Show me. With the exception of some dude on a gun forum, I can't seem to find where the meanings are reversed.
They're all over the map. Doesn't matter anyway.
Let's re-phrase it: I don't like the word "morals" because its mis applied and over used (just like the word "sin", for that matter). People point at lists of rules and call them "morals" - if that's what they are, I don't find them to be particularly pertinent to many/most situations. What I'm calling "ethics" is uncodifiable because they're not a thoughtless list of rules/laws. YMMV.
-Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
When someone says they follow ethics, that is about as informative as saying nothing at all. So when someone says that I just default to the assumption that they are talking about situational ethics. If you can't define WHICH ethics form you believe in, then I suspect shenanigans.
For instance, here's a list of ethic doctrines. Pick your poison. Don't just say 'I believe in ethics'. Define yourself. Otherwise you're not saying anything.
Deontology
Divine Command Theory
Natural Rights Theory
Categorical Imperative
Pluralistic Deontology
Contractarian Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Agent-Based Theories
Ethics of Care
Meta-Ethics
Moral Realism
Ethical Naturalism
Ethical Non-Naturalism
Moral Anti-Realism
Ethical Subjectivism
Moral Relativism
Non-Cognitivism
Emotivism
Prescriptivism (or Universal Prescriptivism)
Expressivism
Quasi-Realism
Projectivism
Moral Nihilism
Moral Skepticism
Descriptive Ethics
Applied Ethics
Major Doctrines
Under the heading of Ethics, the major doctrines or theories include:
Altruism
Asceticism
Cognitivism
Consequentialism
Cynicism
Deontology
Egoism
Epicureanism
Ethical Naturalism
Ethical Non-Naturalism
Ethical Subjectivism
Eudaimonism
Hedonism
Humanism
Individualism
Moral Absolutism
Moral Anti-Realism
Moral Nihilism
Moral Realism
Moral Relativism
Moral Skepticism
Moral Universalism
Non-Cognitivism
Utilitarianism
Virtue Ethics
It's a lot easier to define a religion and its beliefs than it is to define ethics.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
It's a lot easier to define a religion and its beliefs than it is to define ethics.
Yes it is! :up: Attempting to define ethics is ultimately futile, but people try (including me).
Situational can be one description that is better than most. To me, ethics are no more and no less than "Who gets hurt?", "Do the least harm", and "do the most good". Even that description falls short, and is VERY hard to live up to. I try. I fail at times like everybody else. It takes omniscience to execute flawlessly - that's kinda above my pay grade! "Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes." - with good reason!
Its hard to codify, and rulebooks always fall short (at best). Heck, there may even be a time/situation where a .270 is the most ethical round to use! :tooth:
-Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
Let's re-phrase it: I don't like the word "morals" because its mis applied and over used (just like the word "sin", for that matter). People point at lists of rules and call them "morals" - if that's what they are, I don't find them to be particularly pertinent to many/most situations.
And this is why we should use the words properly. We are supposed to shine a light on ignorance-- not bury it in stupidity.
What I'm calling "ethics" is uncodifiable because they're not a thoughtless list of rules/laws. YMMV.
You just described morals. Ethics can be codified morals-- ethics do not exist without morals. Morals are also the basis of rules and laws. It is like trying to write a word without symbols or letters.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
Its hard to codify, and rulebooks always fall short (at best). Heck, there may even be a time/situation where a .270 is the most ethical round to use! :tooth:
While possibly ethical and legal, the .270 would still be immoral.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
You just described morals. Ethics can be codified morals-- ethics do not exist without morals. Morals are also the basis of rules and laws. It is like trying to write a word without symbols or letters.
Fine. If that's the case, why do we have rules that people point to and call "Morals"? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm trying to learn something here...
-Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
Fine. If that's the case, why do we have rules that people point to and call "Morals"? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm trying to learn something here...
Morals come from within. While not a Christian, I tend to have Christian morals-- you probably do too. You probably think it is wrong to steal from people, murder, cheat on your wife, etc. You do not need a book or a list to tell you that is wrong-- it is something you feel and believe is wrong. That is morals.
