morality and ethics

[JBeukema]

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

 

[ZhaoYun]

As is generally the case, I endeavor, as well as I am able, to behave in accordance with my morals, which are founded in my ethics.
I don't understand, particularly since you have distinguished morality and ethics, what you mean when you say "sense of morality". I spent many years developing my understanding of both, and believe, like every other idiot, that they are self justifying.
And an example would be helpful for me in understanding the third question, about society and it's "ethical codes".

 

[Tinktink]

My question here is why in the world is this posted here? Religion has nothing to do with morality or ethics, considering religious faith is based on neither.


Doesn't this belong in Health and Life style?

 

[JBeukema]

As is generally the case, I endeavor, as well as I am able, to behave in accordance with my morals, which are founded in my ethics.

I don't understand, particularly since you have distinguished morality and ethics, what you mean when you say "sense of morality".

One's personal morality...

I spent many years developing my understanding of both, and believe, like every other idiot, that they are self justifying.

(emphasis added)

And an example would be helpful for me in understanding the third question, about society and it's "ethical codes".

Simple: what ethical system do you support, or how do you feel a society should cvome to agree to one?

My question here is why in the world is this posted here?

why is a morality and ethics thread posted in 'religion and ethics'?

are you serious?

Religion has nothing to do with morality or ethics,

aint that the truth

Doesn't this belong in Health and Life style?

 

[ST34]

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

both

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

in both these cases religion is not only useless but even harmful
on the other hand, in both cases can be helpful some ethical theories, and especially such like utilitarianism, which is saying that: 'good is what is useful' so 'the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its results' and usually useful is this what is rational

basing on such principles, I for example deem that abortion is wrong because I wouldn't want to be in place of killed child, gay marriages are wrong because evolution created normal sexuality and not abnormal, penalties for criminals should be high, because I would prefer to meet with the same criminal after fifty years than after one year, and so on

 

[manifold]

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

Yes

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

No

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

Very carefully

 

[JBeukema]

basing on such principles.... gay marriages are wrong because evolution created normal sexuality and not abnormal, penalties for criminals should be high, because I would prefer to meet with the same criminal after fifty years than after one year, and so on

I disagree. Homosexual behavior is seen in many species in nature, and is therefore natural. This renders your argument that ' evolution created normal sexuality and not abnormal' meaningless and fallacious. Nature renders that which is natural. That which is natural is normal. That includes homosexuality. Furthermore, homosexuality could be a side effect of sexually antagonistic evolution (thereby being a signal of 'positive' development of a population), and serve to feminize male brains so they adopt 'feminine' roles (such as protecting children while most males are away, while being larger and stronger than females on average) while simultaneously serving as a natural means of birth control

 

[ST34]

and what do you think about abortion ?

what do you think about high penalties for criminals ?

That which is natural is normal. That includes homosexuality

Homosexuality is abnormal from biological point of view, Evolution created sexuality as mechanism of reproduction, it isn't work in cases of dysfunctions and sicknesses (it wouldn't exist without reproduction, it arose ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION and nothing else, too strong feminization of male brains is contradictory with this fundamental principle). Your 'basing' on Science is in this case untrue and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC.

your way of thinking in this case is too schematic, you should read my other thread:
'democrats' and 'republicans' in all areas ?

 

[DamnYankee]

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

What difference does it make? It isn't going to change anything.

 

[JBeukema]

and what do you think about abortion ?

Opposed, save for medical necessity

what do you think about high penalties for criminals ?

define 'high penalties'

Homosexuality is abnormal from biological point of view

Incorrect. Normality is that which is 'normal' or common. This is the same argument I refuted above; you have merely replaces 'unnatural' with 'abnormal'. You must do more than play this silly game of semantics to rebut my refutation.

, Evolution created sexuality as mechanism of reproduction,

Evolution did not 'create' sexuality 'as' anything or for any purpose. That which made more copies of itself has a higher probability of prorogation, nothing more. Furthermore, you have yet top demonstrate that it is 'good' to be 'normal' or to reproduce.

it isn't work in cases of dysfunctions and sicknesses (it wouldn't exist without reproduction, it arose ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION

It arose for no purpose. It arose because those creatures that engaged in it made more of themselves more efficiently than those that did not. There is no purpose or goal when it comes to evolution. To personify the process in such a manner as you have is fallacious.

and nothing else, too strong feminization of male brains is contradictory with this fundamental principle)

Incorrect. Evolution effect populations, not individuals. If feminized males engage in behaviors that have the effect of being beneficial for the survival of the population,. one would expect them to remain around. Remember that one need not reproduce to 'succeed' in tthe 'game' of evolution; to have one's close relatives reproduce (passing along the same genomes/alleles) is also 'success' by the same standard.

