while I do not broadly disagree with you, it has been my sad experience that morals are just as often expanded to allow behavior previously thought immoral at least as often as they are refined to greater strictures.
:
For example (and with apologies to Victor Hugo):
My family is hungry but I have no legal or moral means to obtain food for them. Under these circumstances I may jiggle my moral compass until I conclude that stealing, which is fundamentally immoral, is nonetheless acceptable in that it serves a greater good, ie, preventing my family from starving. In other words, the end justified the means. I may assuage my conscience by stealing only from those who have more than they need, stealing from their excess, as it were, and only so much as needed to alleviate my immediate situation, but that is here sophistry in the face of my own feelings of guilt.
If circumstances become dire enough, moral relativism becomes the guiding principle rather than moral adherence. Accordingly, if morals can ever be justly flexible they become a convenience rather than a necessity; an accessory of those who feel secure in their living.
OK, my thinking is becoming clumsy now, so itās time for more reflection and fewer words.
Thanks for being an honest man. I will say the feeling is good when people can have a good dialogue and nobody starts name-calling. (Unlike Facebook)
Iām what you call the ānice guyā therefore, I get pushed around a lot on Facebook because Iām all up for telling people my opinion and practicing free speech (Even though that amendment donāt count on there because it will get deleted) People will call you everything, but a child of God and, I wonāt even start when the name-calling comes.
So, I appreciate the nice decent conversation. It was great likewise, very informal. Lastly, we need more discussions like this in the world.
IāVe been holding back until I had more than a couple minutes to chime in. The subject heading actually stood out to me immediately. Ethics v. Morals. These terms are used nearly synonymously. Ethics is defined by Merriam-Webster as āthe discipline of dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; a set of moral principles.ā Ethic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster.
As I watched, I saw where this has really taken the turn to compare laws to morals which are often quite different. Most laws, beginning with the oldest surviving codified laws in the area now known as Iran was the Code of Ur-Nammu, followed by the more well known Code of Hammurabi and other, set basic tenants which included the criminalization of things that were considered immoral (or unethical) at the time along with a social contract that set standards for interacting as a society and setting punishments for violating the social contract.
Even today, most laws follow this same process of setting some societal moral standards for which a violation should be punished as well as those laws maintaining the social contract. The simplest way of looking at these is those that are naturally wrong (mala in se) like murder, rape, arson or burglary, versus those for protection or they infringe on the rights of others like traffic laws or gambling.
Making a law does not make something right or wrong, except under the law. We can say murder is illegal but are then faced with abortion, the death penalty, war and self defense. They all involve killing but are not all illegal. In the US, most would consider adultery wrong and immoral but it is no longer illegal, although it used to be. And we through in paternalistic laws like seatbelts and helmets (and sugary drinks in CA) that are put in place to keep people healthy or safe from themselves.
I could keep going on this (and have as an adjunct professor in the past) but it would take hours and pages of writing.
My moral are based upon Judeo-Christian values I was raised and schooled in for years.
I agree, sir. That is all one was insinuating that the two are actually congruent therefore should be viewed as so. My professor must be a lot like yours was because Iām assuming that is the reasoning it was still in my head. Although I was also thinking with all the gun legislation being brought forth we should observe the concept because our Constitution stands attacked with such laws as āred flagā and the āassault weapons bandā jeopardizing the way of life of many law-abiding citizens.
I highly appreciate your input. I figured the topic might be controversial but, I was always told to put a good title on something in order to draw the reader in.
I have always understood morals to be rules I set for myself and ethics to be how I apply my morals in any given situation, as well as how consistently I apply them. Ethics=applied morals. Or, morals are abstract and ethics are their concrete expression.
I donāt post much, more of a read and learn/enjoy member. I do want to answer your question though. Born Harlan KY. Raised in Ohio. But spent a lot of time āgoing down homeā on weekend trips after my family moved out so I developed a strong connection to the area. Heard lots of things in that setting I didnāt hear anywhere else! Whim ā haints (they believed in em) ā a poke (paper bag) and a wet road was āslicker than a moles titā Canāt even imagine all the different āsayingsā there are from different backgrounds around this country. And guns - a guy walking down the road with a rifle slung over his shoulder and a few squirrels hanging from his belt was as normal as the sun rising in the morning. What would have been hard to believe was someone not having one. Yaāll enjoy Thanksgiving, them is good gatherings.