Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Ethics vs Morals

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-30-09 07:28 PM
Original message
Ethics vs Morals
Seriously - I think this is as big of a jump as Alchemy vs Chemistry...

When we speak of Ethics, we speak of what is best for the common good.

With Morality, this is irrelevant. At times, Morals and Ethics may parallel each other - but they come from completely different roots.

Alchemy being Morality, and Ethics being Chemistry

Reason is the central factor in determining Ethics

With Morality, however, it has nothing to do with reason

Much of it is based on 'This book written in 100AD said such and such...'

Based on faith, rather than reason

To me this seems to be the most perfect humanist quest - - to pursue Ethics

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-30-09 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think of morals as what you're told
and ethics as what you figure out for yourself.

I have never been able to find actual, official definitions that say that, though - have you? I only even thought about it after reading what Sturgeon had to say about it.

Like this link - the dictionary definitions sound like the same thing, then it's got Sturgeon's definition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-30-09 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Very very close
Edited on Fri Jan-30-09 08:17 PM by Taverner
Ethics are based on reason

Morals are based on a text, or some other source that is "felt" rather than proved

ON EDIT: Ethics are based on the idea that, in our social contract, we make certain sacrifices for the sake of protection. Say, we agree to not kill anyone out of anger, if they promise not to kill us out of anger.

So taken to its logical conclusion, we have ethics. You can practice whatever non-harming practice you do, as long as you respect my right to do the same.

Morals supersede all of this.

They tell you anything from "Go on a crusade to kill on non-believers!" to "You cannot eat pork" or "You cannot have sex before marriage"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 21st 2017, 03:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC