Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 10:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:40 am
I agree with the above except:
I define
morality as the management of evil to enable the emergence of the related good.
What is
evil is related to anything that has potentiality of fatality and is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individuals and that of humanity.
Objectively speaking there is no good nor evil.
Like I said....all value judgments, including good/bad, are based on a triangulation, between a subject, its objective, and its appreciation of the effort, distance separating the two.
So, if the objective is survival, or if the objective is power, this alters the triangulating relationships, changing what is considered to be 'good' and what 'bad.'
Every culture has its own ideals, its own objectives. Each ideal is aligned with reality to different degrees, some ideals existing entirely "outside" reality, beyond existence, such as the Abrahamic one-god.
This inverts the triangulations entirely, changing their relationships. In this case the distance between subject and its objective (god) is eternal.....it can never be bridged. this is intentional, because the subject is placed in a perpetual state of failure - sinfulness, desperation, seeking salvation from its predicament, and it is given this solution in the form of submission, with a reward after death.
I agree there is no absolute evil nor good.
The term 'evil' and 'good' in 'objective' in the sense of intersubjectivity or the triangulation within a specific framework and system.
In addition, we must have an exhaustive and specific set of conducts and acts that are defined as evil.
Every culture or group will have its own objectives but they are sub-objective to the generic objective of the human species.
For example there is the main objective of the digestive and nutrition system which is generic to ALL humans.
However different culture or group would have its sub-objectives in how to produce, prepare and consume the food that serve the main objectives of the digestive and nutrition system, which is a sub-objective of the greater objective of survival.
It is the same with the moral function and system within ALL humans.
The problem is the generic moral system within ALL human is very subtle and not so noticeable, thus leaving most to focus on its sub-objectives.
Ethics is the applied system to achieve the ultimate objectives of morality.
Ethics will facilitate the individuals to be progressively moral naturally and spontaneously within any coercions from rules, threat of hell, punishment and the like.
I use morality/ethics to differentiate evolved from manmade adjustments.
Genetically determined, leading to mimetically alterations, based on human objectives.
A distinction which is crucial in understanding what morality is and why it is so important to species like us.
Species that have adopted a cooperative method of survival and procreation.
There is no absolute meaning to a word.
At present the terms 'morality' and 'ethics' are too loose and used interchangeably.
As I understand and will use, 'ethics' is the main term that covers whatever is deemed good conduct for the well-being and flourishing for the individuals and humanity.
Morality deal with the principles [theory], thus is the "pure" aspect.
Ethics is used again to denote the 'applied' [practices] aspect.
If we do not define and agree upon the terms, the discussion will go all over the place.
As such I do not see ethics as the collective rules imposing restriction to individual behaviors.
Such rules would be related to customs, traditions, culture, politics [legislation] and other constitutional rules.
Ethics are additional methods of enforcement.
They express collective approval of individual actions, relative to the welfare of the group.
For instance, inter-group violence is detrimental to group cohesion, negatively affecting its cohesiveness. So social species have evolved the alpha who is a peace keeper.
In human systems where it is attempted to integrate racially and culturally heterogenous populations, law and order, ethical rules concerning murder, adultery, also prevent inter-group strife.
Infanticide is immoral in nature because it decreases a groups effectiveness, but infanticide is not immoral when it is against another group.
We see this in the ethical stance towards abortion within heterogenous systems, where the aborted foetus has no genetic relationship with most of the members of the social group.
Why?
Because if this practice is normalized the entire group will slowly decline, unable to sustain its human resources.
Ethics is applied morality [pure] which may involved establishment of rules as guidance.
Laws and Rules can come in the following forms;
1. Personal moral restraint and development
2. Group, organizational, and the like
3. Political, government,
I believe rules [laws] governing human conduct to avoid evil involving political laws and policing is too specialized [the legislation and judiciary system] that it can be dealt on its own, thus to be separated from ethics.
Ethics is most effective and pragmatic to be confined to personal [the individual] and non-political groups, e.g. medical ethics, financial and other social groups.
Also morality and ethics should be confined to humans only, while humans need to be humane to animals.
Infanticide is immoral in nature because in theory, the
principle if applied universally and everyone can do it, then that will result in the extinction of the human species.
So, principle [theory] wise, infanticide is an absolute no, i.e. morally impermissible.
But ethics wise, exceptions [upon the greatest care and critical thinking in certain conditions] can be made with full mindfulness of the universal moral principle.
