Morality

[Arkolon]

Morality is subjective, but ethics is not.

And another thread bound for the natural rights threadjack list...

There's no point in making a distinction between morality and ethics. They are Latin and Greek words, respectively, for the exact same concept. The English equivalent, which has lost much of this connotation, is "normal", though it survives in the concept of "normative".

Morality is what an individual deems right or wrong. Ethics is a question of legitimacy within a society.

[Trotskylvania]

There's no point in making a distinction between morality and ethics. They are Latin and Greek words, respectively, for the exact same concept. The English equivalent, which has lost much of this connotation, is "normal", though it survives in the concept of "normative".

Morality is what an individual deems right or wrong. Ethics is a question of legitimacy within a society.

Yeah, so you say.

One of my colleagues here is insistent that morality is the closest fit for what we call meta-ethics. One of my professors argues that morality is normative theory rooted in tradition and custom, while ethics is a rational endeavor of the Enlightenment era. And yet another makes the same distinction you do, but inverted: morality for him is societal, ethics are individual.

There's no point in trying to shoe-horn a distinction, because no one agrees on it.

[Arkolon]

Morality is what an individual deems right or wrong. Ethics is a question of legitimacy within a society.

Yeah, so you say.

One of my colleagues here is insistent that morality is the closest fit for what we call meta-ethics. One of my professors argues that morality is normative theory rooted in tradition and custom, while ethics is a rational endeavor of the Enlightenment era. And yet another makes the same distinction you do, but inverted: morality for him is societal, ethics are individual.

There's no point in trying to shoe-horn a distinction, because no one agrees on it.

Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied.

*shrug*

[Rexero]

If you take an action intending and believing that it will improve some aspect of the world, then your action is morally good.
If you take an action intending or believing that it will harm some aspect of the world, then your action is evil.
If you take an action without intending it to drastically change the world, then your action is morally neutral.

The effect of your action is entirely unrelated to the morality of the action, in my eyes. Morality should be something you think on before you take an action, not something to be applied retrospectively. There's no point in judging yourself harshly for failing to do good, other people do that for you much better than you could anyway.

Ethical judgments fundamentally concern how the world should be. The very existence of ethics suggests the world is not ideal, and so ethics seeks to identify the changes that would realize an ideal world and adapt our behavior toward enacting these changes.

Actions are objects that cause change. The most morally desirable changes are good. As only change affects the world, only actions have moral value. Intent is morally null and can't affect the moral value of action.

[Computerised Equality]

Ethical judgments fundamentally concern how the world should be. The very existence of ethics suggests the world is not ideal, and so ethics seeks to identify the changes that would realize an ideal world and adapt our behavior toward enacting these changes.

Actions are objects that cause change. The most morally desirable changes are good. As only change affects the world, only actions have moral value. Intent is morally null and can't affect the moral value of action.

I'm with you up until you separate actions from intent, but intent is what provokes the action. Would you consider it appropriate to assign moral value to an accident? An action without intent behind it is no different from an accident.

[The New Sea Territory]

My morals are based on my Catholic and conservative views.

Theist Relativism, I see.

[The New Sea Territory]

Morality is subjective. I believe that a Voluntaryist moral guide would be the most pragmatic and beneficial for the human species to exist and abide by.

[Insaeldor]

I based my morals on what I believe is humane and I try to follow the golden re of do on to others as you wish others to do to you. Philosophically I'm a moral and ethical absolutist as in a believe we do have universal values to some degree.

[Proskoya]

No name for it, but I just basically feel that I don't really care about things unless they pander to my health of both mind and body.

Not to say that in a life or death situation I wouldn't try to save someone, just that instead of their own good, I would probably be doing it just so my consciousness doesn't get to me. If it weren't for that I'd be the most heartless motherfucker out there. On other issues, it's the golden rule for me because I'd like to actually have people be nice to me rather than to be hated. I feel as if nothing is truly wrong as long as the individual benefits from it.

[Calisu]

I believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I believe this is what laws, politics and economics should be based around.

[Digital Planets]

No name for it, but I just basically feel that I don't really care about things unless they pander to my health of both mind and body.

Not to say that in a life or death situation I wouldn't try to save someone, just that instead of their own good, I would probably be doing it just so my consciousness doesn't get to me. If it weren't for that I'd be the most heartless motherfucker out there. On other issues, it's the golden rule for me because I'd like to actually have people be nice to me rather than to be hated. I feel as if nothing is truly wrong as long as the individual benefits from it.

That's called apathy.

[Novia Soviet Socialist Republic]

My morals involve minding my own business and believing others should do the same unless it effects someone other than that person. This I hate people who put the milk in first when making a cup of tea.

[The Unites State-Of-Minds]

I would argue that Morality, and ethics as a whole by extension, are purely human constructs and that there is nothing inherently right or wrong in the world. Nature is indifferent to the struggles of man regardless of circumstance, as it is towards the rest of life.

