Particpants in this thread all accept the following premise for purposes of discussion: aesthetics is the evalution of worth. This premise was agreed upon in Part I. I politely request that no one particapate in this thread who does not accept the stated axiom. There are four or five people who form the core of participants, and all others are invited to participate within the prior stated caveat.
Aesthetics is the evaluation of worth. (Accepted)
Now what we want to do (well, what I want to do) is discuss whatever implications this may have, if any on ethics and morality.
There is a definition here that needs to be accepted as well. This is what will be argued at first (assuming that there is someone who rejects it). If accepted, this definition will inductively imply the following:
Ethics concerns that which is between a man and his fellow man, whereas morality concerns that which is between a man and his God or conscience.
(Apologies for the seemingly misogynistic wording, but it is so much easier to use one consistent pronoun. I do not mean to exclude women.)
Obviously the “or” clause means that if a person is a theist, then morality will concern that which is between him and his particular god, and that if a person is an atheist, then morality will concern that which is between him and his conscience. I do think it is fair to say that, for at least some theists, both apply.
I might have failed to exposit the definition itself:
Ethics is the objectively codified rules of behavior among people formulated by proclamation (like law, for example), whereas morality is the subjectively codified rules of behavior formulated by one’s conscience (or one’s relationship with one’s deity).
I’'m with your distinction between ethics and morality. However, I’m not sure if I agree with your definition of ethics. It seems to imply (and I might have read you incorrectly) that ethics stems from the proclamation, where I’d say that ethics is independent of what is codified by law, and should in fact drive what gets codified. Ethics is an attempt at a logical in the philosophical sense determination of the rules you mentioned. Morality is dictated (by god or conscience) while ethics must be reasoned. We might try to determine if what is moral is also ethical, of course.
I can accept that ethics is independent of what is codified by law. In fact, I would classify law as a subset of ethics, rather than the other way around. It may be that the premise itself works better as a definition, much in the same way that Euclid’s parallel lines “postulate” was actually rendered as a definition. (The one about them not intersecting.)
The important thing, as far as I’m concerned, is to distingish ethics from morality by the notion that ethics concerns that which is between a man and his fellow man; wherease morality concerns that which is between a man and his conscience or God.
You also have a point that there can be times when ethics and morality coinicide, just as there can be times when they contradict. A man smoking pot, for example, in the privacy of his own home might be doing something unethical if smoking pot contradicts the behaviors codified by his fellow man. Whether it is morally wrong is entirely between the man and his God or conscience.
I’m glad you’re participating, but if I may respectfully reiterate, participation in this thread requires acceptance of the premise that aesthetics is the evaluation of worth (as opposed to the judgment of beauty, feelings, or transcendental will, etc.) If you left that as tacitly understood, I apologize.
I caught a wicked virus over the weekend… my apologies in advance if the following is less than coherent.
I’m going to temporarily take apart your definition. This is not intended to add to or change your definition; I just want to make sure I’m getting what you’re saying.
Is it safe for me to read “objectively codified” as “inter-subjectively codified”? That is, as people interacted and compared their subjective experiences and viewpoints, they came up with written/unwritten rules of behavior based on the experiences and viewpoints which the majority [or the most influential] found to be more-or-less in agreement or worthwhile.
Do these “subjectively codified rules of behavior” have to be consciously, deliberately arrived at? Must the individual be aware of (i.e. be able to identify) the rules that govern their behavior?
I have a problem with the word “conscience”… I mean, it’s clear what you’re talking about, but the concept is too nebulous for my tastes (not that I have a better suggestion). I think the thing that bothers me the most about it (in this context) is the public nature of Ethics and the private nature of Morality.
Saying that morality is “formulated by one’s conscience (or one’s relationship with one’s deity)” doesn’t seem to jive with the idea of “subjectively codified”. If its the result of a relationship with one’s deity, it’s not subjective, because there are two subjects involved in formulating the rules: the individual and their deity.
If its “formulated by one’s conscience” there are still two subjects; the person and “their conscience”. What is a “conscience” in this context? How does it stand separate from the individual such that it can formulate rules of behavior for the individual? Can’t a guy get any privacy?
I must admit, that’s not what I understand by ethics at all. I’m OK with te definition of morality.
