Morals and Ethics

[Marc L]

Mainly because it's 5 o'clock in the morning, and I just got done trying to sleep in an impossible position, I'm feeling fairly philosophical today. I'd like to post what I'm starting to see as the difference between morals and ethics. I freely admit to having stolen ideas from other people and grafted them into my own, so don't be surprised to see it. I have absolutely no academic credentials (though I did stay at a Holiday Inn not too long ago), so this may not seem too well thought out. Feel free to pick my ideas apart into tiny pieces, stomp all over them and spit them back at me. :)

I define morals as those actions which affect an individual's rights. My belief is that each individual human has value simply because they're human. My proof for this is the fact that I feel that I myself, have intrinsic value because I'm human. Since everyone else (to my knowledge) is also human, it stands to reason that they have intrinsic value as well.

As a human being, I feel that I have the right to self ownership, the right to attempt to provide for myself, the right to the products that come from my labor, and the right to dispose of myself, and my products in anyway I see fit. I also feel that I have the right to make my own destiny, to decide what I want to do and how I want to do it. There are probably others, but I haven't really been able to think of any.

Immoral acts are anything that violates those rights. If I kill someone, it's an immoral act, since I am interfering with their right to self ownership. If I steal, I am interfereing with their right to the fruits of their labor. Were I desirous of living as a hermit, it wouldn't matter if I did these things, because no one would be affected. However, since I choose to live in a society, I also choose to respect the inherent rights of others, if for no other reason than I don't wish to be removed from society.

Ethics, to my mind, are those things which affect a person's relationship with other people. They are the things that you do to ensure a good relationship. For example, a merchant creates a quality piece of merchandise and sells it for a fair price because he wants his customers to keep coming back. Also, happy customers refer friends, generating more business. I am faithful to my wife because I respect her and want to continue being in a good relationship with her. Lying is also covered under this. Like I said, anything you do which negatively affects your relationship with other people is unethical, anything you do which positively affects your relationship with other people is ethical.

Children, in my opinion are kind of in a limbo as far as morals go. Because they don't have the thinking skills to live on their own and take care of themselves, they don't have the same individual rights to the same degree as I do. While my 18 month old daughter may want to stay up all night and play, her mother and I are not being immoral by violating her right to live out her own destiny when we make her go to bed at bedtime. While this may upset her (thus being, technically, unethical), it will help make her a responsible adult.

Other exceptions include criminals. As they are preying upon other individuals, it is moral to put them in prison, otherwise society as a whole suffers. Killing in self-defense is also moral.

Like I said, this is just stuff I've been pondering, and probably needs to be fleshed out a lot (part of the reason why I posted it. I do welcome all comments.

Marc

[ponderingturtle]

I think of them differently, morals come from an appeal to authority, ethics come from an appeal to reason.

So wearing red might well be immoral because god said so. But with ethics you need to show your work.

[Marc L]

I think of them differently, morals come from an appeal to authority, ethics come from an appeal to reason.

So wearing red might well be immoral because god said so. But with ethics you need to show your work.

In general, yes. However, being as I don't have any authority other than reason to appeal to, I've decided to draw the line as I did.

Marc

[Loss Leader]

I had always thought that morals are objective rules as to how one should behave overall. Ethics are subjective rules determined by groups of humans as to how they should treat others within the group.

It is a violation of legal ethics to knowingly allow a client to lie under oath. It is not, however, immoral to stand around and watch a person lie under oath, even if you know he's lying.

It is a violation of medical ethics to treat a patient against his will, even if it is necessary to save his life. It may, however, be immoral to allow a person to die even if he wants to.

[Marc L]

I had always thought that morals are objective rules as to how one should behave overall. Ethics are subjective rules determined by groups of humans as to how they should treat others within the group.

It is a violation of legal ethics to knowingly allow a client to lie under oath. It is not, however, immoral to stand around and watch a person lie under oath, even if you know he's lying.

It is a violation of medical ethics to treat a patient against his will, even if it is necessary to save his life.

Your definitions are pretty much the same as mine. Personally, I think that ethics can be reasoned, and if they can't, then why keep them? For instance, is it ethical to deny medical treatment to a person based solely on their skin color? Of course not. Why? Because there is no rational reason to base such a decision on skin color.


It may, however, be immoral to allow a person to die even if he wants to.

I wanted to deal with this seperately. In order for a moral to be objective, it has to be unbiased (from dictionary.com, definition #5). There isn't, that I can see, an objective reason to prevent a person from dying if he wants to. There are certainly subjective reasons. Either religious, or just personal, but there is no objective reason to force someone to live who wants to die.

Note, I'm not saying we should encourage suicide. Certainly someone who is considering taking their own life should seek counseling. But for someone, for instance, who is dying of cancer that medicine can't cure, who says, "Stop keeping me alive, I can't take it anymore", it is, to my mind, immoral to not allow them to die.

Marc

[Euromutt]

It is a violation of medical ethics to treat a patient against his will, even if it is necessary to save his life. It may, however, be immoral to allow a person to die even if he wants to.Though I didn't quite agree with your initial categorization (like Marc L, I think you got the objective and subjective mixed up to some extent), I think this last example serves as an excellent illustration of the difference between the two.

(Sets of) Ethics are the province of a specific group of people who perform functions in a particular area, such as law (including judges, lawyers acting as legal representatives of legal persons, paralegal staff, etc.), medicine (including various types of MD, nursing staff, paramedics, etc.), science and academics. Ethics do not only guide what kind of behavior is acceptable between members of the group, but also between members of the group and outsiders who avail themselves of the group's services (such as patients and their next of kin in the case of medicine). They are determined, to a large extent, by consensus among those in the field, and are not held to be (necessarily) applicable to those outside it.

Morals, on the other hand, operate at both a narrower and a wider level than ethics. An individual may determine his own set of morals, but certain individuals may band together and feel their common set of morals may be imposed on society as a whole.

[H'ethetheth]

My understanding is that ethics is the study of morals, where morals constitute the rules of what is right and wrong. Ethics is the thoughts behind the rules.
Remember though, I was taught this by other engineers, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Ladewig]

Ethics, to my mind, are those things which affect a person's relationship with other people. ... Like I said, anything you do which negatively affects your relationship with other people is unethical, anything you do which positively affects your relationship with other people is ethical.

So if I am frequently late when showing up to meet friends and that affects my relationship with them, I am acting in an unethical manner? If I suggest that a friend who is 100 pounds overweight should see a doctor and she becomes upset, I am unethical?

Your definition would mean the following activites are ethical:
-telling stupid people that they are smart
-telling dull people that they are clever
-telling hideously-dressed people that they have good taste

[hammegk]

IMO, morals are the rules an individual applies to govern private behaviors, with "private" including friends, relatives, and close associates. Any moral framework is clan/group/societal dependent.

Ethics then examines those behaviors in the public and intellectual arena, and attempts to determine universal principles independent of clan/group/society.

[skeptic griggsy]

The humanist ethic is to look at what is good for humans, other animals and the enviornment rather than take the morals of the bigoted ignoramuses of yore. When the religious do morals rationally, they borrow, in effect from us rather than as they allege that we live off religious moral capital. Our morality is objective in that we can see that murder , rape and theft harm others .It is provisional like science and like in science there are disagreements .Whether one views ethics as subjective or objective, we have to compromise . Religious ethics are indeed the whims of those men of yore, that is subjective. Ours is contextual.

[RandFan]

Our morality is objective in that we can see that murder , rape and theft harm others . It is true that the observation of cause and effect is objective. That does not make morality objective. So what if murder, rape and theft harm others? You are begging the question.

It is provisional like science and like in science there are disagreements. I think that you are going a bit far afield.

Whether one views ethics as subjective or objective, we have to compromise. So, whether or not evolution is subjective or objective we have to compromise?

Religious ethics are indeed the whims of those men of yore, that is subjective. Ours is contextual. Hold on. Are you saying that there was no observation based morality in times of yore?

I'm all for secular humanist based ethics in preference to religious based ones but I think you need to work on your argument.

[RandFan]

The humanist ethic is to look at what is good for humans... Please forgive my ignorance but who are the gentlemen in the photos?

[skeptic griggsy]

I fail to see question begging as Quentin Smith shows in his book on ethics and religion those and other matters are taken for granted. Not to be ad populum,but most atheist philosophers of ethics are objectivists . Those men of yore commanded stoning for working on the sabbath or for chlidren who cheek their parents. So , much of their morality did not refer to what one can discern that helps or hurts people .It was their whims that slavery, misogyny and genocide were right- subjectivistic. As he points out , there are hundreds of matters everyday where we find moral agreement that outweigh disagreements. Bentham was on the right track with his pleasure and pain principle . An article in the last issue of Free Inquiry makes my points . See Paul Kurtz's " Forbidden Fruit," and Michael Martin's "Atheism,Morality and Meaning " and Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil' for further discussion . The pictures are of me at different ages.

[RandFan]

I fail to see question begging as Quentin Smith shows in his book on ethics and religion those and other matters are taken for granted. What you do or do not fail to see is of no consequence. You need to answer the question, why is causing harm immoral? To fail to do is is begging the question.

Not to be ad populum, but most atheist philosophers of ethics are objectivists. You mean ad numerum. It's similar but not quite the same.

An objectivist is a person who follows the set philosophy of Ayn Rand. I should know. I don't think most are objectivists. They might be empiricists.

Those men of yore commanded stoning for working on the sabbath or for chlidren who cheek their parents. So , much of their morality did not refer to what one can discern that helps or hurts people .It was their whims that slavery, misogyny and genocide were right- subjectivistic. This does not prove that there were no observation based morals.

As he points out , there are hundreds of matters everyday where we find moral agreement that outweigh disagreements. Bentham was on the right track with his pleasure and pain principle . An article in the last issue of Free Inquiry makes my points . See Paul Kurtz's " Forbidden Fruit," and Michael Martin's "Atheism,Morality and Meaning " and Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil' for further discussion . I think an argument can be made for objective based morals but you have not made it.

The pictures are of me at different ages.Thanks.

[RandFan]

BTW: Welcome to the fourm lamberthml@comcast.

[skeptic griggsy]

Each to her own . I disagree as I have made the essentilal argument of the men cited . Rand's ethics were not necessarily objective! Michael Shermer shows her to be irrational in his essay on her in the Skeptical Review . See "The Ayn Rand Cult " for information on her harmful influence to her followers .

[skeptic griggsy]

Each to her own . I disagree as I have made the essentilal argument of the men cited . Rand's ethics were not necessarily objective! Michael Shermer shows her to be irrational in his essay on her in the Skeptical Review . See "The Ayn Rand Cult " for information on her harmful influence to her followers .

[RandFan]

Each to her own . I disagree as I have made the essentilal argument of the men cited . Rand's ethics were not necessarily objective! Michael Shermer shows her to be irrational in his essay on her in the Skeptical Review . See "The Ayn Rand Cult " for information on her harmful influence to her followers . I'm not female. I'm not an objectivist. I'm not defending Rand. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that your use of the word "objectivist" was perhaps not what you meant it to be.

FWIW, I'm a huge Shermer fan as well and I will happily look up his review of her. In the end I admire Rand for her contributions to philosophy and I would be very surprised if his end assessment was so negative. I know that both shared many of the same views. But my world wouldn't crumble if he did.

[RandFan]

I have found the essay.

THE UNLIKELIEST CULT IN HISTORY (http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml) By Michael Shermer

Thanks.

[skeptic griggsy]

Yes, I,didn't mean her objectivism . I was thinking that was your picture. For a while,in my youth , I shared her views . Now I'm for reciprocal altruism and government help to empower everyone .She did affirm some good things. I am with Paul Kurtz on morality and government. Kurtz , Randi and Shermer do help combat the irrational . I am schizotypal and supposed to go in for the supernatural and the paranormal , but I abjure such!

[RandFan]

Great essay.

The cultic flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics. Interesting. Aside from not feeling comfortable about defining myself as some set philosophy and my own misunderstanding of Rand's views of altruism this kept me from considering myself an objectivist. I agree with Shermer and I can see how this could lead to a cult like following. I don't think Shermer's criticism is so much with Rand but with her following.