Now to say that stealing, murdering, and cheating on your wife is wrong because it is in the 10 Commandments-- that would be an ethical issue-- it doesn't explain why those things shouldn't be done-- just don't do them. Morals attempt to explain why-- or maybe not even why but is internalized as good or bad. Understanding where a person's motivations lay can tell me a lot about their character. Character is extremely important to me.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
Morals come from within. While not a Christian, I tend to have Christian morals-- you probably do too. You probably think it is wrong to steal from people, murder, cheat on your wife, etc. You do not need a book or a list to tell you that is wrong-- it is something you feel and believe is wrong. That is morals.
Now to say that stealing, murdering, and cheating on your wife is wrong because it is in the 10 Commandments-- that would be an ethical issue-- it doesn't explain why those things shouldn't be done-- just don't do them. Morals attempt to explain why-- or maybe not even why but is internalized as good or bad. Understanding where a person's motivations lay can tell me a lot about their character. Character is extremely important to me.
I wouldn't call those "Christian" morals - although Christians *do* profess them - and I agree what we're talking about comes from within. Now as far as "cheating on your wife" as an example: That's only a "violation" *if* that is the agreement you have with your wife! Which I do, which makes it wrong for me because she'd be hurt. Murder and steal? Depends on the situation, and yes people can argue semantics about that too. Great for guidelines though.
The quoted part I bolded - like! :up:
-Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
Now that you've listed the positive conservative ideals, you can start on the progressive ones.
Both pretty much believe in the same thing-- just the conservatives feel it is a personal responsibility and the progressives think it is a collective responsibility. But not always. That gets completely flipped around when it comes to the issue of morality.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
I mostly agree, but I feel Morals are taught. Your parents teach you from child hood, starting with things such as the golden rule.
I believe morals can be suggested but not taught. Whether an individual implements those suggestions is up to them. IMHO, you are born with a moral "code", whatever it may be, at birth.Those morals can be shaped to a certain extent given openness to shaping by the individual.
I am NOT saying that everyone adheres to their own moral code. Many break it from time to time due to circumstances. Being that circumstances seem to be getting much harder to deal with, whether it is stress from not enough money to live, racism, politics, PTSD....etc., I believe more and more people are going against their moral code.
The UN is a failed organization, just as the league of nations was. And, unless you have first hand knowledge to say otherwise, your argument is invalid. I have seen UN operations of the course of my career. I have seen were letting UN "operations" has gotten us. I think the Ethiopians had it better when they appealed to the League of Nations.
The UN failed the Balkans, their failure contributed to SFOR operations for the next 7-8 years. The UN has failed dang near all of Africa, a direct result was Operation Gothic Serpent. The UN failed in Iraq with there advise and assist mission. The UN has failed in the Sinai, and we rotate forces there every nine months. You name the operation and there has been a failure. The UN failed the Afghan people during the soviet invasion and allowed the Taliban to flourish in the camps.
And lets not talk about Disaster Recovery. What exactly does the UN do for that...Tell me. What resources do they provide? Absolutely zero. It is all the resources of another nation under the flag of the UN.
So it seems to me, that is supporting the UN is going to cost us lives, time, and more money then we should just keep the money ourselves and conduct the operations under our flag...as we see fit.
I have watched the UN place refugees on a bus, take them to their home town, make them sleep in bombed out houses overnight, and return them back to the refugee camp the next day. The UN then counted these refugees as returned, subtracted them from the camp count, and re-added them to the camp count...Why? So they could get more money because they took in more refugees.
Did anyone see the UN during Katrina? Sandy? Puerto Rico? Did the UN bring in extra fire teams to help us in the west.
SO WHAT ARE WE PAYING FOR!
"To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
The UN is a failed organization, just as the league of nations was. And, unless you have first hand knowledge to say otherwise, your argument is invalid. I have seen UN operations of the course of my career. I have seen were letting UN "operations" has gotten us. I think the Ethiopians had it better when they appealed to the League of Nations.
