, the Greek's liaison with boys would be viewed as wrong and immoral, but in their time, it would seem inherently right. I doubt anyone can get a more definite conclusion than that.

[iago]

However, if one person truly believed that murder was right, and if he was not a sociopath, he would still be prosecuted by the ethical code of the court.

It seems to me, and I might be misunderstanding you, that everybody who commits a murder, rape, etc. intentionally probably feels that way, otherwise they wouldn't do it.  Does that mean that, from their perspective it's ethical? moral? 

1. What beliefs did the majority of Greece hold, pertaining to pedophilic homosexuality?

2. What beliefs does the majority of the world today hold, pertaining to pedophilic homosexuality?

3. Does the morality of views ever change?

Answers:

1. As iago previously stated, back then, it was generally accepted as normal to be in a homosexual and pedophilic relationship with a young boy.

2. Today, while the views on homosexuality have softened, I am pretty sure that pedophilism is not accepted by the majority of cultures today.

3. Also previously stated, morals can change, and each person's code will differ, and so any judgment passed onto the Greeks would not, and should not, be everlasting.

Final Conclusion: By the views of today, the Greek's liaison with boys would be viewed as wrong and immoral, but in their time, it would seem inherently right. I doubt anyone can get a more definite conclusion than that.

You make great points, but you never answered my core question: is what they do moral? ethical? both? neither?

[Armin]

IMO, morality stems from religion, what an individuals religion teaches them to be right and wrong defines the individuals morals.  Therefore a person with _no_ religion would have no morals.

I strongly disagree with you here. I have no religion, yet I'm always trying to decide for myself what is right and what is wrong.

[iago]

IMO, morality stems from religion, what an individuals religion teaches them to be right and wrong defines the individuals morals.  Therefore a person with _no_ religion would have no morals.

I strongly disagree with you here. I have no religion, yet I'm always trying to decide for myself what is right and what is wrong.

You may personally have no religion, but the society you were brought up in does, and a lot of our principles do (look at the 10 commandments.. religious or not, everybody in this half of the world follows them)

[Sidoh]

I strongly disagree with you here. I have no religion, yet I'm always trying to decide for myself what is right and what is wrong.

That doesn't mean the morals you've adopted didn't originally stem from ones formed in religious beliefs.

You may personally have no religion, but the society you were brought up in does, and a lot of our principles do (look at the 10 commandments.. religious or not, everybody in this half of the world follows them)

Exactly!

[d&q]

It seems to me, and I might be misunderstanding you, that everybody who commits a murder, rape, etc. intentionally probably feels that way, otherwise they wouldn't do it.  Does that mean that, from their perspective it's ethical? moral? 

No, from what I've read, a key part of prosecuting a criminal depends if he knew he knew what was doing was wrong. Most criminals that I have seen know what they have done was morally wrong, in both their perspective, and the courts. They just don't care.

You make great points, but you never answered my core question: is what they do moral? ethical? both? neither?

From the views of most people today(including me), what the Greeks did was morally and ethically wrong and definitely should not be allowed in current times. But back then, when it was commonplace, was it wrong? From their views, I would think not.

Would you judge them by from their perspective, or yours? Personally, I would not condemn what they did, as it wasn't depraved or disgusting, but I wouldn't approve.

[Chavo]

IMO, morality stems from religion, what an individuals religion teaches them to be right and wrong defines the individuals morals.  Therefore a person with _no_ religion would have no morals.

I strongly disagree with you here. I have no religion, yet I'm always trying to decide for myself what is right and what is wrong.

Under my definition then you do have no morals, but still have strong ethics.  Lack of morals does not mean bad ethics (or mean you don't try to decide what is right and wrong).

Ethics stem from ones own experiences/personality/respect for others

I think that a lot of you that read my post missed that important factor, the non-existance of morals in a person in no way effects the presence or quality of ethics.

[MyndFyre]

I disagree with that.  I think that if religion had never been invented, morals would still exist.  But it's hard to prove that. 

I think it's not to hard to prove.

Liberalism (the theory, a la John Locke, not American Democrats' liberalism) was based on Christian principles.  *HOWEVER*, it's a reasonable theory.

One of the core foundations of it is that when we live in the state of nature, we have no rules governing our behavior (no morals, no laws).  We enter into a social contract with others to leave the state of nature because we realize that it is more effective, more efficient, and more beneficial for more people to work together and govern themselves under a certain set of laws.  These laws include that no man can be deprived of the rights to life, liberty, or property.  Moral judgments in a secular state derive from these rights.

[Eric]

IMO, morality stems from religion, what an individuals religion teaches them to be right and wrong defines the individuals morals.  Therefore a person with _no_ religion would have no morals.

I strongly disagree with you here. I have no religion, yet I'm always trying to decide for myself what is right and what is wrong.

You may personally have no religion, but the society you were brought up in does, and a lot of our principles do (look at the 10 commandments.. religious or not, everybody in this half of the world follows them)

People pick and choose which rules of religion to follow and then procede to use those rules to persuade others into their way of thinking.  Socitey defines religion; religion doesn't define society.

[Sidoh]

People pick and choose which rules of religion to follow and then procede to use those rules to persuade others into their way of thinking.  Socitey defines religion; religion doesn't define society.

Do you think so?  I don't.  I don't think America would be the same if the founding fathers created the laws based on Christian values and morals.  Those laws often define the morals for people born into the country and at least provide a default set of morals that they could or should have.

[iago]

People pick and choose which rules of religion to follow and then procede to use those rules to persuade others into their way of thinking.  Socitey defines religion; religion doesn't define society.

Do you think so?  I don't.  I don't think America would be the same if the founding fathers created the laws based on Christian values and morals.  Those laws often define the morals for people born into the country and at least provide a default set of morals that they could or should have.

