Morals vs Ethics

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJp1-Od67-U&feature=channel"]YouTube - Language and the Mind Revisited - The Biolinguistic Turn[/ame]
The bio-linguistic turn

Pedro said:

Very good definition Vera, please allow me to filter it through my scholastic brain. (Ha! some Buddhist I’m!*)
As Vera said ‘Morality is knowledge of right and wrong.’ Correct. This a very traditional use of the word.
Ethics are the principles of applying right and wrong. Ethics are the way one behaves in applying moral precepts. Morals are universal and in that sense probably innate. (The finer points are still open to question.)
Ethics are a sub-set of morals, which is why we speak of Medical Ethics or Business Ethics, etc. Morality is what everyone does. (Or doesn’t do.) Ethics is techne. One can always learn technique.
These two words have a been muddied by almost every philosopher that ever lived. Go figure. I don’t see it being that big a problem.

Click to expand...

Some guy will probably think you muddied them.

Some may say this is Psychopathic or lacks in logic or whatever but I see it as truth.


I honestly view morality as a joke. Cause what the hell is morals in my opinion? Its just some other person's opinion on what is right or wrong. When all and all that is man's opinion on whats right or wrong. I like to see things through natural law and I view other humans as simply animals. Animals; yes I view them as this cause that is what they are. Pure and utterly simple. If you honestly think about it. The holocaust is no different than the countless cows who go in the for the systematic slaughter to feed us at large. As their veins are cut out and their hearts pump their blood out of their opened wounds. In order in my opinion to truly be great is to have the power of the populace in the palm of your hands and to control life and death. There is no greater power in the world. Life and death are equally important and to control them is to be God. To evolve above the rest of everybody elses morals and evolve to something better.





People see morals as being a good human. In my opinion being gracious or moral only leads down a road of absolute weakness. To be the strongest among the pack and to strive to be better is the way in my opinion. Cause to be moral in my personal opinion only leads to stagnation and failure. Either of which I will not tolerate at all. Failure is not an option only success and stagnation is a weakness so I only tolerate conflict and challenge. I challenge my other human beings and if they fail to recognize the challenge and stagnate that is their fault and my prosper. I see it the same way with ... partners. I view women as having to win me over. I don't buy them fancy dinners or huge necklaces. It all falls along the same lines. If you fail to understand this fundamental human ideal that is your problem and not mine. I do not feel sorry for you or your stagnation in the slightest bit. Go ahead say I'm stupid or a psychopath or a nazi or whatever you have to say. My opinions will not change nor the way I see others.

Rasta said:

The standard one.

Click to expand...

Be more specific.

tksensei said:

Be more specific.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that context would have helped here, but alas . . .

Teach: to impart knowledge or skill.

Pedro said:

Very good definition Vera, please allow me to filter it through my scholastic brain. (Ha! some Buddhist I’m!*)
As Vera said ‘Morality is knowledge of right and wrong.’ Correct. This a very traditional use of the word.
Ethics are the principles of applying right and wrong. Ethics are the way one behaves in applying moral precepts. Morals are universal and in that sense probably innate. (The finer points are still open to question.)
Ethics are a sub-set of morals, which is why we speak of Medical Ethics or Business Ethics, etc. Morality is what everyone does. (Or doesn’t do.) Ethics is techne. One can always learn technique.
These two words have a been muddied by almost every philosopher that ever lived. Go figure. I don’t see it being that big a problem.

Click to expand...

Your scolastic brain strikes again.

Pedro said:

*Is there a rinse cycle for the brain washed?

Click to expand...

We wish...

Rasta said:

Ok. I don't think knowledge of right and wrong are innate either. I do however think the capacity for each individual to determine right from wrong could be innate, but not knowledge of right and wrong.

Click to expand...

Agreed, thanks for correcting that Rasta.

Celticguy said:

Agreed, thanks for correcting that Rasta.

Click to expand...

Cheers

Rasta said:

Ok. I don't think knowledge of right and wrong are innate either. I do however think the capacity for each individual to determine right from wrong could be innate, but not knowledge of right and wrong.

Click to expand...

It seems otherwise to me, but perhaps you are right.

I honestly view morality as a joke. Cause what the hell is morals in my opinion? Its just some other person's opinion on what is right or wrong. When all and all that is man's opinion on whats right or wrong. I like to see things through natural law and I view other humans as simply animals. Animals; yes I view them as this cause that is what they are. Pure and utterly simple.

Click to expand...

I don't think morality is a joke. I do like to see things through a natural point of view, and in the context of us being animals. I see morality as the collective experience of various human cultures refined through the priciple of natural selection. I do believe that good and evil do not exist (save in the mind) and only serve as conceptual reference points ultimately. Morals are however largely useful. The context for their use is an efficiant society.

If you honestly think about it. The holocaust is no different than the countless cows who go in the for the systematic slaughter to feed us at large. As their veins are cut out and their hearts pump their blood out of their opened wounds. In order in my opinion to truly be great is to have the power of the populace in the palm of your hands and to control life and death. There is no greater power in the world. Life and death are equally important and to control them is to be God. To evolve above the rest of everybody elses morals and evolve to something better.

Click to expand...