The UN failed the Balkans, their failure contributed to SFOR operations for the next 7-8 years. The UN has failed dang near all of Africa, a direct result was Operation Gothic Serpent. The UN failed in Iraq with there advise and assist mission. The UN has failed in the Sinai, and we rotate forces there every nine months. You name the operation and there has been a failure. The UN failed the Afghan people during the soviet invasion and allowed the Taliban to flourish in the camps.
And lets not talk about Disaster Recovery. What exactly does the UN do for that...Tell me. What resources do they provide? Absolutely zero. It is all the resources of another nation under the flag of the UN.
So it seems to me, that is supporting the UN is going to cost us lives, time, and more money then we should just keep the money ourselves and conduct the operations under our flag...as we see fit.
I have watched the UN place refugees on a bus, take them to their home town, make them sleep in bombed out houses overnight, and return them back to the refugee camp the next day. The UN then counted these refugees as returned, subtracted them from the camp count, and re-added them to the camp count...Why? So they could get more money because they took in more refugees.
Did anyone see the UN during Katrina? Sandy? Puerto Rico? Did the UN bring in extra fire teams to help us in the west.
SO WHAT ARE WE PAYING FOR!
Thank you for re-railing this thread. I was afraid it was chasing its tail into oblivion.
Mike
"Walking away seems to be a lost art form." N454casull
What I'm really confused/curious about is the fact that President Trump had every intention of leaving the UN and then changed his mind. I'm sure that his advisors talked him out of it but a good explanation was never given and I'd really like to hear the real story.
What I'm really confused/curious about is the fact that President Trump had every intention of leaving the UN and then changed his mind. I'm sure that his advisors talked him out of it but a good explanation was never given and I'd really like to hear the real story.
My belief? Trump never really meant that we were going to pull out of the UN. That was the opening salvo of a renegotiation of a contract. Look at it from the business perspective:
Say a Fortune 500 company is wanting to renegotiate their contract with... lets say Oracle. They have been a customer for years, and think that they are paying too much or not getting enough service. One day, they publicly publish an RFP (request for proposal) or RFI (request for information) to Oracle and their competitors (Infor, IBM, SAP, etc...) and throw in a couple of requirements that Oracle can't or don't currently support. The Company does not really want to rip out Oracle, but they do want to get a better deal. Oracle HAS to take it seriously, or one of the competitors could make a sweet enough offer to make it worthwhile for the Company to do a 'rip-and-replace' of the existing system. This gets Oracle to either try and work out a side deal and the company cancels the RFP/RFI, or fight it out in the open with their competitors. (By the way, this happens ALL THE TIME in the business world. Steve Jobs/ Apple did this to Motorola with the old PowerPC RISC processors. Beat them down to the point that Motorola was basically paying Apple to use them - Motorola was losing $5 on every processor they shipped. Then Apple sends out and RFP and Intel finally makes a sweet enough proposal and won... and then Motorola went toes up.)
Trump saying he was going to pull out of the UN was the equivalent of the public RFP/RFI. He does not really think he will (but the option exists), but it's mostly just beating a vendor about the head with the biggest stick he has- the checkbook. This is the world Trump comes out of.
To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
Yeah, it's a liberal rag, but it's also one of the better-relayed incidents of the story (and it talks about how Trump actually said King's breath wasn't bad THAT NIGHT.) It's part of his negotiation practice: make 'em think of something else so they're not fully devoted to the business at hand. I think that's also what he does with his Twitter account.
Tactic also works with his base. He can throw out red meat like leaving the UN and get them riled up even if his only intention is to negotiate some budget cuts.
President Trump had every intention of leaving the UN and then changed his mind.
Why create a huge uproar by tipping over the applecart when it's slower, but just as effective to put the pushcart vendor out of business by diverting his customers to some other location or stealing his apples one at a time? Strangling cash flow works- - - -it's just a slower process than armed robbery. The UN can't waste as much money if the US refuses to keep the financial tap flowing wide open.
Jerry
Yes but in Obama’s case these “broken promises” where used to negotiate what? There is a difference between negotiation tactics and ignorant ineptitude.
Well, they helped get him elected, so I'd say they were used for riling up the base and getting folks to vote.
