| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Discourser" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2004 01:07:39 AM |
| Object: |
Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells
A Stem-Cell Research Pioneer
Edinburgh University scientist Austin Smith says the issue is too important
to be left to "the lottery of politicians or public opinion"
Is there a difference between moral and ethical questions in research?
A: There's a formal distinction between the two. Ethics has to do with a
codified public system of behaviour, and morality is more of a personal
belief. Of course, it's possible to be a scientist and for your morality to
tell you that you cannot work with a human embryo. But I would argue that it
wouldn't be ethical for such a scientist to argue as a scientist that there
was no case for working with human embryos. They can choose not to do it
themselves, but they can't make an honest scientific case for not doing it.
SOURCE: BUSINESSWEEK
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2004/nf20040813_9702_db_81.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
15 Aug 2004 08:00:48 AM |
|
|
I think it plays out like this:
1) Morality is the intent to achieve good, for others as well as for
ourselves.
2) Rules (mores, manners, customs, ethics, rules, regulations, laws, etc)
are devised by moral people to increase the likelihood of achieving good and
reducing harm.
3) As a moral person, the scientist may conclude that there is more harm in
stem cell research than good.
4) As a scientist, she may be disappointed in not being able to pursue this
research, but her moral self has concluded that this particular method
cannot be justified by the ends sought, so she may persue the same ends
through other methods.
The issue here is at 3. Substitute an obviously unethical method, like
altering the brains of three-year-olds, and it becomes clearer.
The problem in the paragraph below is the phrase, "it wouldn't be ethical
for such a scientist to argue as a scientist that there was no case for
working with human embryos". Scientists do not argue moral issues "as
scientists". Scientists must argue moral issues as moral individuals, just
like the rest of us. There is no separate "scientific position" on a moral
issue.
"Discourser" <discourser@cox.net> wrote in message
news:I4DTc.86148$sh.60683@fed1read06...
Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells
A Stem-Cell Research Pioneer
Edinburgh University scientist Austin Smith says the issue is too
important
to be left to "the lottery of politicians or public opinion"
Is there a difference between moral and ethical questions in research?
A: There's a formal distinction between the two. Ethics has to do with a
codified public system of behaviour, and morality is more of a personal
belief. Of course, it's possible to be a scientist and for your morality
to
tell you that you cannot work with a human embryo. But I would argue that
it
wouldn't be ethical for such a scientist to argue as a scientist that
there
was no case for working with human embryos. They can choose not to do it
themselves, but they can't make an honest scientific case for not doing
it.
SOURCE: BUSINESSWEEK
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2004/nf20040813_9702_db_81.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
15 Aug 2004 11:08:51 AM |
|
|
In article <48JTc.21960$nx2.13753@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
I think it plays out like this:
1) Morality is the intent to achieve good, for others as well as for
ourselves.
Good and harm are subjective concepts.
What this description avoids is the motivation behind the intent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
15 Aug 2004 11:45:54 AM |
|
|
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-6EB7C3.12090415082004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Good and harm are subjective concepts.<
Yes and no. There are some goods and some harms which are obvious enough to
be considered objective. Getting run over by a car, for example, is clearly
a harm to the victim. Finding water when you're dying in the desert is
objectively good.
What this description avoids is the motivation behind the intent. <
Isn't "motivation" kind of synonymous with "intent"? We could say "Morality
is the motivation to achieve good, for others as well as for ourselves."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
15 Aug 2004 12:01:46 PM |
|
|
In article <6rMTc.22811$nx2.11236@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-6EB7C3.12090415082004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Good and harm are subjective concepts.<
Yes and no. There are some goods and some harms which are obvious enough to
be considered objective. Getting run over by a car, for example, is clearly
a harm to the victim.
If the person being hit by the car was about to rob a bank or rape
another citizen?
What if the person hit doesn't die, and instead uses their time of
recuperation to reorient their lives and go from being busy and self
inovled to helping others with that moment being the impetus or catalyst.
Self-evident is another way to speak to projection.
Finding water when you're dying in the desert is
objectively good.
Not if I'm in the middle of the Sahara and I've just prolong a long and
agonizing process of death through dehydration.
The pattern that emerges from your examples is that life good and death
is bad.
What this description avoids is the motivation behind the intent. <
Isn't "motivation" kind of synonymous with "intent"? We could say "Morality
is the motivation to achieve good, for others as well as for ourselves."
