[Xmca-l] Re: Anniversary for Sakharov's Essay

[Andy Blunden]

There are different definitions, Annalisa, according to
which current of thinking is relevant.


"Ethics" is derived from the Greek roots for the same words
from which "moral" is derived from Latin roots. So in
philosophy, the two words were interchangeable until Hegel.
Kant's Moral Philosophy was his Ethical theory. Hegel gave
the two words distinct meanings. In short (!), morals are
rules one makes for oneself and ethics are rules created by
society. Nothing to do with sex or religion of course. So
far as I know, after Hegel, all philosophy in that tradition
incorporates Hegel's distinction. I couldn't answer for how
the terms are used in analytical philosophy, and in the
common language the two words have taken on different
connotations.


Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 23/07/2018 12:33 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, I looked up the definitions of the words
> "morals" and "ethics" and apparently ethics is the
> system-word to organize morals, the particular-word. It
> was useful to me, because I had always considered morals
> as a religiously informed and somewhat arbitrary. Ethics
> to me always had a more-grounded meaning and I thought
> more scientific in terms of application. This is just
> sharing my own projections upon the words themselves.
>
>
> Now, what if there were a system of laws that have nothing
> to do with being human, but with being itself? Something
> pervasive to us and yet beyond us, at the same time?
>
>
> What if any human construct of morality/ethics (religious,
> humanistic, bohemian, etc) were in some fashion made of
> this material system of cause and effect, in a analogous
> manner that gold can be shaped as a watch, as a coin, a
> ring, a tooth filling, or an electronic conductor on the
> motherboard of a computer?
>
>
> We would say then, if we did not know that these objects
> have anything in common (that they are made of gold), that
> these objects are *essentially* different and have nothing
> to do with each other, because they have different
> applications and purposes, and consequently, to extend the
> metaphor, there would be an appearance of instances of
> morality and ethics being arbitrary and separate, and
> their values being solely conditioned by culture, history,
> and so forth, and not determined by something more
> essential or basic. There might be overlap (some objects
> relate to one another because they are jewelry), but that
> also has an appearance of happenstance, arising from
> historical coupling and human habits of appropriation and
> borrowing.
>
>
> And yet, if we were to take these two very different
> explanations of how a system of ethics/morals is produced
> or manifests, our perception of them would be identical in
> the way that to observe a clay pot, looking at the pot and
> looking at the clay, we are looking at the same objects
> (pot and clay, plate and clay, vase and clay) in the same
> lociis (what is the plural of loci? My Latin grammar fails
> me).
>
>
> In a religious system of morals, there is an explanation
> offered that to follow the system has a goal (that is
> assumed that everyone shares) and this end goal to be
> closer to god-ness, whether that means as a reward for
> winning a deity's favor with our good behavior, or as a
> way of appeasing those in our tribe that we are
> successfully socialized to perform our duty as a
> participant with minimal conflict or punishment, exile or
> banishment. 
>
>
> If we take god-ness out of the equation, and we possess no
> motivation except to get along with others in order to
> maintain fitness and survivability, how does it look any
> different? It's still cause and effect.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Annalisa
>
>
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180723/22284103/attachment.html