CD,
Minimus: A great definition of morality has been thrown out there a number of times on this thread "do no harm to yourself or others".
Surely this is a definition of ethical behavior, not moral behavior. The two are quite different.
HS
Are Your Morals The Same As When You Were A Witness?
by minimus 84 Replies latest jw friends
-
hillary_step
-
cognizant dissident
To answer the original question and expound more on the principal of harm vs. benefit, I would have to say that I consider myself more moral now that I am not a Jehovah's Witnesses any longer and I say this even though I occassionally swear now, buy the occassional lottery ticket, no longer think sex without marriage is automatically immorral, etc.
The reason I believe I am more moral, has already been stated by others previously but I will reiterate it. I no longer follow the rules made by others without regard to whether they are actually harmful to myself or others. JW's rules on blood transfusions are harmful to others causing deaths in some instances. Their rules on shunning cause irreparable psychological harm to individuals and often harm the family unit. Their rules on higher education harm people financially and intellectually. Their rules on divorce often cause harm to abused women. Their endless list of rules and regulations cause people to feel in a constant state of exhaustion and guilt about never doing enough. This is harmful to their physical, emotional, and spiritual health. Using the harm vs. benefit model of morality it is easy to see that there is really very little about JW's that is moral and much that is immoral. The same can be said of any religion that shares their tactics.
If religion is truly uplifting to a person, physically, emotionally, and spiritually and can demonstrate that by the measurable standard of "do no harm", then I have nothing against it. Most religions make those claims, but observation of their fruits show otherwise. There is absolutely no reason that one who does not believe in God or practice any religion cannot be a moral person based on the criteria of "do no harm", in fact, there is ample evidence that they can be even more so than many who claim to be religious.
Cog
-
cognizant dissident
Surely this is a definition of ethical behavior, not moral behavior. The two are quite different.
HS
Hillary, I am glad you commented on this thread, I always enjoy the intelligence and logic of your posts.
Funk and Wagnalls "Canadian College Dictionary" defines ethics as "a philosophy or system of morals; ethics" and "the study and philosphy of human conduct with emphasis on the determination of right and wrong." It defines ethical as "pertaining to or treating of ethics and morality".
According to my understanding, and Funk and Wagnall's common English usage, ethics and morality are synonomous. Please explain to us how they are "quite different".
Cog
-
funkyderek
nvrgnbk:
Now I think about morals.
When I was a JW, I followed rules.
That's pretty much my opinion on the matter too. Many religious people (especially fundamentalists and literalists) simply don't have any morals at all. They are simply obedience-machines and measure their moral worth by how closely they can follow the rules as written in their holy book of choice. They do not base their morality on how it affects others which to any rational person is the entire basis and function of morality. Taking JWs as an example of religious moral perversity, they think it is moral to allow a child to unnecessarily bleed to death (and indeed to fight tooth and nail for the right to do so) while they think it is immoral for me to have consensual sexual relations with the woman I love. minimus:
So, is there such a thing as sexual immorality?? Yes or no? Give an example if "yes".
Clearly there is. Rape is an example I'm sure we can all agree on. It is definitely immoral because it involves a nonconsensual assault on another person. But there's no need to define that as "sexual immorality" any more than you would define stealing food as "cibarious immorality". Rape is not immoral because it is sex, it is immoral because, by definition, one or more of the parties involved is not a consenting adult. Consensual sex between informed consenting adults cannot in itself be immoral because there is no victim. Adultery or infidelity may be immoral as it involves breach of contract and there may be other issues arising such as transmission of disease or unwanted pregnancy, but aside from these side issues, I see no moral difference between someone who has hundreds of sexual partners and someone who has none. Similarly, with food, apart from the possible effects on others of not looking after one's health, issues of scarcity or animal rights issues I see no moral difference between someone who eats frugally and someone who regularly gorges themselves on cakes and sweets.
Killing is considered by most as immoral. Yet in wartime, it may not be. Hitler's henchmen never really accepted that what they did was wrong, as Saddam felt, too. It appears that since we as individuals are the ones that define what is moral, then one cannot for a certainty say what morality is for the masses or for a group of people.