I agree that there are similarities, but I do see that as different. My
intent is to go to the store now. My motivation is that I need
ingredients to make dinner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
15 Aug 2004 12:35:57 PM |
|
|
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-A7597C.13015915082004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
... If the person being hit by the car was about to rob a bank or rape
another citizen? What if the person hit doesn't die, and instead uses their
time of recuperation to reorient their lives and go from being busy and self
inovled to helping others with that moment being the impetus or catalyst.
.... <
Right. We don't have a "God's eye view" of ultimate outcomes. So there is
always a risk that doing the right thing may produce a bad result. So we
have to place our bets on the principles and ethical rules that have the
highest probability of producing more good than harm. Although we expect
there will be exceptions, we stop at the stop sign rather than running
through it, because in the overwhelming number of cases it is more likely
that the result will ultimately be harmful if we hit a pedestrian.
... The pattern that emerges from your examples is that life good and
death is bad. <
Certainly. All of good and bad arises from life. But the self-sacrifice of
one soldier to save fifty is also considered good, even though it is a
personal harm. Something is "good" if it meets a real need that we have as
an individual, a society, or a species.
Isn't "motivation" kind of synonymous with "intent"? We could say
"Morality is the motivation to achieve good, for others as well as for
ourselves." <<
I agree that there are similarities, but I do see that as different. My
intent is to go to the store now. My motivation is that I need ingredients
to make dinner. <
The moral intent is to satisfy your life's need for food. Food is good.
Speaking of which...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
15 Aug 2004 02:58:43 PM |
|
|
In article <1aNTc.22902$nx2.20536@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
The moral intent is to satisfy your life's need for food. Food is good.
Speaking of which...
I'm not going to die if I don't eat dinner though. I've eaten today. I
may lose a pount, or feel tired and lacking in energy, but to assume my
motive for going to the store and cooking food is to preserve my life is
an overestimation of the need. Failing to eat and over time, might
produce this result, but to miss dinner tonight, or to not prepare what
I had intended isn't going to result in my death. The worst that can
happen if I don't act in service to this need or motivation is that I
might feel hunger, or that I might lose a few pounds, or that I might
lack some energy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
15 Aug 2004 11:43:54 PM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Marvin Edwards <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
1) Morality is the intent to achieve good, for others as well as for
ourselves.
A morality can have the intent to cause harm.
2) Rules (mores, manners, customs, ethics, rules, regulations, laws, etc)
are devised by moral people to increase the likelihood of achieving good and
reducing harm.
People can create rules that have the likelyhood of harming others. It
is misleading to label those people as moral.
3) As a moral person, the scientist may conclude that there is more harm in
stem cell research than good.
There is no way to measure harm against good.
4) As a scientist, she may be disappointed in not being able to pursue this
research, but her moral self has concluded that this particular method
cannot be justified by the ends sought, so she may persue the same ends
through other methods.
A scientist has to believe that acquiring knowledge is good and their
should be no prohibition against it as long as that activity is not
likely to cause harm.
The issue here is at 3. Substitute an obviously unethical method, like
altering the brains of three-year-olds, and it becomes clearer.
People currently have their brains altered by means of drugs and
implants to control seizures. I don't see how doing so can be termed
unethical.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 06:01:33 AM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10i0esakc119b0b@corp.supernews.com...
A morality can have the intent to cause harm. <
I think that would be precluded a priori. If someone harms others
unecessarily in order to benefit their own selfish desires, we would call
them immoral. If someone embraces harming others for personal pleasure we
would call that evil. And yes, there is good and evil intent in all of us,
morality and immorality.
2) Rules (mores, manners, customs, ethics, rules, regulations, laws, etc)
are devised by moral people to increase the likelihood of achieving good and
reducing harm. <<
People can create rules that have the likelyhood of harming others. It is
misleading to label those people as moral.<
Well, if their intent is evil we we can label them immoral. If their intent
is good, then they need education to understand the harm that the rule
causes, and they will change the rule. Do you have a specific example?
There is no way to measure harm against good.<
Despite that, we do it all the time. We do not execute people for stealing
something because we believe the harm outweighs the good it would achieve.
But we have changed penalities which we found were too lax to be effective,
like applying the "3 strikes and your out" rule to repeat felons.
A scientist has to believe that acquiring knowledge is good and their
should be no prohibition against it as long as that activity is not likely
to cause harm. <
That is not a scientific judgement but a moral one. It is the moral person,
whether scientist or not, who comes to that conclusion. Science has moral
value to all of us, not just to scientists.