[RandFan]

Yes, I,didn't mean her objectivism . I was thinking that was your picture. For a while,in my youth , I shared her views . Now I'm for reciprocal altruism and government help to empower everyone .She did affirm some good things. I am with Paul Kurtz on morality and government. Kurtz , Randi and Shermer do help combat the irrational . I am schizotypal and supposed to go in for the supernatural and the paranormal , but I abjure such! Keep in mind that Rand wasn't against charity. She was against the sacrifice of any individual for the sake of altruism. I agree with her.

I had never heard of schizotypal before. I'm glad you don't go in for the paranormal.

Good to meet you. You have to be careful with your arguments here. Some of us are borderline pedantic (some of us are full blown).

[skeptic griggsy]

Right. That is why with Shermer , I advocate a provisional ethic so as to improve when one has new information . I found a similar point about her absolutism at the Wikipedea article on her as I remember. There are the Peikoff and Kelly divisions . Anyway, I became an atheist at 16 when I read Branden's existence exist in their old newsletter. Her devotee George Smith has aided the atheist cause . Do show an empirical argument for morality! Thanks.

[RandFan]

Do show an empirical argument for morality! I said I think one can be made. I tried tried to make one pm this forum a couple of years ago and I didn't fare too well.

See Here's why morals cannot be absolute (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=32772&highlight=earthborn)

My discussion starts here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=866302#post866302).

I believe that it is always wrong to inflict any harm, mental or physical, to any living thing for purely selfish and inconsequential motives. That is absolute and unchanging regardless of community standards. I still believe that, it's just that I don't believe it's absolute.

[skeptic griggsy]

Again , thanks. I'll reread that F.I. article so as to better my argument . Anyway , we both want rationality in morals .

[RandFan]

Again , thanks. I'll reread that F.I. article so as to better my argument . Anyway , we both want rationality in morals . Yes, I agree and it would seem that we both agree that secular humanist morals are more likely to be rational than religious ones.

[Marc L]

So if I am frequently late when showing up to meet friends and that affects my relationship with them, I am acting in an unethical manner? If I suggest that a friend who is 100 pounds overweight should see a doctor and she becomes upset, I am unethical?

I'd say a lot of it would depend on the situation. For instance, if you are constantly showing up late to meet friends because you don't care about showing up on time, then yes, I'd say you're acting unethically. Depending on the event, however, it may not matter (ie, a party that starts at 8 and runs all night, and you show up at 9. That wouldn't be unethical, as far as I'm concerned. If your friends are counting on you to show up at 8 (because you have the drinks), and you show up at 9 with no explanation or good reason, then yes, you're behaving unethically).

For the second of your examples, I'd say it depends on your intent. If your friend is seriously overweight, and you tell her this out of concern for her health, then you're behaving ethically. Ultimately, your intent is to improve the relationship (by being a caring friend). If you just go up to her (or someone randomly on the street) and say, "My God, you're fat," then I'd say you're behaving unethically, because your intent isn't to improve the relationship, but just to be mean.

In the first case (telling your friend she's overweight out of concern), even if she gets upset, you're still acting in an ethical manner, if your intent was to help her. Her getting upset is on her, not you. If that ruins the relationship, again, it's on her.

Your definition would mean the following activites are ethical:
-telling stupid people that they are smart
-telling dull people that they are clever
-telling hideously-dressed people that they have good taste

It would depend on the situation, I think. If lying to them does more harm then good (which it would in the first two situations, less so in the third, I think), then you're behaving unethically. All you're doing is massaging their egos, not providing help.

This thread is a prime example. I posted my thoughts and asked for feedback. If all people said was, "Wow, Marc, you're a genius," then that doesn't help me. Ultimately, it would harm our relationship, because I'd discover I couldn't trust you to give honest feedback.

The feedback you gave, however, while nominally negative (it questioned my ideas) is ethical, because 1) I asked for it and 2) it's honest and enables me to either expand on my definition, or to change it utterly.

Marc

[Marc L]

I'm not female.

You know, it might be a good idea to put that in your description above your avatar. This is the second time (that I know of) that someone has made that assumption.

I'm not an objectivist. I'm not defending Rand.

Just out of curiosity, to which "Rand" is the "Fan" part referring to? I realize that I'm hijacking my own thread asking this, but I am curious.

Marc

[Marc L]

I said I think one can be made. I tried tried to make one pm this forum a couple of years ago and I didn't fare too well.