I agree that on an ultimate scale that human death is no different from other animals' death, but you lost me on the rest.

People see morals as being a good human. In my opinion being gracious or moral only leads down a road of absolute weakness. To be the strongest among the pack and to strive to be better is the way in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I disagree. This trait was useful in a tribal setting, but is no longer in modern civilization. Information reigns supreme. Might no longer makes right, concensus does. This means using intelligence and articulation to persuade, rather than your fist.

I do not feel sorry for you or your stagnation in the slightest bit. Go ahead say I'm stupid or a psychopath or a nazi or whatever you have to say. My opinions will not change nor the way I see others.

Click to expand...

Well be glad not everyone feels the same as you, otherwise you would likely be worrying about survival right now or fighting with another alpha over a mate or food, rather than sitting safe in the comfort of your home typing.

I think what Rasta is saying centres on the word "knowledge". Knowing of something suggest's learning from past experience which would require that the person was thought right from wrong. If morality or determining right from wrong is innate then the person when faced with such a situation will have an inbuilt intuition which will tell them the difference.

The former suggest learning from teaching, the latter suggests that a persons ability to tell right from wrong lies in their dna or persona or whathever.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I don't think either are correct on their own, but perhaps the latter is a stronger force.

I think this could be part of the whole nurture v. nature debate. I don't want to go there

"People see morals as being a good human. In my opinion being gracious or moral only leads down a road of absolute weakness."
Scourge
Imagine a game of chess. Without morals and graciousness the person that beat up the other chess player would always be the winner. Chess would no longer exist. Contests require context. Without rules ( we see this in the animal kingdom also, competitors for a mate usually do not fight to the death or major injury) evolution cannot advance the species.*
* I am not saying that evolution wants anything, it is a non-teleological process that in many cases results in what we would call progress.
PS; I just thought of this, art and evolution. A good artist must combine randomness and rules. A work of art that is totally rule bound is stilted, one that is totally random is chaos.

I think that scrouge* is a prickly person and the others are goo. I ( like Alan Watts) am trying to transcend those categories.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE5M8743a1s"]YouTube - Alan Watts - Atheist Spirituality[/ame]

*

Celticguy said:

I think what Rasta is saying centres on the word "knowledge". Knowing of something suggest's learning from past experience which would require that the person was thought right from wrong. If morality or determining right from wrong is innate then the person when faced with such a situation will have an inbuilt intuition which will tell them the difference.

The former suggest learning from teaching, the latter suggests that a persons ability to tell right from wrong lies in their dna or persona or whathever.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I don't think either are correct on their own, but perhaps the latter is a stronger force.

I think this could be part of the whole nurture v. nature debate. I don't want to go there

Click to expand...

Right. When I look at the difference in values between the cultures of Pagan Norse and the Zoe of South America (for example), the contrast is staggering.

For the Zoe, the concept of possession is foriegn to them, so jealousy is unknown. One woman may have several husbands at a given time, presumably for practicality purposes. They are one of the few hunter-gatherer groups still in existence.

The Norse on the other hand worshiped and emulated powerful gods. They had no qualms killing, stealing, and raping to better themselves. The highest honor was to die fighting.

We are very adaptive creatures, which I think is one of the biggest reasons why we have become so succesful.

Celticguy said:

I think what Rasta is saying centres on the word "knowledge". Knowing of something suggest's learning from past experience which would require that the person was thought right from wrong. If morality or determining right from wrong is innate then the person when faced with such a situation will have an inbuilt intuition which will tell them the difference.

The former suggest learning from teaching, the latter suggests that a persons ability to tell right from wrong lies in their dna or persona or whathever.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I don't think either are correct on their own, but perhaps the latter is a stronger force.

I think this could be part of the whole nurture v. nature debate. I don't want to go there

Click to expand...

For once - I'm in full agreement with you.

wittgenstein said:

I think that scrouge* is a prickly person and the others are goo. I ( like Alan Watts) am trying to transcend those categories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE5M8743a1s

*

Click to expand...

Thanks, cool film.

vera said:

For once - I'm in full agreement with you.

Click to expand...

I prefer fighting, at least pretend to disagree

Celticguy said:

I prefer fighting, at least pretend to disagree

Click to expand...

Haha, I think you get enough of that. So I won't, not this time.

Mostly for scourge,

Ethics and Buddhism. The self is an illusion. Therefore being selfish is being inauthentic. No self? The human skeleton is replaced every 7 years. However, most people identify with the brain. The brain is replaced more rapidly! This requires more explanation.Neurons are not replaced. however, the constituent parts of the neuron are replaced rapidly as evidenced by the brain's very high metabolism. Lets even go further than that. In space-time there are events not things. Imagine two events separated by a nano-second..they are two separate things!Now, people always ask," if Buddhists believe that there is no self why do they talk about reincarnation? Imagine a fountain. It is composed of different molecules of water every second. However, it maintains its shape. What is a Buddhist's goal? To achieve liberation from the cycle of life and death. How is this achieved? Imagine a 30 second life span. Each nano-second is different from the preceding nano-second. The realization of that is true liberation from the delusion of self.
Why is liberation from the delusion of self a good thing? For one thing, no self means that there is no self that dies! or to worry about!

What's a prickly personality?