I agree with Sidoh.  It works both ways.  Religion definitely defines society. 

[Newby]

Socitey defines religion; religion doesn't define society.

The only way society defines religion is in the public view on a religion. If a group of religious fanatics start killing everyone, they're giving that religion a bad picture, and in a sense, defining it in the public eye as being a bad religion.

Religion, however, affects many aspects of life, if not short of all aspects. Religion affects those in society and sometimes becomes so huge it affects society and laws.

[Chavo]

I would agree that religin and society influence each other.  I would also agree that at some points in history religion has defined society or vice versa depending on your point of view.  I would disagree that their is an inherent defining role either way.

[Sidoh]

I would agree that religin and society influence each other.  I would also agree that at some points in history religion has defined society or vice versa depending on your point of view.  I would disagree that their is an inherent defining role either way.

That's probably the best view I've heard.  I think it's normally religion that defines society, but I can certainly think of cases where it is society that defines religion (namely acient Rome / Greece -- I'd say, anyway).

[d&q]

What exactly do you mean by define? From a secular standpoint, most religions were created to explain incomprehensible events. It's pretty obvious that you can't have religion without society, as if a religion has only be followed by one person, most people would not call it a religion.

[Furious]

Religion has nothing to do with a persons moral standing, like Deuce said: "...most religions were created to explain incomprehensible events.,"  I'm religious in NO way, I've never been in a church, opened a bible, been in any type of religious temple, so that makes me immoral?  Ethics is something you learn throughout life, for someone to be ethical they must realize what is happening in the world around them and be able to contemplate the situation and see what is wrong, or right.  Ethics follow in the footsteps of a person morals, each person is born with morals, whether they are right or wrong determines what kind of life this person will live.  Not one person in this world is moral or ethical, because if they were, we wouldn't have the problems that we do, we would all be one big unified society.

[leet_muffin]

I just realized that I can do almost all the studying for my finals on x86 forums.

So far I've got english down. http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,4472.msg49597.html#msg49597
and math. http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,2823.msg49938.html#msg49938
and (see above) history.
I do need to work on spanish a bit... so if somebody would start a post discussing the border, that would be great. (I'm kidding about spanish, that class sucks.)

[Sidoh]

What exactly do you mean by define? From a secular standpoint, most religions were created to explain incomprehensible events. It's pretty obvious that you can't have religion without society, as if a religion has only be followed by one person, most people would not call it a religion.

You form a religion, you have followers.  The number of followers you have grows.  You form a society based on your beliefs.  There, done.

Religions almost always have some element of the super-natural in them (God, spirits, etc), but that doesn't mean they stop there.  Most religions extend themselves far past that.  The Ten Commandments is a good representation of this.

Religion has nothing to do with a persons moral standing, like Deuce said: "...most religions were created to explain incomprehensible events.,"  I'm religious in NO way, I've never been in a church, opened a bible, been in any type of religious temple, so that makes me immoral?  Ethics is something you learn throughout life, for someone to be ethical they must realize what is happening in the world around them and be able to contemplate the situation and see what is wrong, or right.  Ethics follow in the footsteps of a person morals, each person is born with morals, whether they are right or wrong determines what kind of life this person will live.  Not one person in this world is moral or ethical, because if they were, we wouldn't have the problems that we do, we would all be one big unified society.

Just because you're not religious doesn't mean you don't have religious morals.  You may not consider them religious, but I do.

I just realized that I can do almost all the studying for my finals on x86 forums.

So far I've got english down. http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,4472.msg49597.html#msg49597
and math. http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,2823.msg49938.html#msg49938
and (see above) history.
I do need to work on spanish a bit... so if somebody would start a post discussing the border, that would be great. (I'm kidding about spanish, that class sucks.)

That's what you get for hanging around nerds.

[leet_muffin]

I just realized that I can do almost all the studying for my finals on x86 forums.

So far I've got english down. http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,4472.msg49597.html#msg49597
and math. http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,2823.msg49938.html#msg49938
and (see above) history.
I do need to work on spanish a bit... so if somebody would start a post discussing the border, that would be great. (I'm kidding about spanish, that class sucks.)

That's what you get for hanging around nerds.

I like it.

[Chavo]

Religion has nothing to do with a persons moral standing, like Deuce said: "...most religions were created to explain incomprehensible events.,"  I'm religious in NO way, I've never been in a church, opened a bible, been in any type of religious temple, so that makes me immoral?  Ethics is something you learn throughout life, for someone to be ethical they must realize what is happening in the world around them and be able to contemplate the situation and see what is wrong, or right.  Ethics follow in the footsteps of a person morals, each person is born with morals, whether they are right or wrong determines what kind of life this person will live.  Not one person in this world is moral or ethical, because if they were, we wouldn't have the problems that we do, we would all be one big unified society.

You still misunderstand me I think.  Lack of religion (agnosticism is a religion too, btw does not make you immoral (Contrary to established moral principles); it makes you amoral (Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral).

[Hitmen]

Religion has not shaped my morals. Killing, raping, pillaging, are all mearly passtimes in the world of Hitmen. I feel bad for those of you with your minds clouded by these fools telling you it's "wrong" to beat someone to death with a wedge of cheese, rip out their intestines with a spoon, and then rape them.

[Newby]

Remember kids: eat then rape the remains, never rape then eat the remains. [size=0pt]And I wonder why I'm single...[/size]

[Hitmen]

And I wonder why I'm single...

I do too, the same logic seems to have worked fine for me.

[Sidoh]

I do too, the same logic seems to have worked fine for me.

That's because your SO was afraid you would spoon out her insides and rape her carcass when you were done if she didn't date you.

[rabbit]

So would blue boxing be immoral?