See Here's why morals cannot be absolute (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=32772&highlight=earthborn)

My discussion starts here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=866302#post866302).
I believe that it is always wrong to inflict any harm, mental or physical, to any living thing for purely selfish and inconsequential motives. That is absolute and unchanging regardless of community standards.


I still believe that, it's just that I don't believe it's absolute.

While the moral itself may not be absolute, I still think it's better to use reason to discover morals as opposed to religion (yes, I know you've said this, I'm just adding my own two cents). As our ability to reason improves, our morals are updated. For example, 200 years ago in the United States*, it was moral to have slaves. It was reasonable to slaveholders that Africans were sub-human, and therefore individual rights didn't apply to them. As we learned more and evolved intellectually, we realized that there was nothing objective that made Africans less human than Europeans, and that it was immoral to keep them as slaves.

The more our minds evolve, and we improve our powers of reasoning, the more we can find objective reasons for morals, or discard the morals we have now in exchange for more objective ones.

*I'm not a historian of US history, so my time range may be off there. I know the US Civil War happened 150 years ago, so I added a few decades to it. The Abolitionist movement may have started before then, but it was the reasoning I was after, not the actual historical facts.

Marc

[RandFan]

You know, it might be a good idea to put that in your description above your avatar. It might be at that.


Just out of curiosity, to which "Rand" is the "Fan" part referring to? I realize that I'm hijacking my own thread asking this, but I am curious. It is to Ayn Rand. I admire her for her contributions to philosophy. She helped steer me to a commitment to objective thought and a rejection of religion.

[Marc L]

Bumping this up a bit. I was really enjoying the feedback from people, and would enjoy more. I'd be amazed to learn that you were all sitting back saying, "Wow, Marc L's a friggin' genius here."

Of course, if that's what you are doing, then by all means, please post that as well. I enjoy a good ego massage as much as the next sailor...

Marc

[skeptic griggsy]

Rand Fan, I hope this will help: Keith Parsons states :" So even if morality is not intrinsic to reality , but is created by humans,the mere fact that it is inter-subjectively valid among all humans,it applies to all humans , that's a sufficiently strong sense of objectivity to motivate and give humans reason to behave in a moral manner." And:" Morals are subjective if different moral values are arbitraiily created by each different person ....This means that if it's morally wrong to rape a somebody , this is morally wrong for every person.This is the very meaning of moral values, they apply to everybody." I'm with Marc L.[ @the religion forum at the Mail and Guardian in South Africa there is a faith -base d Marc L]

[Ladewig]

Ethics, to my mind, are those things which affect a person's relationship with other people. They are the things that you do to ensure a good relationship. For example, a merchant creates a quality piece of merchandise and sells it for a fair price because he wants his customers to keep coming back. Also, happy customers refer friends, generating more business. I am faithful to my wife because I respect her and want to continue being in a good relationship with her.

I would expect even people who do not respect their spouses to remain faithful because they took a vow to do so. Keeping promises is an ethical thing to do. Whether you respect the other person or not is irrelevant to determining ethical behavior.

I am still having a little trouble with your definition, because if I were to break up with a girlfriend, that would, by definition, hurt the relationship and would therefore be unethical.

[skeptic griggsy]

I applaud these commnents . We can show theists that we have the moral high ground . Look at those who decry moral decay and see what they watch on television ! They show cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.To reiterate, my region is so reli:) gious and morally challenged.

[RandFan]

Rand Fan, I hope this will help: Keith Parsons states :" So even if morality is not intrinsic to reality , but is created by humans,the mere fact that it is inter-subjectively valid among all humans,it applies to all humans , that's a sufficiently strong sense of objectivity to motivate and give humans reason to behave in a moral manner." And:" Morals are subjective if different moral values are arbitraiily created by each different person ....This means that if it's morally wrong to rape a somebody , this is morally wrong for every person.This is the very meaning of moral values, they apply to everybody." I'm with Marc L.[ @the religion forum at the Mail and Guardian in South Africa there is a faith -base d Marc L]Thanks.

It's demonstrably not valid among all humans (see sociopaths as one of many examples). Sociopaths know right from wrong but not in the way you and I do. A socio path knows that killing is wrong the way you and I know that jumping in a lions den is wrong. Society has told the socio path that killing is wrong and if he or she kills she will punished. Asside from that the socio path simply doesn't care that it is wrong. It's not wrong to them.