There are sometimes great difficulties in determining exactly what the most moral course of action may be but that is no reason to abandon the endeavour. Causing Death and Saving Lives by Jonathan Glover is a good introduction to the moral issues associated with war (as well as other life-and-death issues such as euthanasia and abortion). Merely proclaiming "Thou shalt not kill" really doesn't cut it as moral guidance.
In Sudan, young girls are regularly circumscised. Human rights group are in an uproar. Perhaps they shouldn't be as it is the custom of the peoples in that area.
If informed consenting adult women wish to have their genitals mutilated then I would fight for their right to do so. But a demonstrably harmful, invasive, violent act against a defenceless child does not become moral merely because it is commonly done.
If 2 consenting adults agree to do something that hurts no one else but perhaps themselves, then who are we to judge?
I've no problem judging people, but I can't see a basis to judge them as immoral if all parties consent.
Did you feel this way when a German man, a couple of years ago agreed to literally eat another man thru cannibalism? Both men agreed that one would be eaten and no coercion or force was involved.It was a decision by 2 consenting adults. The public uproar that resulted was phenomonal! People were greatly disturbed because what occured to THEM was immoral. But based upon what I read here, most would not characterize these 2 men as being immoral at all.
I found it bizarre and somewhat repulsive. In such a case, I think more weight should be given to the possibility that the consenting victim (if such a phrase is not too oxymoronic) was not capable of giving informed consent. However, assuming he was sound of mind I can see nothing immoral about it. The "victim" chose to die and he had the right to make that choice. The "culprit" acted in accordance with his wishes and nobody else was involved. Whose rights were violated? If the answer is "Nobody's" then how can it be immoral? cognizant dissident:
In the case of prostitution, it has been demonstrated that prostitution is harmful to the prostitute physically and psychologically. Therefore she is harming herself by engaging in it and johns who use her (services?) are also engaging in harm to another and possible themselves and their families.
Many jobs are to some degree physicall and psychologically harmful. But people still do them, and other people pay them to. They do so because they believe the benefits outweigh the costs. If I want to pay someone for sex, and that person wants to be paid for sex, and we're both informed consenting adults, then I see nothing immoral about it. The potential risk to the client's regular partner may be an issue as he/she is probably operating on an implied, spoken or written contract that specifies exclusivity in sexual matters.
Harmful or beneficial is the key factor to ask oneself when contemplating any action.
Most actions are both, which gets us into complicated issues of the relative moral weight of acts and failures to act, but in general harming someone who wishes to be harmed (or at least accepts the risk of potential harm) and understands the full implications of the action is not immoral. wednesday:
The same with most of the laws in the 10 commandments, most people accept these as "moral" whether they believe in the Bible or not.
Don't murder, don't steal, don't commit adultery (without permission!), don't commit perjury. They are all good laws which is why they're included in just about every law code ever written. But the rest (with the possible sometime exception of honouring one's parents) have nothing to do with morality at all. hillary_step:
Surely this is a definition of ethical behavior, not moral behavior. The two are quite different.
I've always considered them more-or-less synonymous and several dictionaries and thesauri seem to support my view. What would you say is the difference between them?
-
cognizant dissident
In the case of prostitution, it has been demonstrated that prostitution is harmful to the prostitute physically and psychologically. Therefore she is harming herself by engaging in it and johns who use her (services?) are also engaging in harm to another and possible themselves and their families.
Many jobs are to some degree physicall and psychologically harmful. But people still do them, and other people pay them to. They do so because they believe the benefits outweigh the costs. If I want to pay someone for sex, and that person wants to be paid for sex, and we're both informed consenting adults, then I see nothing immoral about it. The potential risk to the client's regular partner may be an issue as he/she is probably operating on an implied, spoken or written contract that specifies exclusivity in sexual matters.
Harmful or beneficial is the key factor to ask oneself when contemplating any action.