. Your 'basing' on Science is in this case untrue

Incorrect. My basis is valid, while yours relies on fallacious personification. I draw conclusions based on the evidence, while you seek out evidence to support your conclusion. Your entire approach is fallacious and unscientific in nature.

your way of thinking in this case is too schematic,

My thinking in this matter is based on rational thought, where yours is based on justification of your beliefs and personal opinions.

 

[JBeukema]

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

What difference does it make? It isn't going to change anything.

Why respond if you have no intention of answering or conmtributing to the discussion?

 

[DamnYankee]

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

What difference does it make? It isn't going to change anything.

Why respond if you have no intention of answering or conmtributing to the discussion?

That was a contribution. How you or I feel about how society should approach an ethical code is irrelevant. And even if, by some chance we were to have some influence on the decision making, what is it that makes behavior acceptable? Isn't that what you want to know? Isn't it subjective, which is the problem in the first place?

 

[dilloduck]

My question here is why in the world is this posted here? Religion has nothing to do with morality or ethics, considering religious faith is based on neither.


Doesn't this belong in Health and Life style?

and your sense of morality is based on ---------the constitution ? Dr. Phil ? mother nature ?

 

[Oddball]

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

"Morality" is so vague and subjective that it's way easier to define that which is immoral, insofar as peaceful non-aggressive individuals are concerned.

For starters:

Does it impose an obligation upon someone to perform without their expressed consent (merely existing doesn't count as "consent")?

Does it proactively attempt to "protect" someone from themself?

Does it aggressively take from the productive and/or many in order to feather the nests of the unproductive and/or few, respectively?

Is it aggressive under color of peace?...Is it compulsion under color of choice?

 

[ST34]

I spent many years developing my understanding of both, and believe, like every other idiot, that they are self justifying.

I don't think that they are self justifying, they are basing and they should basing on valuation and rational reflexion

"Morality" is so vague and subjective

your questions are interesting but I don't think that Morality is vague and subjective - it is in fact basing and it should basing on rational valuation, can be founded on such conceptions like utilitarianism, so it is concrete and objective (but it can be mistaken, and in this is contained subjectivity)

and what do you think about abortion ?

Opposed, save for medical necessity

I agree, in this point you are not schematic
I did answer on your questions and what are your answers on your three questions ?

Homosexual behavior is seen in many species in nature, and is therefore natural. This renders your argument that ' evolution created normal sexuality and not abnormal' meaningless and fallacious. Nature renders that which is natural. That which is natural is normal. That includes homosexuality

sicknesses are also seen in many species in nature, but they aren't normal (and even natural) because of this; homosexuality is sickness and is unnatural and abnormal

homosexuality could be a side effect of sexually antagonistic evolution (thereby being a signal of 'positive' development of a population)

AIDS can also be a signal of 'positive' development of a population

Evolution created sexuality as mechanism of reproduction,

Evolution did not 'create' sexuality 'as' anything or for any purpose. That which made more copies of itself has a higher probability of prorogation, nothing more. Furthermore, you have yet top demonstrate that it is 'good' to be 'normal' or to reproduce.

'Evolution created sexuality as mechanism of reproduction' you should read as 'sexuality arose in the way of Evolution as mechanism of reproduction'

and nothing else, too strong feminization of male brains is contradictory with this fundamental principle)

Incorrect. Evolution effect populations, not individuals. If feminized males engage in behaviors that have the effect of being beneficial for the survival of the population,. one would expect them to remain around. Remember that one need not reproduce to 'succeed' in tthe 'game' of evolution; to have one's close relatives reproduce (passing along the same genomes/alleles) is also 'success' by the same standard.

false, 'If feminized males engage in behaviors that have the effect of being beneficial for the survival of the population' but they don't, as same as ill with AIDS males don't

feminized males can cause significant or mass-development of homosexuality in society, and effect would be the same as significant or mass-development of AIDS - DEGENERATION, OR IN EXTREME CASE DEATH OF SPECIES

Your way of thinking in this matter is extremely irrational, subjective and illogical

 

[JBeukema]

homosexulity is sickness

Incorrect. It cannot be shown to stem from any malfunctioning of the body. No respected medical authorities support your assertions. You must demonstrate that it is an illness that can strike, be prevented, and be cured. You must demonstrate what causes the illness and demonstrate how it can be seen and treated as such. Your mere assertions are meaningless without evidence and a demonstration of your reasoning. Until such time as you provide that, my refutation stands and you have yet to rebut.

AIDS can also be a signal of 'positive' development of a population

Demonstrate how the HIV virus has any positive effect upon a population. It does not; rather, it can wipe out an entire population while offering no evolutionary advantage whatsoever. Once again, you put forth a foolish assertion with no demonstration. If you keep this up, I will have to conclude that reason escapes you and I am wasting my time acting as though you are capable of intelligent thought. It is beginning to appear that I have grossly overestimated your intelligence and reasoning ability.

false, 'If feminized males engage in behaviors that have the effect of being beneficial for the survival of the population' but they don't

I have provided examples of how they do; for instance, being more likely to be engaged in the care of the child in a manner more common among females, providing a protector for the offspring that that is generally stronger (physically) than females. I have also forwarded sexually antagonistic evolution as one potential source for cases of homosexuality. Once again, you fail to refute my points, offering only your foolish assertions and your own ignorance as a rebuttal.