I do understand the point and there is some validity to it. I believe Dennet makes a rather convincing argument along these lines. I've got to find that. If I do I will post it here.

The important point though is that it definitely is not true that any thing can be morally wrong for all people.

[skeptic griggsy]

:) It is still wrong for the sociopath or psychopath ,who do not follow morality , but their not doing so does not gainsay against that all should follow basic rules. Anyway, Rand Fan is right to find out from Dennett more to defend common morality . Rand Fan is a thinker who adds to these discussions.:D

[Marc L]

I am still having a little trouble with your definition, because if I were to break up with a girlfriend, that would, by definition, hurt the relationship and would therefore be unethical.

On the other hand, staying in the relationship could, in the long term, cause more hurt than breaking up with her now. If it's a bad relationship (even something as simple as, "We don't have as much in common as I thought), then it would be hurtful to both of you to stay in it. By breaking up (and harming the relationship) now, you are freeing both of you to find someone you're more compatible with.

To use an example that applies to me. My 18 month old doesn't like being put down for bedtime. Her mother and I know that she needs a certain amount of sleep a night. By insisting on bedtime, we're-in the short term-hurting the relationship. In the long run, however, we're insuring the health of our daughter. Thus, the initial apparently unethical behavior, is ethical in the long run.

Marc

[Marc L]

Thanks.

It's demonstrably not valid among all humans (see sociopaths as one of many examples). Sociopaths know right from wrong but not in the way you and I do. A socio path knows that killing is wrong the way you and I know that jumping in a lions den is wrong. Society has told the socio path that killing is wrong and if he or she kills she will punished. Asside from that the socio path simply doesn't care that it is wrong. It's not wrong to them.

I do understand the point and there is some validity to it. I believe Dennet makes a rather convincing argument along these lines. I've got to find that. If I do I will post it here.

The important point though is that it definitely is not true that any thing can be morally wrong for all people.

I don't agree. I think morals can and should apply to all people. Otherwise, what use are they? Sociopaths aside (as they've got a mental problem), is it truly right to say (for example), "Marc, it's immoral for you to rape people but not for me"?

If we don't have a standard of morals, then there's no sense in them. Since religious morals are based on individual belief systems, they can only fairly apply to members of those belief systems. As not everyone subscribes to every belief system, there needs to be a rational way to determine right and wrong that applies to everybody-especially in countries like the United States where there are so many different kinds of beliefs.

Now, before you (or someone else) jumps in and reminds me that different cultures don't hold the same morals, you're right. In some parts of the world, slavery is still considered moral. In others, killing people for their beliefs is considered moral. If we say that it's okay for them to do because they have a different culture, how can we insist that it's immoral for us? There's no rational reason to say that. If something is immoral for Westerners (slavery, for instance), it's immoral for everyone.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we can, or should, force other cultures to conform to our morality. It does, however, mean that we can set a standard, and let other people know that we consider what they're doing is immoral, and why we consider it immoral.

Marc

[RandFan]

I don't agree. I think morals can and should apply to all people. Otherwise, what use are they? Sociopaths aside (as they've got a mental problem), is it truly right to say (for example), "Marc, it's immoral for you to rape people but not for me"? You are making an irrelevant argument. Of course morals should be consistent. If I think it's OK to rape then to be logically valid it should be OK for you also.

If we don't have a standard of morals, then there's no sense in them. Standards don't equate to universal. Of course we need standards. That we do need standards does not make those standards correct. You allude to this BTW later in your post.

Since religious morals are based on individual belief systems, they can only fairly apply to members of those belief systems. As not everyone subscribes to every belief system, there needs to be a rational way to determine right and wrong that applies to everybody-especially in countries like the United States where there are so many different kinds of beliefs. We need to apply logic and reason to moral philosophy to determine rational standards of right and wrong. This is the best strategy I agree. That it is does not prove universal morals.