Most actions are both, which gets us into complicated issues of the relative moral weight of acts and failures to act, but in general harming someone who wishes to be harmed (or at least accepts the risk of potential harm) and understands the full implications of the action is not immoral. I understand your logic, Funky Derek, but I believe it is in error. As you say, people often do physically dangerous jobs because they feel that the benefits outweigh the costs. What benefits are brought to the prostitue, the john, or society by prostitution? I think that the harm has been adequately demonstrated, I do not believe any "benefits" have been demonstrated. The majority of prostitutes were introduced to prostitution as teenagers, not consenting adults. The majority are under the control of an exploitive pimp who takes a cut for doing nothing. The majority are compelled to prostitution to support drug habits often started by the very pimps who used this as a mechanism for exploitation. Johns who use the services of prostitutes are contributing to the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable members of society. Do not take my word for it. Talk to the police, social workers, addictions counselors, mental health professionals, nurses and doctors who deal on the front lines with these people every day. Ask them the truth of the matter. Do not rely on the hollywood, glamourized version of the intelligent, beautiful, high priced call girl using prostitution as a way to pay her way through doctorate school. I'm not saying such a prostitute has never existed but it is certainly not the norm and to suggest that it is, is to deliberately choose to ignore the abundant evidence to the contrary.
I also disagree with your statement that it is not immoral to harm someone else just because they wish to be harmed or accept the risk of potential harm. If someone asks me to kill them, because they want to die, for whatever reason or logic they have used to convince themselves of the reasonability of their stance, does that make it moral for me to oblige them? If a grown, adult woman wants to be beaten up by her partner and even tries to provoke him, perhaps because she grew up in an abusive home and this is the only way she knows how to relate to men, is it moral for her partner to beat her? After all she is consenting! I believe our morality should not be determined by default, by catering to the lowest common denominator of whomever we find ourselves with. Consent does not equal morality! Cog -
sammielee24
Broad...interesting topic.
Ethics and morals. Who decides what is either and what assumption do we make that we are all void of bad ethics or morals simply because we shun such 'sinfully' labelled acts such as sex, drinking, smoking, taking drugs, lying, stealing? From the moment we are born, we could argue that we are all immoral creatures, since to exist will be to harm someone somewhere else on the planet. The food we eat might be taken from the mouths of the starving. The clothes we wear might be made by slave workers. The music we buy might promote violence that becomes one persons end. The movies we watch might lead some to porn. The list could go on forever.
In a free market/capitalist society, we further can take issue with morality. If we expect people to earn a living however they must, then why would prostitution be wrong? The woman or man earning a living by selling a product, their body, should be their right - no? The woman is doing nothing wrong since the product she is selling is hers. If the customer wasn't paying, the woman would have no product. Same with science and medical advances. Should stem stell be illegal if the doctor or scientist can make money off of it? Why is abortion illegal if you have a customer willing to pay for it and a person willing to take payment for it? Is it moral to inflict violence in the name of war onto a million people in order to obtain more land or resources? sammieswife.
-
ninja
I am much more moral......I dont sleep with the elders wives now
-
under_believer
cog, you should do some research into legalized prostitution. In places where it is legal, the prostitutes fare far better than they do where it is outlawed. There are also many, many prostitutes in the US who work purely by word-of-mouth and networking and do not have anyone "representing" them to customers. Freelancers, if you will. And these folks do very well also.
The brand of prostitution you're talking about, where streetwalkers are essentially drug-addicted sex slaves to evil pimps, is hardly the only way to go about it.
Absent the criminal element, and given safe sex practices, prostitution becomes hardly any bigger a deal than getting a massage. -
hillary_step
CD,
According to my understanding, and Funk and Wagnall's common English usage, ethics and morality are synonomous. Please explain to us how they are "quite different".
It can be confusing to understand the nuances between these two definitions, but the clue to the description of 'ethics' in Websters definition is 'a system of morals'.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy which deals with the application, or non application of established morals, as in, 'how should we apply these morals in these situations?'.
Cheers - HS
-
Who are you?
Added to HS comments...a pretty good article on ethical relevatism which is one of the more popular schools of thought
Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.
Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.
Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.
Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking?
Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.
For these philosophers, ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons underlying practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others.
But even if the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that the concept raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.