People currently have their brains altered by means of drugs and implants
to control seizures. I don't see how doing so can be termed unethical. <
That depends upon the person's ethical code. His personal ethics will derive
from whether he sees more good or more harm coming from using a given
substance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 08:14:36 AM |
|
|
In article <hu0Uc.23541$nx2.15307@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10i0esakc119b0b@corp.supernews.com...
A morality can have the intent to cause harm. <
I think that would be precluded a priori. If someone harms others
unecessarily in order to benefit their own selfish desires, we would call
them immoral. If someone embraces harming others for personal pleasure we
would call that evil. And yes, there is good and evil intent in all of us,
morality and immorality.
These are labels and categories that we assign to behaviours. These are
conditioned beliefs and not all that difficult to accomplish as Pavlov
showed. What, for example, are the punshments for a philosophy student
who doesn't accept his/her professors position, or traditional
viewpoints in philosophy. What are the "slippery slope" arguments?
Conversely, what are the rewards of accepting his/her authority and
being the "good" student and the slippery upslope arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 06:39:14 PM |
|
|
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-68634C.09154116082004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
These are labels and categories that we assign to behaviours. These are
conditioned beliefs and not all that difficult to accomplish as Pavlov
showed. What, for example, are the punshments for a philosophy student who
doesn't accept his/her professors position, or traditional viewpoints in
philosophy. What are the "slippery slope" arguments? Conversely, what are
the rewards of accepting his/her authority and being the "good" student and
the slippery upslope arguments. <
You're speaking now about how to teach our own views of right an wrong, good
and bad, moral and immoral to others.
Authority is the first source of ethics. When we are too young to speak we
are taught that some behavior is acceptable and some is not. Later the child
acquires some understanding of the underlying principles and is able to
deduce similar rules in new areas.
Love is the first source of morality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 11:27:08 PM |
|
|
In article <CAbUc.29441$Jp6.14319@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-68634C.09154116082004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
These are labels and categories that we assign to behaviours. These are
conditioned beliefs and not all that difficult to accomplish as Pavlov
showed. What, for example, are the punshments for a philosophy student who
doesn't accept his/her professors position, or traditional viewpoints in
philosophy. What are the "slippery slope" arguments? Conversely, what are
the rewards of accepting his/her authority and being the "good" student and
the slippery upslope arguments. <
You're speaking now about how to teach our own views of right an wrong, good
and bad, moral and immoral to others.
Authority is the first source of ethics. When we are too young to speak we
are taught that some behavior is acceptable and some is not. Later the child
acquires some understanding of the underlying principles and is able to
deduce similar rules in new areas.
Love is the first source of morality.
Right and wrong, or good and bad are examples of primitive thinking --
more precisley they are examples of black and white thinking. Black and
white thinking is typical of children's abilities to conceptualize and
their propsensity to be extremists.
Extremes, or polarities like night and day ignore that sunsets and
sunrises occur between the two polar opposites of differential thinking.
The same is true of what you are terming ethics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 11:28:49 AM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Marvin Edwards <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10i0esakc119b0b@corp.supernews.com...
A morality can have the intent to cause harm. <
I think that would be precluded a priori. If someone harms others
unecessarily in order to benefit their own selfish desires, we would call
them immoral.
Some moralities advocate killing others that have a different religion.
That may not agree with a morality that you subscribe to, but it is
still a morality.
Since you claim that everyone commits both immoral and moral acts, I
think that defining people as either moral or immoral is an imprecise
categorization.
If someone embraces harming others for personal pleasure we
would call that evil.
I agree with that since I hold an act as evil if it causes harm without
benefiting anyone in a rational manner.
2) Rules (mores, manners, customs, ethics, rules, regulations, laws, etc)
are devised by moral people to increase the likelihood of achieving good and
reducing harm. <<
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 06:39:13 PM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10i1o61hgrt9e34@corp.supernews.com...
Some moralities advocate killing others that have a different religion.
That may not agree with a morality that you subscribe to, but it is still a
morality. <
I doubt that there is any ethos which says simply "kill everyone who doesn't
believe the way we do". Usually the killing requires some justification. In
the Old Testament, for example, the Israelites were being actively seduced
by the harlots of the other religion. Even Al Qaeda claims that the West has
"invaded holy land". It's not just that we have a different religion.