Now, before you (or someone else) jumps in and reminds me that different cultures don't hold the same morals, you're right. In some parts of the world, slavery is still considered moral. In others, killing people for their beliefs is considered moral. If we say that it's okay for them to do because they have a different culture, how can we insist that it's immoral for us? There's no rational reason to say that. If something is immoral for Westerners (slavery, for instance), it's immoral for everyone. You are missing the point. For us (we) it's immoral for everyone. In that we we are consistent. We can acknowledge that to them it is not immoral. We can disagree with them.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we can, or should, force other cultures to conform to our morality. It does, however, mean that we can set a standard, and let other people know that we consider what they're doing is immoral, and why we consider it immoral. Absolutely agree. And we can and should make logical arguments why we think that it is.

[skeptic griggsy]

I concur with Marc L. Most atheologians have objective ethics[ not to be confused with objectivist ethics].We find a common thread among moral systems.Sometimes, it is a mere disagreement over the facts. We find disagreement in ethics as we find that in science,so disagreement is a non-sequitur for subjective ethics. As David Brink notes:"The fact that we disagree about some moral issues at the beginning of the process of adjustment gives no compelling reason to suppose the adjustment will not, in the end limit, resolve our disagrement."As said @ Ebon Musings:"[A]theism can accommodate both the exisence of a moral law ant the manifedt fact thatnot every cuture or individual is aware of it.The explanation is straightforward:morality is not something planted in every person's heart by a creator,but something derived from careful deliberation and a rational understanding of our place in the world and our relationships to each other.There is no reason why we should expect it to be immediately obvious to everyone, just as there is no reason why we should expects the laws of physics to be immediately obvious to everyone." This concurs with my first comments on page two. What is objective is that all can see the effect for good or bad of actions on humans, other animals and the enviornment. Oh, please support the Great Ape Project to further protect our fellow great apes. Some theists would support this effort ,but would bray that we for pro-choice would save our inferiors but deny life to our own family members.

[skeptic griggsy]

It turns out that both objective and subjective systems are right ,supplementing each other!:)
As John Beversluis notes in his "C.S.Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion,' the Golden Rule bases itself on wide reflective subjectivity: Following David Hume, he notes:"The Golden Rule is not a substantive moral rule from which we can deduce specific duties; it is a formal rule that requires impartiality. Its content is provided by our preferences,
; not as Lewis would have us believe , in the sense of whatever we happen to like and dislike, but in the very different sense of our judgments of approval and disapproval-judgements that are often at odds with what we personanlly like or dislike and based on the insight that, as a rational being, I cannot reasonably ask people to treat me in certain ways unless I am willing to treat them in the same ways. Such judgments are subjective in the sense that they originate in the feeling of the people making them.But they are also objective in two important ways: first, they are universal and apply to everyone; second; they are based on the principles of equity and equality of treatment. So from the fact that moral jusdgments are subjective, it follows neither that they vary from person to person nor are they are just'private ideas' in people's minds."
Again, no god need apply!:mad:

[skeptic griggsy]

:DFolks, I now, after reading John Beversluis's "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, find it paradoxial that a form of subjectivism underpins objective morality! Whether one agrees with that, either subjective or objective morality binds on us.:cool:
"The Golden Rule is not a substantive moral rule from which we can deduce specific moral dutes; it is a moral rule requiring impartiality. Its substantive moral content is provided by our preferences; not as Lewis would have us believe, in the sense of whatever we happen to like or dislike, but in the very different sense of our jdgments of approval and disapproval- judgments which are often at odds with what we personally like or dislike and based on the insight that, as a rational being, I cannot reasonably ask people to treat me in certain ways unless I am willing to treat them in the same ways. Such judgments are subjective that they originate in the feelings of the people making them. But they are objective in two important ways: first, they are universal and apply to everyone; second, they are based on the principles of equity and equality of treatment. So from the fact that moral judgments are subjective , it follows neither that they vary from person to person nor that they are just "private ideas" in people's minds.";)
This is wide reflective subjectivism as opposed to the simple one of tastes and whims that the writers of the Tanakh and the Testament list:boxedin: or of Lord Bertrand Russell or Michael Ruse [ Those two's are fine. ] Hobbes and Hume came out with this; this is my name for it.
That subjectivism comes from our evolved moral sense which we ever refine to see those consequences that show objective morality!
So theists who bray that we naturalists have no standard even if we are ourselves moral, err. Those consequenses show a consenquential morality; now the humanists one is also deontological in that we do follow the common decencies and it is also a virtuous ethic. Nihilism is a straw man!:p
Blessings and goodwill to all! The happy neurotic.:)
I did not see the previous post before I wrote this one but this is more explicatory.
Oh, what are the consequences for adult consensus sex, even adult incest for better or worse on the people involved that would make it immoral or not? I find none as with homosexuality.What about legalizing prostitution? I pose these two questions to urge others to discern that consequences count; now does deontology- rules- outlaw them? How are the virtues involved?
Yes, Rand fan, John Hospers notes that about those pathological peope and the Golden Rule[ It and the Silver one find themselves in ethics long before Yeshua!] in "Human Conduct," where he wrongly also justifies egoism.

