h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wow, Serindipity and Syncrhonisity all wrapped up in one post. You caught me just as I lurked.

Morals in my view are based in religion, and I believe that is not only my view.

Ethics are a code of behaviour set down to ensure fairness and evenhandedness (if that is indeed a word).

Morals enshrine goodness over evil and ethics enshrine fairness over greed and hate. Given the two I will take ethics every time. A president may be morally right according to the current mores (same root) and religious beliefs of the majority but if he is ethical he will consider more points of view or religions, for example. Almost a philisophical democrasy if you will.

OK?

Nice descriptive paragragh on morals & ethics.

I would take ethics over morals too

*Wow, Serindipity and Syncrhonisity all wrapped up in one post. You caught me just as I lurked.

Morals in my view are based in religion, and I believe that is not only my view.

Ethics are a code of behaviour set down to ensure fairness and evenhandedness (if that is indeed a word).

Morals enshrine goodness over evil and ethics enshrine fairness over greed and hate. Given the two I will take ethics every time. A president may be morally right according to the current mores (same root) and religious beliefs of the majority but if he is ethical he will consider more points of view or religions, for example. Almost a philisophical democrasy if you will.*

I am still uncertain of your differentiation between the two.

Morals is a very subjective behavior based on a individual or societies notion of right and wrong / good and evil.

Ethics is in effect a system of rules that govern morality.

This being so would not a a man devoid of morals in actuality have a warped ethical code?

Do not the two exist in unison?

Could not it even lead to unjust even atrocious sagacity?

In my humble opinion (and I am not a philosopher) morals and ethics can indeed exist together, but do no have to. An agnostic or atheist can follow an ethical code but not neccesarily a moral sense or tenent. A deeply religious person may have a moral sense or set of rules which may or may not for instance interfere with an ethical code (pro-choice for example or even secular restrictions in regard to another country, system, or culture).

Both are set by rules and the moral code is I believe more often a result of religious tenents whereas the ethical one more likely to be secular. As to someone who has neither, I would think they would be ruled by their own conscience and no one other's, right or wrong.

Morals ARE a very subjective based on a individuals or (societies ? what kind?) or a Religions notion of right and wrong, good and evil.

Um where are the shades of grey?
I think many people have one arguable line on a moral actions.

You can have business integrity without being the equivalent of moral in all areas to all people. Look at Wm Bennet who wrote "The Book of Virtues".

He is considered a man of integrity. He gambled at an alarming rate. Just because he did not compromise anything in his personal or professional life is his gamnbling Moral to all? NO. Does he operate with integrity when it comes to business or gambling ,probably!

Our government and our society say yes to gambling but some Religions would consider it immoral whether it is taking food from your families mouth or not. A moral judgement it is not in enforced *dependant on the consequences*.

Ones moral philosphy IS derived from the utiisation of etical priciples. It is the bases for resolving ones moral quandaries. The asigning of one as sucular or religous advances a misguided approach to separating that which cannot be.

Does that make sense? Morals, it seems to me, are the standards that are imposed by a particular society at a particular time. Ethics are a greater framework with what one might consider to be 'eternal' values.

I have no moral sense whatever, but a very high sense of ethics...

Are not ethics defined by a society?

They can be, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

My thoughts exactly. Ethics and morals cannot be separated.

On the practical side ;Politicians & voters

No one could or would run for office or vote ,if they expected persons to be perfectly whole.

Bush has morals that helped to get him elected. They led him into a war that I consider unethical. He does not see himself or his actions as unethical. I am not unethical to disagree with him.

People claim otherwise for both of us, I am sure

Perfection and wholeness are philosophical ideals to strive towards, not a common reality.
RL is messy.

Very Messy

Almost a red-letter day, Starbirth - I almost agree! Morals and ethics go together in most cases...

,
So Bush´s moral and ethics goes hand in hand...?



Scary!



























.....with prejudice and ignorance?

Presently I am reading *Practical Ethics* by Peter Singer. I have yet to wade through it all but in practical terms, ethics and morals are necessarily linked but not neccesarily the same thing. A moral sense can drive ethics, and morals may be just a personal view of what is *right* and *wrong*. Codefying that view is generally held to be *ethics*. At the same time, morals can be set down to paper as easily as ethics, but are generally considered more of a personal belief system.

As to politicians and ethics or morals, personally I believe that some time ago we stopped electing lawyers to political office and started electing accountants. Or so it would seem looking at their ethics!

Electing accountants - exactly the problem we've had here in NZ, clzoomer...

I'd been avoiding this thread, but on a cursory view, it looks like it has evolved into some worthwhile conversation.

I have to take issue with that bit about morals being based on religion. Some of the most upstandingly moral people I've known have no religion.

Morality is the subjective code of good and evil. Ethics are the subjective code of right and wrong. Ethics are all about rules and structures, which we impose on ourselves. Morals are more concerned with outcomes, and the ways in which we impact each other.

For instance, say you're privy to secret information... a stock market insider. You have an ethical mandate to keep from divulging that information for the personal gain for yourself or others. Sharing that information would be unethical. In certain cases, it would also be immoral... lining your own pockets, or divulging it to a mass market to drive the stocks even higher, for instance.

But what if a good charitable organization was about to close forever? You could do more for them by sharing a stock tip than you could ever do by giving them a donation. Speak and the hungry are fed. Immoral? No. Unethical? Certainly.

Our rules, our ethics, are based on our morals. And a cursory glance at the legal systems of democratic nations quickly reveals that there was little or no influence of religion in there. We may justify our morals by religion, but in reality, we have evolved beyond our religions.

I have had massive access problems, I tried to mend the broken link days ago! I have a number of alternatives which *might* work..
Good luck (to me as well).
http://www.san.beck.org
http://san.beck.org/WP4-Jesus.htm
www.san.beck.org/GPJ6-JesusandChristians.html
www.west.net/~beck

One should work - I can't read my only four days back hand-writing!

So in order to organize ones views of ethics morals are essentially linked.