@KellyJay saidOf course! And there's the natural law ethics school espoused by Finnis to pursue that avenue of thought.
Exactly how does a cohesive requirement of human behavior occur in the human race unless it is encoded into it? If that is the case, something much greater than the human race is involved, so that we can see this innate moral set of rules for ourselves throughout time, this is counter to the notion we are figuring out as we go.
Ethics and morals are not the same thing, they began when in human history?
P.s. Ethics and morals are used interchangeably by moral philosophers and ethicists in over 90% of philosophers, roughly estimation. Let's live it at "most".
1 edit
@Lionel-Hutz saidReturning to my original post, unless there is something a scale we can point to that says this is good or bad, up or down, we are left with opinions alone. It isn't easy to pursue something when we are making up on the fly, even to suggest we are getting better at it presupposes there is a scale we are aware of that needs to be reached.
Of course! And there's the natural law ethics school espoused by Finnis to pursue that avenue of thought.
P.s. Ethics and morals are used interchangeably by moral philosophers and ethicists in over 90% of philosophers, roughly estimation. Let's live it at "most".
@KellyJay said* sigh *
Returning to my original post, unless there is something a scale we can point to that says this is good or bad, up or down, we are left with opinions alone. It isn't easy to pursue something when we are making up on the fly, even to suggest we are getting better at it presupposes there is a scale we are aware of that needs to be reached.
@Lionel-Hutz saidIf you have an objection, then object with a reason, simply acting as if I'm missing
* sigh *
the obvious shows nothing on your part. My point is very consistent I cannot say
the same thing about you. Sacred, Profane, up, down, right, wrong, good, and evil
must have a fixed point to judge, or it is all like saying green is my favorite
color.
@KellyJay saidIf that sooths your worries, who am I to ruin your complacency?
If you have an objection, then object with a reason, simply acting as if I'm missing
the obvious shows nothing on your part. My point is very consistent I cannot say
the same thing about you. Sacred, Profane, up, down, right, wrong, good, and evil
must have a fixed point to judge, or it is all like saying green is my favorite
color.
It's just that you don't seem to grasp ethics.
Which is fine. Nobody knows everything about all disciplines.
@Lionel-Hutz saidWords and nothing in them, empty rhetoric nothing more. I guess we are done.
If that sooths your worries, who am I to ruin your complacency?
It's just that you don't seem to grasp ethics.
Which is fine. Nobody knows everything about all disciplines.
@Lionel-Hutz saidThey maybe used interchangeably but they are not the same.
Of course! And there's the natural law ethics school espoused by Finnis to pursue that avenue of thought.
P.s. Ethics and morals are used interchangeably by moral philosophers and ethicists in over 90% of philosophers, roughly estimation. Let's live it at "most".
1 edit
@KellyJay saidIs your personal "fixed point" without, or within? And are you claiming that everyone's "fixed point" should be the same as yours, and if it is not, then you are justified in calling them every name you can think of, i.e. judging them?
If you have an objection, then object with a reason, simply acting as if I'm missing
the obvious shows nothing on your part. My point is very consistent I cannot say
the same thing about you. Sacred, Profane, up, down, right, wrong, good, and evil
must have a fixed point to judge, or it is all like saying green is my favorite
color.
@Suzianne saidNo, God is the only fixed point, you sure do read into things not there and jump on them as if your fixed point is the only one that matters as you judge others. A fixed point all mankind is held to isn't given to us by other men but by one greater than all of us, if you think you have "THE KNOWLEDGE" so you can rebuke because of what you believe is true, then you are putting yourself above the rest it would be no different for me either. How is it you correct me without knowing what is right and true, and if we both are simply giving our opinions then we are no different than anyone else? God is clearly at work in us all, none of us accept any old rules of behavior will do when we know there is an "ought to" we all are held to. This is why we always have to come up with excuses to justify ourselves when we know we did wrong, no different than we tell another they did wrong and expect them to know because we appeal to their knowledge of good and evil.
Is your personal "fixed point" without, or within? And are you claiming that everyone's "fixed point" should be the same as yours, and if it is not, then you are justified in calling them every name you can think of, i.e. judging them?
Each time you condemn someone for anything, you are putting yourself above them so I hope for your sake you are also doing those things you are condemning others for, you will have no excuse.
@KellyJay saidDon't turn it back on me, you could just answer the question for once without getting on your high horse.
No, God is the only fixed point, you sure do read into things not there and jump on them as if your fixed point is the only one that matters as you judge others. A fixed point all mankind is held to isn't given to us by other men but by one greater than all of us, if you think you have "THE KNOWLEDGE" so you can rebuke because of what you believe is true, then you are putti ...[text shortened]... or your sake you are also doing those things you are condemning others for, you will have no excuse.
@Suzianne saidI told you that my point of view is not the fixed point every single person is held to, it is God’s not me. I didn’t turn my back on you but answered you directly you just wanted me to say something else. I am not the one on my high horse here.
Don't turn it back on me, you could just answer the question for once without getting on your high horse.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidI believe this deserves a "Whoosh!"
I told you that my point of view is not the fixed point every single person is held to, it is God’s not me. I didn’t turn my back on you but answered you directly you just wanted me to say something else. I am not the one on my high horse here.
(Complete with high horse. Of course.)
@KellyJay saidTry Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Preferably the 9th edition with an extended explanation of this precise subject. Rachels' is the textbook most of us have during undergrad. After that, everyone is welcome (and encouraged) to disagree and present their arguments.
They maybe used interchangeably but they are not the same.
The departing point is what it is. For personal growth and enjoyment, I strongly recommend Singer's take on the matter and the ongoing debate about the divide between "normative" and applied ethics.
Bonus point, just for fun: Check Smilansky's flex on dilemmas.