[CTALNH]

i. We want to stop suffering.
ii. Existential suffering is the sole universal suffering.
iii. Intersubjectivity can lessen existential suffering through empathy.
iv. Intersubjectivity requires the absence of conflict.
v. Agape eliminates conflict.
vi. Therefore, agape is good. Its absence is evil.
viii. Actions according with agape are good and actions discording with agape are evil.

Basically, play nice.

And make sure not to fuck your son/daughter you sold in forced prostitution.

I would say if I was an Athenian.

[Rexero]

Ethical judgments fundamentally concern how the world should be. The very existence of ethics suggests the world is not ideal, and so ethics seeks to identify the changes that would realize an ideal world and adapt our behavior toward enacting these changes.

Actions are objects that cause change. The most morally desirable changes are good. As only change affects the world, only actions have moral value. Intent is morally null and can't affect the moral value of action.

I'm with you up until you separate actions from intent, but intent is what provokes the action. Would you consider it appropriate to assign moral value to an accident? An action without intent behind it is no different from an accident.

Moral agents are sentient beings that act. A moral action is a voluntary action committed by a moral agent: involuntary actions cannot have moral value because ethics concerns how moral agents should act (this being a voluntary decision) to realise the ideal world. Involuntary actions are beyond the control of moral agents and so we cannot treat them as moral actions.

Actions committed without intent are involuntary actions and include accidents. They have no moral value because they are not moral actions. For a moral agent to act, it must have the intent to act: therefore, moral agents cannot commit involuntary actions, including accidents.

Only the actions voluntarily committed by moral agents have moral value. Accidents have no moral value.

Now, if ethics concerns how moral agents should act to realise the ideal world, then intent remains null because the objective of ethics is the realisation of the ideal world. A good action is good because it helps realise the ideal world, not because the moral agent committing the action has the intent of acting to realise the ideal world. A moral agent can act with the intent to help realise the ideal world, but if its action hinders the realisation of the ideal world, then its action is bad, because bad actions hinder the realisation of the ideal world. Ethics is concerned with action: intent is not action and is therefore morally valueless.

[Immoren]

Discordian morality.

[Neutraligon]

Self interest and empathy.

[Obsidius]

Utilitarianism, cronyism, nepotism and empathy. Kindness to those who deserve it. Secular humanism for the win. I think this sums this up.

[Infected Mushroom]

My morality is based on Conscience, Justice and Law and Order.

[Zaldakki]

My morality is the basically accepted morality in the west, but with a bit of an extreme twist. I believe selflessness is morally good, and greed is morally bad. Coercion, I believe, is morally bad, and voluntary and egalitarian social relationships are good.

How is that an extreme twist?

[The New Sea Territory]

My morality is the basically accepted morality in the west, but with a bit of an extreme twist. I believe selflessness is morally good, and greed is morally bad. Coercion, I believe, is morally bad, and voluntary and egalitarian social relationships are good.

How is that an extreme twist?

He's an anarchist, thus much more radical about it.

[Trotskylvania]

I am a moral realist of the acts utilitarian variety. It's boring, dependable and it works, and thus I am the bane of trolley problems and their authors everywhere.

[Great Kleomentia]

I'm a Secular Humanist and Utilitarian I suppose.

Pretty much this.

[Allector]

Morality is essentially just a broad concept of what is right and wrong, good or bad. Ethics is where we see the application and specific interpretations of the concept of right and wrong. Of course, there are many ethical philosophies and I don't really think there is one specific philosophy which we can call correct. However, I do believe that morality itself is objective in nature in that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, but that these answers do not lie with individual and what they believe to be subjectively right or wrong.

As for myself, I borrow bits and pieces from various ethical philosophies. Notably, I follow Aristotelian ethics and portions of Kantian ethics. With regards to Kantian ethics, I agree with the 2nd formulation of the Categorical Imperative--essentially where you do not treat humanity as mere means to an end--and with the concept that if something is to be good, it must be both intrinsically good and never contributes to moral negation. Aside from those two things though, I find Kant's theory largely and unnecessarily restrictive. This is where Aristotelian/Nichomachean ethics comes in for me which is concerned not so much with mere actions, but rather the character as a whole. For those who don't know of or haven't studied Aristotelian ethics, basically a person is moral and their actions when they act as a person of virtuous or excellent character would. It is of course more complicated than I can explain here, but that's the general idea.

I feel Aristotelian ethics acts as a nice bridge between moral objectivity and subjectivity as there are objective things you must do to be moral but that there are subjective ways in which you can accomplish this. In essence, there are right and wrong answers, but how you arrive at these answers can vary. I wrote two papers which further explain this and I can furnish them if anyone wants to read them. They're beasts though, both 10+ in length and very heavy in vocabulary.

[Meridiani Planum]

But, what is your morality? How does it differ forms others'.

Mine is a form of virtue ethics similar to that found in Ayn Rand's ethics. It is a form of principled individualism.