Trump's a businessman who thinks about winning the best deal. Politicians think about winning the next election.
Replies
They're all over the map. Doesn't matter anyway.
Let's re-phrase it: I don't like the word "morals" because its mis applied and over used (just like the word "sin", for that matter). People point at lists of rules and call them "morals" - if that's what they are, I don't find them to be particularly pertinent to many/most situations. What I'm calling "ethics" is uncodifiable because they're not a thoughtless list of rules/laws. YMMV.
For instance, here's a list of ethic doctrines. Pick your poison. Don't just say 'I believe in ethics'. Define yourself. Otherwise you're not saying anything.
Ethics Doctrines:
Cynicism
Hedonism
Stoic
Pyrrhonian Skepticism,
Humanism
Normative Ethics (or Prescriptive Ethics)
Consequentialism
Utilitarianism
Hedonism
Egoism
Asceticism
Altruism
Deontology
Divine Command Theory
Natural Rights Theory
Categorical Imperative
Pluralistic Deontology
Contractarian Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Agent-Based Theories
Ethics of Care
Meta-Ethics
Moral Realism
Ethical Naturalism
Ethical Non-Naturalism
Moral Anti-Realism
Ethical Subjectivism
Moral Relativism
Non-Cognitivism
Emotivism
Prescriptivism (or Universal Prescriptivism)
Expressivism
Quasi-Realism
Projectivism
Moral Nihilism
Moral Skepticism
Descriptive Ethics
Applied Ethics
Major Doctrines
Under the heading of Ethics, the major doctrines or theories include:
Altruism
Asceticism
Cognitivism
Consequentialism
Cynicism
Deontology
Egoism
Epicureanism
Ethical Naturalism
Ethical Non-Naturalism
Ethical Subjectivism
Eudaimonism
Hedonism
Humanism
Individualism
Moral Absolutism
Moral Anti-Realism
Moral Nihilism
Moral Realism
Moral Relativism
Moral Skepticism
Moral Universalism
Non-Cognitivism
Utilitarianism
Virtue Ethics
It's a lot easier to define a religion and its beliefs than it is to define ethics.
― Douglas Adams
Yes it is! :up: Attempting to define ethics is ultimately futile, but people try (including me).
Situational can be one description that is better than most. To me, ethics are no more and no less than "Who gets hurt?", "Do the least harm", and "do the most good". Even that description falls short, and is VERY hard to live up to. I try. I fail at times like everybody else. It takes omniscience to execute flawlessly - that's kinda above my pay grade! "Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes." - with good reason!
Its hard to codify, and rulebooks always fall short (at best). Heck, there may even be a time/situation where a .270 is the most ethical round to use! :tooth:
You just described morals. Ethics can be codified morals-- ethics do not exist without morals. Morals are also the basis of rules and laws. It is like trying to write a word without symbols or letters.
Fine. If that's the case, why do we have rules that people point to and call "Morals"? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm trying to learn something here...
Now to say that stealing, murdering, and cheating on your wife is wrong because it is in the 10 Commandments-- that would be an ethical issue-- it doesn't explain why those things shouldn't be done-- just don't do them. Morals attempt to explain why-- or maybe not even why but is internalized as good or bad. Understanding where a person's motivations lay can tell me a lot about their character. Character is extremely important to me.
I wouldn't call those "Christian" morals - although Christians *do* profess them - and I agree what we're talking about comes from within. Now as far as "cheating on your wife" as an example: That's only a "violation" *if* that is the agreement you have with your wife! Which I do, which makes it wrong for me because she'd be hurt. Murder and steal? Depends on the situation, and yes people can argue semantics about that too. Great for guidelines though.
The quoted part I bolded - like! :up:
Now that you've listed the positive conservative ideals, you can start on the progressive ones.
Internal code and group code.
At least, that's my simplified understanding.
I mostly agree, but I feel Morals are taught. Your parents teach you from child hood, starting with things such as the golden rule.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
I believe morals can be suggested but not taught. Whether an individual implements those suggestions is up to them. IMHO, you are born with a moral "code", whatever it may be, at birth.Those morals can be shaped to a certain extent given openness to shaping by the individual.
