Topic: Discussion about ethics and morality, split from "Should miners collude to steal funds from wallet confiscated by US government?" - page 2. (Read 1944 times)

Come on! What kind of argument is this?

There were a few very precious words in human history.

One of such words is anarchy. It used to mean ''no violent ruler''. Evil people through propaganda changed the meaning into ''violent chaos''.

One such word is ''morality''. Over the course of time evil people started using this word to justify their crimes:
- priests started labeling their crimes moral - what's moral in religion?!
- soldiers started to label their crimes moral - what's moral in war?!

Statists elevated the term ''ethics'' by introducing it in government controlled schools and by artificially incorporating ''morality'' in it. Ethics failed miserably.

I have a problem with you saying morality differs across humans. Rather the term is misunderstood. Morality has always been universal (it shouldn't be different depending on location or persons, just like math or physics shouldn't be different). It's ethics that differs; look at the number of the so called ''ethic theories'' - each theory is different. Each justifies the so called state.

I see.  Now look in the mirror because your head is the shape of a pretzel as a result of whatever contorted logic that lead you to say that Ethics and Morality are entirely independent of one another.

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.

You can say there was a moral guideline, they've ignored. But in the end you did only made that up.
(well there might be one, for whatever afterlife is going to be, but that's impossible to prove or disprove. It could also require you to dance one time a day or to wear only green for all we know)

Loozik, I'm soory but I have to disagree too on this! Even today morality is a concept extreeeemely different from person to person but expecially from country to country. I travel (for work) in many different countries and many of them are muslim countries (I am in one of those right now) and what is considered moral for them is "slightly" different from our (western) concept and vice-versa. In some remote villages, is moral if a brother kills his sister if she leaves her husband. Not to mention that she can be easily 12yo and her husband 60yo.

It's also different in time, what was moral 2000 years ago it's fortunately not moral today. Or take the bible which gives a good example of what was considered moral in ancient times...one would be horrified today!

Don't you agree? Or maybe I misunderstood your point...

So it was considered scientifically correct (after Aristotle) to claim the earth was flat. But some bright individuals used reason and experiments to falsify claims of Earth being flat.

Coming back to your example: some idiots in the past used term ''morality'' to justify rapes. Note, some people now-a-days use term ''law'' to justify rapes (if they have lawful authority they escape prosecution). As far as morality goes rape is not okay and never was okay. Had you been deriving laws and regulations from morality, rapes would have been punishable with no exceptions.

Unfortunately laws and regulations are derived from ethics (ethics of the ruling class, ethics of the voting majority, whatever ethics).




Give me good exceptions.

Grue, a person can choose to ignore moral guidelines, just like one can choose to ignore mathematical truths. The end result in both cases is regrettable yet avoidable, but doesn't nullify mathematics or universal morality.

Whether a person believes in specific moralities or not is irrelevant, since God does exist & from whom all morality is derived. Morality is proof of God's existence. We didn't invent moral laws, as even a very young child understands that it has been wronged if another child takes its toy. Its also not something nature designed/evolved/selected, as nature has no way to join the biological with the metaphysical. Only God could pull that off.

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided. Even in WW2 Japanese soldiers did that. Therefore your claim of "independent of time" is false. Your claim of "independent of space" is laughable unless you apply it to a modern human teleported to those location. As for "independent of person", I would argue that the only reason the statement is true is because everyone is raised in a environment that heavily believe in the said moral values. Therefore that statement is pointless.

Just because you pick something that I wouldn't like seeing (and a really disgusting one at that), doesn't make the statement true.
Actually as sick as it is, raping the enemy's womens was considered morally right in a lot of historic armys (because it would weaken the enemy).
(and don't be fooled about my calm about that, if I had a child and you would do that there is a good chance my morality wouldn't fit your standards anymore ;P)

By the way, you still need to answer these:

You are already mixing in your own opinion and bias.
Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans?
We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not)

Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants?
What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive?



your? Who? I didn't make those.
Btw: It's a fallacy to say that there shouldn't be any exceptions, because those exceptions listed in the example are bad.

I disagree. Ethics and morality are two separate abstractions. They neither have intersections nor one is contained in another. Just like alchemy is not contained in chemistry or just like pseudoscience is not a part of science.

There is not such a valid concept as a personal (arbitrary) set of rules with regard to morality. Just like there is no such a valid concept as a set of personal (arbitrary) rules with regard to math or to logic.



Me and religion is like water and fire. No religious influence here.



Come on. You just made it up or read it in wikipedia. If it is - by your very own words - a fact, then you can surely prove it. If so, then prove it.

This simply isn't true, which should be obvious after any consideration.
There are many things which are considered immoral now, which were not previously, and vice versa, or which are considered immoral here, but not there, or vice versa.
12 years old getting married and having children is considered immoral now, but was perfectly normal at some points in history.

What you are saying is that your own personal set of moral rules are the only ones that are right, have been and always will be right, everywhere in the world, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
That is a very common viewpoint, usually promulgated by religions.

In fact, morality is, and can only be, personal. Each of us has an inherent sense of right and wrong, that is our set of morals.
It is obviously shaped by the society around us, and our upbringing and experience, but it is still ultimately personal.

This is what I mean by universal:

Math is universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''2+2=-5'' is wrong, then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Imagine someone claiming ''2+2=-5 is false unless it serves a public good; then 2+2=-5 is true''. Idiocy, right? Or something like this ''Upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces, except for Chuck Norris who cannot be immersed, because he has lawful authority to walk on the water''.


Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''it is wrong to initiate violence, e.g. to rape), then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Now imagine someone claiming ''gang-raping Birdy's child is wrong, but if it serves a public good then it's okay'' - would you agree to such an exception from the rule?


Ethics (and abstractions like state laws and regulations and religious laws and regulations derived from ethics) are not universal (they are always creating exceptions from the rule). Examples:
- stealing is wrong unless ... (exception follows: majority agrees to it, etc.) - real life example: ''A person commits theft, if without lawful authority, such person knowingly: 1 controls property of another with intent to deprive him of such property ...'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1802
- raping is wrong unless (exception follows: a person wearing FBI jacket is permitted to do so) - real life example: ''A person commits molestation of a child, if without lawful authority, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact with a child under fifteen years of age'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1410

This is your ethics at work! I do not want such a world for myself and for my children.

You are incorrect in your definitions of  the terms "morality" and "ethics".  Ethics is the larger subject within which morality is contained. Ethics is one of the four (or five, depending upon who you ask) main questions or structures of Philosophy.

Metaphysics = What is Real?
Epistemology = What is Truth?
Ethics = What is Good?
Aesthetics = What is Beauty?

The terms "morality" and "ethics" are often used interchangeably. While there are situations where the terms are close in meaning, in the truest and widest sense of the terms Ethics is the knife that divides "good" from "bad" whereas Morality is the interpretation of the results.