Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:If I had my way, you'd all be shot!

Just make sure you clean the needle between shootings.

I am not sure, that I agree with Avatar on this one. Law is often a formalisation of what the lawmakers consider universaly good (or beneficial). So law often has to do with morality, and vice versa. When people have lived with a law for a few generations they come to consider it moral. Countrys applying the sharia for instance consider it moral to use what i consider excessive corporeal punishment. Majorities of inhabitans in countrys enforcing death penalty consider it moraly right to kill, so long as the person killed is a sufficiently big SOB.

In the Danish language (which is in other respects much poorer than the English) we consider the word 'moral' to be connected to laws and society (and religion if you are of that observation). On the other hand, we apply the term 'ethics' to a universally acceptable code of conduct. This means that ethics is completely abstract, while moral becomes very tangible. Of course people using the term ethics will always think that they know what is universally good, but the important thing is, that ethics remain abstract.

Good post, Prebe. You've checked out the Tank, right?

Thanks.

Once and again Syl. Even had a bash at the Obesity Plague thread.

Prebe wrote:I am not sure, that I agree with Avatar on this one. Law is often a formalisation of what the lawmakers consider universaly good (or beneficial). So law often has to do with morality, and vice versa. When people have lived with a law for a few generations they come to consider it moral.

Emphasis mine naturally. What I'm trying to highlight there is that it's still a "human" idea. Law may have to do with the preception of morality, but that is not to say that law is necessarily "moral" per se. Certainly I can think of many examples of law which I do not consider moral.

Prebe wrote:Countrys applying the sharia for instance consider it moral to use what i consider excessive corporeal punishment. Majorities of inhabitans in countrys enforcing death penalty consider it moraly right to kill, so long as the person killed is a sufficiently big SOB.

So what you're saying there is that, despite the fact that the people in those countries consider it "moral," you do not? And yet legally, in those countries, it is moral.

Prebe wrote:In the Danish language (which is in other respects much poorer than the English) we consider the word 'moral' to be connected to laws and society (and religion if you are of that observation). On the other hand, we apply the term 'ethics' to a universally acceptable code of conduct. This means that ethics is completely abstract, while moral becomes very tangible. Of course people using the term ethics will always think that they know what is universally good, but the important thing is, that ethics remain abstract.

And why should morality be any less abstract? Something illegal is not necessarily immoral is it? Just because people frequently percieve it to be so, (and indeed, are encouraged to believe it), does not make that so.

--A

Avatar wrote:So what you're saying there is that, despite the fact that the people in those countries consider it "moral," you do not? And yet legally, in those countries, it is moral.

I am saying that according to their moral standards (that are products of the society and to some extend law) it is moral. I consider it unethical, and as seen from a Danish moral standpoint it is also immoral.

What I am arguing here is really semantics. My main point being that moral is very much something a society creates; either through habit or through law, while ethics is something more individual, and if it applies to a whole population an ethical principle is elevated to moral. So what you are discussing here are ethical principles and not moral.

Prebe wrote:My main point being that moral is very much something a society creates...

Then we don't disagree in essence, I think, as that's my standpoint as well. Society, through experience/experiment decides on what is moral or not.

--A

I think the only thing we disagree on is, whether moral can be thought of in conjunction with law (be that religious or secular).

Hmm, it certainly is thought of that way, sure. (Due in part at least to the efforts of the law-makers.) Which means that it can be. Perhaps a more important question is should it be?

Should we assume that whatever is illegal is also immoral? Personally, I don't like to give the law (or those who put it in place) that much credit.

--A

Some things that are illegal are not immoral (like a parking meter expiring). There's no hard and fast rule.

It look like my definition of moral is not the official one (though I had ethics correctly picked )

Dictionary.com wrote:Synonyms: moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous
These adjectives mean in accord with right or good conduct. Moral applies to personal character and behavior, especially sexual conduct: “Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights” (Jimmy Carter). Ethical stresses idealistic standards of right and wrong: “Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants” (Omar N. Bradley). Virtuous implies moral excellence and loftiness of character: “The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous” (Frederick Douglass). Righteous emphasizes moral uprightness; when it is applied to actions, reactions, or impulses, it often implies justifiable outrage: “He was... stirred by righteous wrath” (John Galsworthy).