Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Welcome to the forum → The Lounge → That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

German nationalist party ...
Yesterday at 10:31 AM
New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM
Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM
Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Poll

  • Question: Should an elderly brother & sister couple engaging in mutually consensual incest without any coercion be automatically imprisoned?  (Voting closed: February 13, 2010, 08:52 PM)
  • Yes - 0 (0%)
  • No - 13 (100%)
  • Total Voters: 13

 Topic: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!

 (Read 6384 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #30 - February 16, 2010, 10:45 PM
    One is an attempt to codify right and wrong in a subjective manner, the other does it in an objective manner.
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #31 - February 16, 2010, 10:49 PM
    Ethics are arrived at through rational inquiry, morals aren't necessarily. For most people who engage in rational inquiry regarding such matters, but aren't professional philosophers, there is significant overlap between the two. I know there is in my case, which is why I tend to use the terms somewhat interchangeably or in combination with each other.

    Quote from: IsLame on February 16, 2010, 10:45 PM
    One is an attempt to codify right and wrong in a subjective manner, the other does it in an objective manner.


    Um, no, since there are both objective and subjective ethics.
    fuck you
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #32 - February 16, 2010, 10:52 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on February 16, 2010, 10:45 PM
    One is an attempt to codify right and wrong in a subjective manner, the other does it in an objective manner.


    How does ethics do that. Not disgreeing with you, just not that informed about this matter as I always thought we derived our morality from ethics but not everyone agrees on ethics so therefore morals vary. I would think there is usully a consensus during a place at a particular time within a culture what is right and wrong.
    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #33 - February 16, 2010, 11:04 PM
    Quote from: Q-Man on February 16, 2010, 10:49 PM
    Ethics are arrived at through rational inquiry, morals aren't necessarily. For most people who engage in rational inquiry regarding such matters, but aren't professional philosophers, there is significant overlap between the two. I know there is in my case, which is why I tend to use the terms somewhat interchangeably or in combination with each other.

    Um, no, since there are both objective and subjective ethics.



    I study philsoophy and all of my teachers use the words ethics and morality interchangeably. This goes for all the philosophers I have read too...
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #34 - February 16, 2010, 11:07 PM
    Quote from: Q-Man on February 16, 2010, 10:49 PM
    Um, no, since there are both objective and subjective ethics.

    You could say the same about rational enquiry, and even then some peoples ethics dont even follow that.. it pretty much impossible to give a simple one line explanation, as even the definition of the word ethics and how it comes about will be subjective as you just showed..

    Quote from: Heyjustlooking on February 16, 2010, 10:52 PM
    How does ethics do that. Not disgreeing with you, just not that informed about this matter as I always thought we derived our morality from ethics but not everyone agrees on ethics so therefore morals vary. I would think there is usully a consensus during a place at a particular time within a culture what is right and wrong.

    There is a wide defintion of ethics & a wide definition of what morality is - I was just answering it on how I see those defintions from my personal purist perspective - actually from a 100% purist perspective, I would probably say morality doesnt derive from ethics, but from religion & through another lens I would say ethics derives from philosophy
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #35 - February 16, 2010, 11:11 PM
    Quote from: Heyjustlooking on February 16, 2010, 10:52 PM
    How does ethics do that. Not disgreeing with you, just not that informed about this matter as I always thought we derived our morality from ethics but not everyone agrees on ethics so therefore morals vary. I would think there is usully a consensus during a place at a particular time within a culture what is right and wrong.


    You're quite right. Morality is a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong, good and bad. Ethics is the study of morality.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #36 - February 16, 2010, 11:11 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on February 16, 2010, 11:04 PM
    I study philsoophy and all of my teachers use the words ethics and morality interchangeably. This goes for all the philosophers I have read too...


    Right, but the field of philosophy that deals with these topics is most often called "Ethics" not "Morals". So the term "ethics" itself presupposes rational inquiry, whereas "morals" does not necessarily presuppose that.
    fuck you
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #37 - February 16, 2010, 11:12 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on February 16, 2010, 11:04 PM
    I study philsoophy and all of my teachers use the words ethics and morality interchangeably. This goes for all the philosophers I have read too...

    i wonder what how the dictionaries differ.. according to OED

    Quote
    ethics =  the moral principles governing or influencing conduct. 2 the branch of knowledge concerned with moral principles.
    morality =   principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. 2 the extent to which an action is right or wrong. 3 a system of values and moral principles.


    Can anyone spot the difference according to these 2 definitions?
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #38 - February 16, 2010, 11:13 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on February 16, 2010, 11:07 PM
    You could say the same about rational enquiry, and even then some peoples ethics dont even follow that.. it pretty much impossible to give a simple one line explanation, as even the definition of the word ethics and how it comes about will be subjective as you just showed..


    Actually, Q-Man was trying to say that you can get ethical theories that believe that morality is subjective, and you can get ethical theories that believe that morality is objective.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #39 - February 16, 2010, 11:16 PM
    Quote from: Q-Man on February 16, 2010, 11:11 PM
    Right, but the field of philosophy that deals with these topics is most often called "Ethics" not "Morals". So the term "ethics" itself presupposes rational inquiry, whereas "morals" does not necessarily presuppose that.


    Yes, you're quite right. Ethics = Moral Philosophy. But you could have an Ethic (without an s) which is a set of beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad; just like morality. I've also seen the word ethic to describe a single moral too, as opposed to a set... not sure if that's grammatical though.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #40 - February 16, 2010, 11:22 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on February 16, 2010, 11:13 PM
    Actually, Q-Man was trying to say that you can get ethical theories that believe that morality is subjective, and you can get ethical theories that believe that morality is objective.

    not sure, because I would not put that under the umbrealla of 'rational' - I got the feeling he was saying one was based on a logical & structured approach versus one was not, say e.g. knee-jerk reactions
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #41 - February 16, 2010, 11:31 PM
    Subjective isn't a derogatory term when applied in ethics. Infact it isn't a derogatory term in formal Philosophy at all. You can have a perfectly rational ethical theory of objective ethics and you can have a perfectly rational ethical theory of subjective ethics. AND in both instances morality can still be seen as *important* in a fully functional society.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #42 - February 16, 2010, 11:55 PM
    Interesting, and I guess yo're right.  Although I was originally saying that rational enquiry can be used to bring about both morality & ethics, depending on how you define these both concepts.  So what do you think is the correct answer?
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #43 - February 17, 2010, 12:02 AM
    Correct answer regarding the OP? Or you mean whether an objective or a subjective view of ethics is correct?
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #44 - February 17, 2010, 06:34 AM
    no, the difference betweeen ethics & moraity
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #45 - February 17, 2010, 03:00 PM
    Well ethics is the study of morality and morality is a set of beliefs about what is good and bad, right and wrong. They aren't on the same level, if you like, and so aren't comparable in the same way as I think you might have thought they could be in your OP.

    So I might be a utilitarian. Utilitarianism would be the code of morality or the moral theory that I accept. Or you could say Utilitarianism is the ethical theory I accept or the set of ethics I accept. I wouldn't be making contrasting statements (e.g. that in the 1st way I accept utilitarianism in a "moral" way and in the 2nd way I accept utilitarianism in a "ethics" way). I would be stating the same thing in either case.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #46 - February 17, 2010, 03:04 PM
    Well the polls over and I am (pleasantly) surprised at the result. 

    If I had known this poll would have had a 100% 'No' vote, I would have not bothered debating in the first place and  saved so much time and emotional energy in the first place finmad
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »