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.