[Henners]

" Morals are subjective if different moral values are arbitraiily created by each different person ....This means that if it's morally wrong to rape a somebody , this is morally wrong for every person.


Well, it's fairly easy to make the point when illustrating it with examples involving huge harm to others.

What happens in the grey areas, though? Is tax avoidance morally the same for everyone. What about tax evasion? What about the size of charitable donations? What if the money given to charity is from the black economy? Margaret Thatcher famously stated that there is no such thing as society. Is that POV a moral one?

[Henners]

:DFolks, I now, after reading John Beversluis's "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, find it paradoxial that a form of subjectivism underpins objective morality! Whether one agrees with that, either subjective or objective morality binds on us.:cool:
"The Golden Rule is not a substantive moral rule from which we can deduce specific moral dutes; it is a moral rule requiring impartiality. Its substantive moral content is provided by our preferences; not as Lewis would have us believe, in the sense of whatever we happen to like or dislike, but in the very different sense of our jdgments of approval and disapproval- judgments which are often at odds with what we personally like or dislike and based on the insight that, as a rational being, I cannot reasonably ask people to treat me in certain ways unless I am willing to treat them in the same ways. Such judgments are subjective that they originate in the feelings of the people making them. But they are objective in two important ways: first, they are universal and apply to everyone; second, they are based on the principles of equity and equality of treatment. So from the fact that moral judgments are subjective , it follows neither that they vary from person to person nor that they are just "private ideas" in people's minds.";)
This is wide reflective subjectivism as opposed to the simple one of tastes and whims that the writers of the Tanakh and the Testament list:boxedin: or of Lord Bertrand Russell or Michael Ruse [ Those two's are fine. ] Hobbes and Hume came out with this; this is my name for it.
That subjectivism comes from our evolved moral sense which we ever refine to see those consequences that show objective morality!
So theists who bray that we naturalists have no standard even if we are ourselves moral, err. Those consequenses show a consenquential morality; now the humanists one is also deontological in that we do follow the common decencies and it is also a virtuous ethic. Nihilism is a straw man!:p
Blessings and goodwill to all! The happy neurotic.:)
I did not see the previous post before I wrote this one but this is more explicatory.
Oh, what are the consequences for adult consensus sex, even adult incest for better or worse on the people involved that would make it immoral or not? I find none as with homosexuality.What about legalizing prostitution? I pose these two questions to urge others to discern that consequences count; now does deontology- rules- outlaw them? How are the virtues involved?
Yes, Rand fan, John Hospers notes that about those pathological peope and the Golden Rule[ It and the Silver one find themselves in ethics long before Yeshua!] in "Human Conduct," where he wrongly also justifies egoism.


I do feel that you are starting in the wrong place, for morality is not founded on codification of any set of rules, but is an evolved complex of instincts that have survival values. (Much like love.)

Any codification of those instincts is secondary to the underlying process. (Shall I compare thee to a summer's day.)

Game theory simulations can reveal some of the underlying rules, by playing off different strategies against each other and seeing which wins.

Interestingly, some games involving many interacting agents have stable outcomes where the agents split into two or more behaviourally distinct groups. Suppose the split is equally into (Group A) behaving one way and (Group B) behaving another. Which of the two groups would be behaving morally? What if the split is 1/3 to 2/3? What if it is 99% to 1%?

What are the ethical implications of a solution in which 99% of a population can only behave "morally" in the circumstances where 1% behave "immorally"?