—Considering that Peter Singer has vocally advocated infanticide—
That is a pretty unfair summary of his position. In his most controversial quotation, he holds the view that infanticide is not always wrong, considering other factors like a serious medical condition that would cause a future (though perhaps very curtailed, as with SB and ancephalacy) lifetime of suffering. Even this is a position taken under some other very strict assumptions as well, and you can’t without seriously relate his position without mentioning them, nor can you ignore his account of the moral interests of various beings and how they play into our thinking of what we should do in regards to them.
That may be no less controversial and objectionable to many people, but it’s just not the same thing as simply advocating infanticide. All other things equal, he’d be against infanticide just as much as he’s against killing anything for trivial and unecessary reasons.
—Singer is a vegan/vegetarian (forgot which), and what you’re mentioning was a counterargument he made to people who claim that they can eat meat because the animals that are killed are so vastly inferior intellectually that it can’t be considered murder.—
While he might make that argument, I think the reference was to his explicit discussions of abortion and infanticide, which are not directly about animal rights at all, and really are about whether it is justifiable to take the life of a baby with an irreversible and painful medical condition/disability. Singer actually agrees with many anti-abortion people that birth is a morally meaningless point, and that “it’s my body” is no moral excuse for abortion.
No, not necessarily. It follows that if you believe in a God, you assign to Him or Her the authority over your morality. The fact that that morality might differ from the morality of another person, who believes differently, does not change the fact that your principles are moral from your own religion’s frame of reference.
For an Atheist, a divine frame of reference is not relevant. So, an ethical framework must be created, or adopted from sources the particular person finds worthy of such respect. This is an intellectual effort, and can be quite challenging, and the results will be very highly particular to the person creating that ethical framework. Alternately one can make a conscious decision to eschew ethical considerations entirely, and make all decisions on the basis of personal preference. Others make no decision whatsoever about ethical value, having no care for such matters. Of course, many people claim religious morality, yet do not live by the moral code of their religion, and similarly, some intellectualized ethical systems bear little resemblance to the daily behavior of the person professing them.
Philosophically, and epistemologically, religious morality and humanistic ethics are as much similar as they are different, across the broad reach of both types of behavioral codes. Fundamentally both accept the original premise that some actions are not desirable, and some are desirable. Why that basic assumption is made might differ, but once it is made, you have defined good, and bad. Everything else is legalistics.
Given some of the gods that have been followed over time, I certainly hope that this isn’t a logical upshot. Gods know that my primary one isn’t exactly a paragon of appropriate behaviour.
I use “ethics” to describe things that attempt to be objective references for behaviour, and “morals” to describe things that are purely subjective. (When I’m feeling glib, I say “ethics” are for distinguishing right and wrong, and “morals” are for distinguishing good and evil.) I don’t think that atheists are any less likely to have things that they believe are Just Plain Wrong that they cannot justify or explain to the satisfaction of others than J. Random Theist.
It might be more accurate, but it would also imply that I invented this distinction. I didn’t. I mentioned where I first encountered it, but have no idea who first came up with it.
“Moral” tends to imply a religious context (“The Moral Majority”), and “Ethical” tends to imply a secular one (“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”). This isn’t absolute, but I believe there’s a reason we have two different words for the concept of high-minded virtue.
I just looked at the askoxford.com website (the OED’s web presence). While they mainly use the words as synonyms, it’s interesting that the first words that jump out for “moral” are “distinction between good and evil,” and for “ethical,” it’s “fair and decent.” Again, it’s a nuanced distinction and not an absolute one. I e-mailed them with a request for the difference between the two words, and I’ll share their reply here when I get it.
For some time, I’ve understood the terms to be distinguished in the following manner.
Morality: A system of principles describing a general attitude and obligation toward oneself and others; a philosophy of individual action and social interaction.
Ethics: The study and practice of moral systems.
Is this not a generally accepted point of view? I understand the argument between whether morality is based on received guidance (through religion) or on axiomatic construction, but I’m rather surprised that there’s disagreement over the morality/ethics distinction.
I agree with your distinction, Xeno. Sometimes, I put it this way: morality concerns that which is between a man and his God or conscience; ethics concerns that which is between a man and his fellow man.
There is, however, The Humanist magazine. They give an award called Humanist of the Year. Besides that are other awards. But the kind of person who is given this award is the one that isn’t looking for it.