Moral Rigidity vs Ethical Rigidity

by sabastious 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Naddia_the_Godless

  Sabastious,

  What I mean by Natural Law is a system of ethics that was promoted by Plato and later Christianity. This system holds a belief in realism, that the world around us is real and has an essential nature. Whether it be the Forms or God, there is an absolute measure of truth and justice. Natural Law within Christianity can be traced back to Paul, but it was Thomas Aquinas' fusion of Aristotelian philosophy and Christianity that strongly fueled Natural Law ethics for many more centuries.

  Within this view, God is the source of truth and purpose. Therefore, every action a human takes must align with that purpose. Sex, for example, was only part of the divine purpose when used for reproduction. The carnal self must be denied; the temporal self, the soul, is what fulfills God's purpose. If you read Aquinas, he details many sexual acts, including homosexuality, which are not natural because they don't fulfill God's ethereal purpose.

  That position has been widely debated over the centuries, and many religions have relaxed their views on what is allowed, but they do this by reinterpreting the Bible. They still hold that right and wrong is determined by God, not by humans.

  I see this less and less in our legal system. Laws that attempt to regulate morality are based less on absolutes and more on what is beneficial or preferable to the majority. This is why people of different races can marry. Women may take birth control. Divorce is common. Gay marriage is gaining ground. And inversely, children are protected from pedophilia (there was nothing in Natural Law protecting a 12-year-old girl from marriage and pregnancy), slavery is outlawed, and restrictions on cigarette smoking are increasing. The fact that laws are changing, that they are even capable of changing, and are not based on religious tradition is evidence of a Utilitarian influence.

  There are still some remnants of Natural Law in our legal system, but I see them fading over time.

  You said: How is it that cigerettes, with their mountains of provable societal detriment, are perfectly legal to buy, virtually anywhere, whereas I will be placed behind bars, if caught, if I walk in the forest to collect hallucinogenic mushrooms?

  I'm certainly not stating that every law on the books is fair or just or right, but simply that the framework allows for a relative approach to ethics. Twenty years ago, cigarette companies advertised on TV and the harms of smoking were swept under the rug, while you could be imprisoned for possessing marijuana. Laws on these have shifted greatly over the past couple decades. There are many bans on cigarettes and a ton of negative media attention. There is more public awareness of smoking cessation than there is advertising for cigarettes. Marijuana, on the other hand, is gaining ground. It's now legal in certain places and for certain reasons, and there is a big push to get it legalized. Is it possible that another ten or twenty years down the road, pot will be legal and cigarettes won't? This is a perfect example of how Natural Law is fading into the background, being replaced by a more relative ethical system. I would also agree that money plays a factor in just about every aspect of our society, but that's capitalism for yah.

  Nad
• 

  sabastious

  Within this view, God is the source of truth and purpose. Therefore, every action a human takes must align with that purpose. Sex, for example, was only part of the divine purpose when used for reproduction. The carnal self must be denied; the temporal self, the soul, is what fulfills God's purpose. If you read Aquinas, he details many sexual acts, including homosexuality, which are not natural because they don't fulfill God's ethereal purpose.

  So what Plato was referring to was the existence of Natural(absolute) Law, correct? Then Aquinas immediately blows the concept when referring to homosexuality as an "unnatual act." He was very wrong so his forumla was obviously flawed or he didn't uphold it. Since the misstep was made on the topic of homosexuality I would guess that he made the ancient mistake of taking his own ideas and attributed them to God. Which is a mistake we all make including me.

  I'm certainly not stating that every law on the books is fair or just or right, but simply that the framework allows for a relative approach to ethics. Twenty years ago, cigarette companies advertised on TV and the harms of smoking were swept under the rug, while you could be imprisoned for possessing marijuana. Laws on these have shifted greatly over the past couple decades. There are many bans on cigarettes and a ton of negative media attention. There is more public awareness of smoking cessation than there is advertising for cigarettes. Marijuana, on the other hand, is gaining ground. It's now legal in certain places and for certain reasons, and there is a big push to get it legalized. Is it possible that another ten or twenty years down the road, pot will be legal and cigarettes won't? This is a perfect example of how Natural Law is fading into the background, being replaced by a more relative ethical system. I would also agree that money plays a factor in just about every aspect of our society, but that's capitalism for yah.

  I agree that there is change happening and it's encouraging. What is discouraging is that I still see so many people displaying an infinitely more tolerant attitude towards ciggerettes (smoke breaks for instance) than they will about a substance that is illegal and it is those people that position themselves as tiresome obstacles to a better, more ethical, approach to government.

  -Sab
• 

  PSacramento

  Why does murder bring forth injustice?

  A very good question, probably because murder begets murder and the cycle of violence will take the lives of innocents, eventually.

  Why does stealing create societal insecurity?

  If taking what doesn't belong to you is permisable, then no one's possesion are secure, hence insecurity

  Why is family unity and trust imporant?

  Society as a group can't function without it.

  Why should sex be between mates only?

  Because it increase the security issue for the "weaker sex" AND makes the taking of another's mate, wrong.

  Why should we avoid getting something for nothing?

  I don't know, you tell me.

  Might makes right again?
• 

  sabastious

  My point was that only using ethics can you begin to answer those questions. Morals are not the compass because when morals are the compass we start making choices because they are right or wrong. This is a mistake because if we live that way that for too long we forget not only the original question, but the original answer as well.

  -Sab
• 

  PSacramento

  Here is an interesting view:

  The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference . Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics , social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics . So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.

  When considering the difference between ethics and morals , it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer. Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime. Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 

  PSacramento

  "[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
• 

  sabastious

  I like that: ethics supercede morals. How concerned is society with ethics? It seems they are much more concerned with morals than ethics wouldn't you agree?

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  [Ethics is] is the philosophical study of morality.

  Ethics are used as the validation or disqualification of different sets of morality. Morality is more diverse than a large box of crayons.

  I would say the reason why a Jehovah's Witness would ever choose to leave their religion is because their ethics, which their strong conscience was built upon, were being trampled upon.

  -Sab
• 

  PSacramento

  Sab, you seem to be making the argument that ethics is superiour to morals, yes?

  IN the case of JW's for example: Ethics = No blood where as Morals states that ALL Life is sacred.

  How does ethics being superiour hold up to that?

  This is a perfect example:

  Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  The moral and ethical thing for the lawyer to do would be to hand the evidence he had that proved the guilty person to be guilt, over to the prosecution.

  WHY? Simply because he IS GUILTY and the greater moral AND ethical good would be for him to go to jail.
• 

  sabastious

  The moral and ethical thing for the lawyer to do would be to hand the evidence he had that proved the guilty person to be guilt, over to the prosecution.

  It was always the ethical thing to do, but historically it has not always been the moral thing to do, correct? Morals are defined by society while ethics are defined by the observation, and recording, of morals applied by society. To discover a true ethic is to attempt to be as objective as possible. Many times morals have been created to discourage objectivity (like the Witness mindset for example). I'm not saying Ethics are greater than Morals I am saying that first, ethics are severely underrated by common society (not lawyers), and second, that ethics are the true pillars of morality while practiced morals are constantly changing.

  If someone 1000 years from now studies our religious society they will use ethics to determine the causes of our actions and behaviours rather than take our word that our morals are logically sound.

  I'm sorry I think I am being confusing, lol.

  -Sab