To me, ethics is the study and explanation of morality, like Voyager said. Or the philosophy of morality, if you will. What you’ve described (codified rules) seems more like an application of ethics rather than ethics itself.
ETA - since it’s a discussion of morality, it follows that ethics taken as a whole necessarily must concern itself with the god/conscience aspect of morality. It is only in certain fields of applied ethics that we can say, as you have, that the realm of interest is confined to man-to-man concerns.
I think i’d disagree with your second definition, and your first but only really slightly. I would say define morality as that which is not between anyone, be those beings people or gods, but rather referring to universal truths. Anything, even with a god, is coloured by perception and personality. For a theist, it may well mean that a god or gods has set those universal truths, and so for all intents and purposes those truths and the opinions of those gods are one and the same, but it is still an important difference.
Ethics is a matter of what those truths then mean, if indeed we should be concerned about them at all. As a practical matter, that does mean it’s going to be mostly thought of in terms of actions between people, but that’s more an example rather than a definition to my mind.
According to your definition in my faith, ethics would be how man would treat each other according to some learned code, while morality would only be possible with relationship with a living loving God, in which God directs the believer in actions.
I like the use of conscience, since it eliminates the problem of the existence of the deity defining morality. Except for someone like Moses who was handed the rules directly by a deity, atheists and theists both make choices about the morality we adopt, whether by direct appeal to the conscience or by the selection of a religion and thus a moral code. I’d say that our conscience is partially genetically determined and partially environmentally determined, but the given definition handles this quite nicely. So, even if the rules of a particular moral code are objective in being written, they are subjective to us in that we subjectively choose which to follow.
I have two questions on the subject of ethics vs morality. First, if a deity did show up, and made morality objective, what would the role of ethics be? Would it be assigned the task of logically justifying the morality? Or might it logically demonstrate that the deity’s morality was flawed in some way?
We can broaden this question to the case where no deity has shown up. How do we keep ethics from being used to justify the subjective morality of the investigator?
I’m not seeing a lot of difference between “deity” and “conscience”; both are being referred to as an autonomous “something” that stands separate from the individual yet formulates rules of behavior for the individual.
If “conscience” is determined by genetic and/or environmental factors, can we really choose which moral rules to follow, or are they just “programmed in”? If we do have a choice, how does “conscience” achieve that separate, “stand alone” status that allows us to subjectively choose?
That’s what I was trying to say. The wording makes it unnecessary to quibble about the existence of deities.
Warning, free will argument ahead!
There are certainly some morals which seem to be programmed (though may get overridden in extreme conditions; for instance cannibalism.) There are some which must be more environmental, since society turns on the head of a pin; for instance much morality around sex. When I was a little kid, living together unmarried was at least a bit scandalous; when I was in college it was reasonably common, now it is standard
But I don’t think it matters for my question. Morals are felt, while ethics are reasoned. Certainly morals are more or less strong. I suspect an ethical argument could turn around a loosely held moral rule, but I’m not sure about a strongly held one.
Perhaps. But replacing “deity” with “conscience” merely shifts the quibbling from the nature and existence of a “deity” to the nature and existence of a “conscience”.
Yes. People who must live with one another tend to get together and form a code of ethics. I’d say that it CAN be the majority rules, but sometimes it’s the one (or the gang) who can beat everybody else up that sets up the rules. Consider, for example codes of ethics that are formulated in prisons.
No. I originally typed “Know”, which is telling because I believe you’re asking a question about epistemology. Whether someone is aware of something or not is, to me, more a concern of knowledge than of ethics or morality. And believe me, we will discuss that exact point of detail in our Part IV.
That’s fine. As long as the matter is internalized rather than externalized, it is a matter of morality, and not ethics. Ethics involves the latter. All I really meant to say by that clause is that a god (or gods) is not necessary in the devolpment of a moral code.
For many of us. For me, at least. We and our God are one. Jesus teaches that God is within us. And so that’s the sense in which I meant that. Now, if one’s deity is a consultant of some sort, then I’ll grant you that there is not a strict subjectivity condition. However, it is subject in the sense that the person and his consultant deity are the only parties involved in formulating that person’s moral code.
It’s fine by me if you prefer to state that one forms one’s own moral code without assistance, influence, or consultation of any kind. However, it must be said that if you have a conscience, then that is the object with which you grapple when you have made moral decisions. You might, for example, feel guilty if you harm someone. Or you might feel edified if you help someone.
I’m willing to grant that the people who form codes of ethics for their groups, tribes, towns, nations, or what-have-you, might have brought their moral codes to bear. In other words, enough people to make a difference might insist that gambling is unethical because it is immoral. I have no problem with that. But bottom line, whatever ethical codes are formulated, they are formulated for the sake of bringing order to a society. I don’t mind if you qualify that as a moral order. My only insistence is that morality is subjective in nature, interpreted individually by each, well, individual. Ethics, on the other hand, are agreed upon by a community. Morality may or may not play a role in the formulation of a code of ethics, but that code is intended to apply generally, even to people whose moral codes differ from that ethical code.
That’s fine by me. The whole point of the “or” clause, as I stated in the OP, was simply to differentiate the subjective nature of morality from the objective nature of ethics. Is it unethical not to wear a seat belt? Society will decide. But is it immoral? Only you can decide for yourself.
Again, no problem with that. I am agreeable to any definition that differentiates ethics from morality in essentially the way I described.
In your faith, that is possibly true. The Ten Commandments, for example, might be a code of ethics. But “love, and do what you will” (St. Augustine) might be a moral code.
That’s fine. I conceded that above. It may be the case that a code of ethics is formulated on the basis of a moral code. It is from that viewpoint that morality is a sort of subset of ethics. And I can even live with that. It really doesn’t matter to me what the chicken and egg issue is. All that matters to me is that the code of ethics is itself objective, even if our subjective morality conflicts with it. The code of ethics is for settling disputes and keeping order and forbidding theft and murder — that sort of thing. Now, a moral code might agree with part of that. Our conscience might keep us from stealing or murdering as well. But then again, it might not. However, I challenge you to produce a code of ethics that sanctions outright murder (not including self-defense killings or wartime killings, that sort of thing).
Well, that’s exactly what happened with the Ten Commandments, isn’t it? It’s what happened with Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni. It’s what happened in the late 1980s when The Reverend Falwell influenced legislation. He acted like a deity, what with God speaking directly to him and all. He was just doing God’s will (from his point of view). Therefore, I would say that a deity objectifying morality would destroy any possibility of moral free will, and would ensure unethical behavior from every person simply by virtue of codifying Its morality. (One assumes the deity is perfect, and that people aren’t.)
We can’t. That’s why the difference between jail and freedom is often a good lawyer. An investigator will impose his moral code unless he believes it is immoral to do so. Many many MANY Christians believe that imposing their own moral codes onto society is moral despite that Jesus teaches the very opposite: “Do not judge others, because you open up yourself to judgment.”
Agreed. There may be no difference at all. The “OR” allows you to discard one or the other (but not both).
I believe that is a metaphysical question, which we’ll cover next.
I believe we’re doing that quite nicely. There needs to be discussion before there can be consensus.
Good so far. Now, if this question is metaphysical, we can table it until the next part.
I agree that the code of ethics is objective. You said
That’s certainly true in part. But can’t an individual formulate an ethical system - for the good of society - which is not agree upon by his community? Someone living in a slaveholding society, or a despotism might develop an ethical system, logically, that would be at odds with his society. I’ll grant that this system has to be written down, and might or might not stem from a moral system, since morals imbued by this person’s environment might be at odds with the developed ethical system.
We might say that all these people did a direct mapping from an objective morality to ethics (assuming they did get input from God, otherwise the cases aren’t interesting.) Is that an ethical system to you? My image of one is more an attempt at an explanation of how the system does good (increases aesthetics) which is not the case here, beside direct appeal to a deity. Ethics in these cases would be more observed laws or postulates rather than conclusions of arguments for them.
I’m not so sure i’d go with that. I mean, I personally would consider morality to be a subjective function, but only because I don’t think it’s an objective one, not because it cannot be. That is to say, it could well be that “Murder is bad” is an objective law of the universe.
And on the other hand, ethics aren’t in and of themselves objective, since you have to add the qualification that it is the result of society (or just one person). If “you must be polite” is an ethical consideration, that doesn’t mean that “you must be polite” is set in stone as a universal truth, but rather that it is an agreed upon consideration by however many people, and it’s the existence of that agreement that’s objective.