, as same as ill with AIDS males don't

Now you're just being dishonest, and your fallacies are getting more glaring.

feminized males can cause significant or mass-development of homosexuality in society

Demonstrate. Now you're just forwarded the old fallacious bullshit about how they'll somehow 'turn others gay' and trigger a mass depopulation. Not only is this utterly ludicrous on the face of it, but you have failed to provide any supporting argument or evidence for these outlandish assertions.

Your way of thinking in this matter is extremely irrational, subjective and illogical

Incorrect,. I have followed the evidence, you have not. I have presented my case, you have merely forwarded your own ignorance are preconcieved opinions. I expect an intelligent rebuttal to my refutation, or I will cease to waste my time with you.

 

[ST34]

homosexuality could be a side effect of sexually antagonistic evolution (thereby being a signal of 'positive' development of a population)

AIDS can also be a signal of 'positive' development of a population

Now you're just being dishonest

you didn't understand meaning of this comment, wake up man, 'AIDS can also be a signal of 'positive' development of a population' you should read as 'AIDS can be a signal of negative development of a population'

so I am not dishonest, but you are - because you are defending some immoral standpoint and writing out some thoughtless slogans containing no sense

you are able to present only your ignorance on the field of Biology and mindlessness, so better start to think like serious man or I will have to end this discussion with you

I wrote explicitly:

Evolution created sexuality as mechanism of reproduction, it isn't work in cases of dysfunctions and sicknesses (it wouldn't exist without reproduction, it arose ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION and nothing else)

finito

 

[editec]

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

I suspect most people pick and choose morals v ethics according to which they think works best for them at the moment.

For example, christians are told it is moral to love their neighbor as themselves.

But ethical businessmen are told to charge whatever the market will bear.

Obviously one cannot both love thy neighbor as theyself while sticking it to thy neighbor in a business deal.

So can an honest christian choosing to follow the dicates of his religion also be a ethical businessman?

I think the answer is really no, he cannot.

Those two codes of conduct are really antithetical, aren't they?

So most christians will rationalize abandoning their moral code in favor of the business ethical code.

They will tell themselves something along the lines that they are rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasars, or something like that.

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

Yes, most of us do that.

How do we do that?

Ex post facto, usually.

We typically react first and then find the moral or ethical code that we think justifies our actions

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

I think they should consult me, personally.

It might not be a better world for them, but I think I'd like it a lot more,

 

[Neser Boha]

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

"[Ethics is] is the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual. Christian ethics and Albert Schweitzer's ethics are examples."

-- John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995

What is 'moral' has a matter-of-fact sound to it and what is 'ethical' has a 'I read it somewhere' or 'someone else said' sound to it. I have both my own sense of what is right and wrong, but when in doubt, I do apply what others think of certain issues.

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

Do I seek to justify it... hmm. Sometimes, when I feel the need to. Other times, when I think it is such a matter of fact issue, I do not seek to justify it. Obviously, it depends on the issue and my attitude towards it.

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

That is an age-long question and I myself am rather puzzled by it. I've thought about it many times before and each time I gave up while trying to come up with any definite answers (especially while thinking about complex ethical issues).

I do think the major tenets of our 'ethical code' have to be set in stone as they are and enforced by law: no to murder, no to intentional physical/psychological harm, etc. However, when it comes to certain issues that are rather more complex - when different 'rights' and ethical principles get entangled together - I don't think that any law can be applied to it...

I know laws are not synonymous with 'ethics', but they are largely based on them and when people are discussing laws, they always talk about ethics and vice versa...

Anywho, this is a huge and difficult topic...

 

[Neser Boha]

homosexuality could be a side effect of sexually antagonistic evolution (thereby being a signal of 'positive' development of a population)

AIDS can also be a signal of 'positive' development of a population

Now you're just being dishonest

you didn't understand meaning of this comment, wake up man, 'AIDS can also be a signal of 'positive' development of a population' you should read as 'AIDS can be a signal of negative development of a population'

so I am not dishonest, but you are - because you are defending some immoral standpoint and writing out some thoughtless slogans containing no sense

you are able to present only your ignorance on the field of Biology and mindlessness, so better start to think like serious man or I will have to end this discussion with you

I wrote explicitly:

Evolution created sexuality as mechanism of reproduction, it isn't work in cases of dysfunctions and sicknesses (it wouldn't exist without reproduction, it arose ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION and nothing else)

finito

Ooooh! JB, you better straighten up or he will... end ... this .... discussion .... with.... you (just plug these words in Fight Club's 'this discussion is over' scene)



Great comedy, do carry on Please!