"ethics" has is no relationship, to "morality"

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
WHYMASTER47
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:09 pm
Location: lower peninsula of Chesapeake Bay

"ethics" has is no relationship, to "morality"

Post by WHYMASTER47 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:33 am

Hello All,
I do not see Ethics as a branch of Philosophy. Maybe Religion mostly Illusion.

(FWIS) (From Where I Stand)
It is more of a depression of freedom, inflicted by those who are more skilled at concealing their own moral slights.
Morality is a personal stance and is not shared to be judged by peers, and I question, that there is such thing, as peers at all.
Any one given to retaliation for a breach of Ethics can no longer claim to be a peer.
"ethics" has is no relationship, to "morality"
One can not exist in the Presents of the other.
"Morality" must be abandoned to conform to "ethics."
In an attempt to forget that we are alone, that the self creates the illusion of peers.
Peers can help to fade loneliness but not aloneness.
Aloneness is the residences of "Morality." "Morality" can exist within ones own being, but not beyond.
"Morality" steers ones actions, one must give-up the steering to form "ethics."
"ethics." Is a rest-bet form the responsibility of the Self.
"Morality" does not exist in relationship to the being, "Morality" is "Being."
Actions of "Morality" have no choices.!!!
"ethics" exist among peers, but judgments of right and wrong, do not come from a peer.

Your E-Pal OMJerry WHYMASTER47@cox.net
So Group, WHAT SAY YOU ???

Ginkgo
Posts: 2583
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: "ethics" has is no relationship, to "morality"

Post by Ginkgo » Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:09 am

WHYMASTER47 wrote:Hello All,
I do not see Ethics as a branch of Philosophy. Maybe Religion mostly Illusion.

(FWIS) (From Where I Stand)
It is more of a depression of freedom, inflicted by those who are more skilled at concealing their own moral slights.
Morality is a personal stance and is not shared to be judged by peers, and I question, that there is such thing, as peers at all.
Any one given to retaliation for a breach of Ethics can no longer claim to be a peer.
"ethics" has is no relationship, to "morality"
One can not exist in the Presents of the other.
"Morality" must be abandoned to conform to "ethics."
In an attempt to forget that we are alone, that the self creates the illusion of peers.
Peers can help to fade loneliness but not aloneness.
Aloneness is the residences of "Morality." "Morality" can exist within ones own being, but not beyond.
"Morality" steers ones actions, one must give-up the steering to form "ethics."
"ethics." Is a rest-bet form the responsibility of the Self.
"Morality" does not exist in relationship to the being, "Morality" is "Being."
Actions of "Morality" have no choices.!!!
"ethics" exist among peers, but judgments of right and wrong, do not come from a peer.

Your E-Pal OMJerry WHYMASTER47@cox.net
So Group, WHAT SAY YOU ???


Does this mean that non religious concepts of good/bad, right /wrong are always a form a first person point of view while only religion that tries to give an objective account?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest