From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@jupiter.colossus.net)
Date: Wed Oct 01 1997 - 11:22:16 MDT
> >> << >Lots of things that are moral can be anti-survival. >>
> >>
> >> This posses a question for me....my DEFINITION of morallity is that which
> >> tends toward promoting survival...Ethical/Moral=pro-survival.
> >>
> I distinguish "moral" from "ethical". I see ethics as being pro-survival
> (at least for the person holding them). Morals are handed down from a
> "higher authority" and as such I tend to ignore or laugh at them.
>
> Kennita
I can't find anything to support these particular definitions; every
dictionary I have defines "ethical" and "moral" in terms of each other,
or merely of "right and wrong". "Ethical" /is/ given the particular
connotation of relating to the practice of a profession, and "moral"
is often given the connotation of relating specifically to sexual
practices, but otherwise they are essentially interchangeable, as they
are in common usage.
In fact, because "ethical" does have the professional connotation,
"ethics" are generally applied to written codes of conduct for lawyers,
legislators, doctors, etc.; whereas "morals" are always personal. On
those definitions, I find ethics to be worthless and morals to be
valuable. Like you, I have no interest in codes imposed from some
authority, only what's actually right and wrong.
Because these definitions are so vague, I think it makes little sense
to maintain any distinction unless glossed for a particular argument
and limited to that argument.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:59 MST