Ethics And Morals

From the bottom of the HumanSterilizationVirus we find:

What's wrong with it are these little things called EthicsAndMorals. I realize that not everyone concerns themselves with these things but you should appreciate that most do.

Apparently here on this wiki, neither have resonated for more than a few pages:

BusinessAndEthics BusinessEthics ContractorVsContractorEthics EthicsOfContracting EthicsOfPeerToPeer ReproductiveEthics SoftwareEthics

and

LilaAnInquiryIntoMorals

Is it inappropriate for this forum to discuss such things?

There's actually a lot more here than that short list. Try searching on "ethical" or "morality" too.

Technically, no, to the extent that they impact on the workplace. The problem is that everyone's perspective is going to be determined by their presuppositions about reality, which will drive the conversation into a religious discussion - and THAT would be definitely be better handled by TheAdjunct SisterSite. [Another person. If "only" religion goes to TheAdjunct, I am going to keep quiet. Anything else, you need to consider 1) true values and beliefs of Adjunct admin (unknown - e.g., what is considered trash? Are topics without activity for two months trash?), 2) stability of the Adjunct goals, 3) size of community, etc.]

Actually, ethics and morals are independent of religion and people can come to a consensus about them regardless of religion. Historically, even theologians have done all they could to further an atheistic ethical and moral philosophy. -- rk

Interesting, Richard. Although "murder = bad" is normally seen as a moral declaration, wouldn't "murder is bad because <foo>" be more of an ethical declaration? Morality (of a flavor) is often tied directly to received/revealed wisdom, whereas ethics is more "meta" and captures cause and effect. -- gh

I give you my definitions of ethics and morals in BusinessEthics. You won't find it in any philosophy textbook but I believe my definitions are correct. They are at the very least quite consistent with usage, with your usage as well.

The first semi-working moral framework was undoubtedly JohnRawls' which he gives in TheoryOfJustice. As far as I know, it's the only such framework. Unless maybe you count Locke's; I don't count Nozick's. It does have at least two defects which can be fixed, though one of these may be a symptom of a fundamental defect which couldn't be fixed. Also, it's not very rigorous. But anyways.

The essence of Rawls' framework is that a morality is the rules we would agree to in a situation of perfect fairness (everyone superintelligent, no predefined place in society, no way to determine one's place in society, no known body shapes or physical locations, et cetera). This is the source for the statement that human rights are inalienable. Since they cannot be given to us by any god, country, society or even ourselves, it follows that they cannot ever be taken away by any such agency. Human rights are what humanity as a whole would give to itself in a situation of perfect fairness, and that is where they derive their power. -- rk

CategoryEthics