I am NOT saying that everyone adheres to their own moral code. Many break it from time to time due to circumstances. Being that circumstances seem to be getting much harder to deal with, whether it is stress from not enough money to live, racism, politics, PTSD....etc., I believe more and more people are going against their moral code.
The UN failed the Balkans, their failure contributed to SFOR operations for the next 7-8 years. The UN has failed dang near all of Africa, a direct result was Operation Gothic Serpent. The UN failed in Iraq with there advise and assist mission. The UN has failed in the Sinai, and we rotate forces there every nine months. You name the operation and there has been a failure. The UN failed the Afghan people during the soviet invasion and allowed the Taliban to flourish in the camps.
And lets not talk about Disaster Recovery. What exactly does the UN do for that...Tell me. What resources do they provide? Absolutely zero. It is all the resources of another nation under the flag of the UN.
So it seems to me, that is supporting the UN is going to cost us lives, time, and more money then we should just keep the money ourselves and conduct the operations under our flag...as we see fit.
I have watched the UN place refugees on a bus, take them to their home town, make them sleep in bombed out houses overnight, and return them back to the refugee camp the next day. The UN then counted these refugees as returned, subtracted them from the camp count, and re-added them to the camp count...Why? So they could get more money because they took in more refugees.
Did anyone see the UN during Katrina? Sandy? Puerto Rico? Did the UN bring in extra fire teams to help us in the west.
SO WHAT ARE WE PAYING FOR!
Thank you for re-railing this thread. I was afraid it was chasing its tail into oblivion.
Mike
N454casull
I agree!
So do I!
My belief? Trump never really meant that we were going to pull out of the UN. That was the opening salvo of a renegotiation of a contract. Look at it from the business perspective:
Say a Fortune 500 company is wanting to renegotiate their contract with... lets say Oracle. They have been a customer for years, and think that they are paying too much or not getting enough service. One day, they publicly publish an RFP (request for proposal) or RFI (request for information) to Oracle and their competitors (Infor, IBM, SAP, etc...) and throw in a couple of requirements that Oracle can't or don't currently support. The Company does not really want to rip out Oracle, but they do want to get a better deal. Oracle HAS to take it seriously, or one of the competitors could make a sweet enough offer to make it worthwhile for the Company to do a 'rip-and-replace' of the existing system. This gets Oracle to either try and work out a side deal and the company cancels the RFP/RFI, or fight it out in the open with their competitors. (By the way, this happens ALL THE TIME in the business world. Steve Jobs/ Apple did this to Motorola with the old PowerPC RISC processors. Beat them down to the point that Motorola was basically paying Apple to use them - Motorola was losing $5 on every processor they shipped. Then Apple sends out and RFP and Intel finally makes a sweet enough proposal and won... and then Motorola went toes up.)
Trump saying he was going to pull out of the UN was the equivalent of the public RFP/RFI. He does not really think he will (but the option exists), but it's mostly just beating a vendor about the head with the biggest stick he has- the checkbook. This is the world Trump comes out of.
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/trump-files-when-donald-trump-told-larry-king-his-breath-stank-national-television/
Yeah, it's a liberal rag, but it's also one of the better-relayed incidents of the story (and it talks about how Trump actually said King's breath wasn't bad THAT NIGHT.) It's part of his negotiation practice: make 'em think of something else so they're not fully devoted to the business at hand. I think that's also what he does with his Twitter account.
Works both ways.
I just don't know why we call 'em "promises."
Why create a huge uproar by tipping over the applecart when it's slower, but just as effective to put the pushcart vendor out of business by diverting his customers to some other location or stealing his apples one at a time? Strangling cash flow works- - - -it's just a slower process than armed robbery. The UN can't waste as much money if the US refuses to keep the financial tap flowing wide open.
Jerry
And it has some startling similarities to the oldest profession.
:jester:
Jerry
They screw the people they work for, and end up richer for it?
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
Trump's a businessman who thinks about winning the best deal. Politicians think about winning the next election.
And give honest value for your dollar!