I used the word "ethos" instead of "morality" because I believe morality is
about intent rather than about rules. A "ethical" person can follow all the
rules to the letter and still do much harm by ignoring their spirit. A
"moral" person may feel he must break a rule to serve a higher good. I think
that is the key difference between ethics and morality. The words "moral
code" seem to fit your assertion better than "moral intent".
Kant spoke of the "good will", saying that it was the only thing which was
moral in and of itself. All other talents and qualities can be used to good
or evil ends. Kant is a very difficult guy to read, but I think he was right
in saying that morality is a quality of our intent rather than of our
behavior. This is similar to the Christian principle that "God judges us by
our heart rather than by our accomplishments".
Since you claim that everyone commits both immoral and moral acts, I think
that defining people as either moral or immoral is an imprecise
categorization. <
We can define the terms precisely. But we cannot always know what action
will produce the best good and the least harm in the long run. But we can
easily define morality as the intent to achieve good, for others as well as
ourselves.
There is a difference between morality and ethics. A moral person may commit
an unethical act (as in protesting using civil disobedience). An ethical
person may commit an immoral act (as in Nazis Germany, where orders and
rules were followed).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
17 Aug 2004 01:20:32 PM |
|
|
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<BAbUc.29439$Jp6.4864@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10i1o61hgrt9e34@corp.supernews.com...
[-----]
I used the word "ethos" instead of "morality" because I believe morality is
about intent rather than about rules.
I disagree with your categorization. I believe just the opposite --
that morality is only about rules. There are different schemes of
morality most of which claim that certain sacred rules were delivered
to mankind by a deity. This is why to a monotheist blasphemy is
immoral while in actuality it harms no one. A moral Catholic will
fast during Lent for no other reason than the Church deemed it so. A
moral Morman will abstain from coffee because her religion decrys
caffeine. One hundred years ago, moral Southern Christians held slaves
because it was not immoral to do so according to the Bible. Judging
the relative harm of an action seems to have no place in determining
what is "moral".
A "ethical" person can follow all the
rules to the letter and still do much harm by ignoring their spirit.
IMO, ethical people don't follow rules per se, but examine their
actions to see if they are causing harm. They don't rely upon
religious authority to tell them the difference between right and
wrong.
A
"moral" person may feel he must break a rule to serve a higher good. I think
that is the key difference between ethics and morality. The words "moral
code" seem to fit your assertion better than "moral intent".
Or a "moral" person may feel he is being perfectly moral by following
the Word of GodŽ, such as Paul Hill, whom considered himself righteous
as he gunned down two people.
Kant spoke of the "good will", saying that it was the only thing which was
moral in and of itself. All other talents and qualities can be used to good
or evil ends. Kant is a very difficult guy to read, but I think he was right
in saying that morality is a quality of our intent rather than of our
behavior. This is similar to the Christian principle that "God judges us by
our heart rather than by our accomplishments".
The heart of a Christian, according to the Bible, is judged upon how
faithfully one follows the Word of GodŽ, not upon whether a specific
act is considered good or bad by worldly society. In fact, Christians
are ideally supposed to distance themselves from the judgement of the
world and rely solely upon their personal relationship with GodŽ,
through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, in order to live their lives in a
holy and righteous manner. It's about following the LordŽ not about
evaluating one's actions.
[----]
We can define the terms precisely. But we cannot always know what action
will produce the best good and the least harm in the long run. But we can
easily define morality as the intent to achieve good, for others as well as
ourselves.
That is what an ethical person does. A moral person follows his
deity's rules.
There is a difference between morality and ethics. A moral person may commit
an unethical act (as in protesting using civil disobedience).
Or murdering an abortion doctor. Protesting using civil disobedience
is not an unethical act, but it may be against the law. If one is
peacefully protesting for the greater good, then no harm is done
except the possibility of arrest for disobeying the law. But an
ethical person may make that decision for himself because ethics do
not require one to obey unethical rules.
An ethical
person may commit an immoral act (as in Nazis Germany, where orders and
rules were followed).
No, following orders is for the moral. An ethical person can commit
an "immoral" act such as fornication without harming anyone.
Liz #658 BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
17 Aug 2004 06:07:12 PM |
|
|
"Liz" <mtstack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:af375798.0408171020.59a1d018@posting.google.com...
I disagree with your categorization. I believe just the opposite -- that
morality is only about rules. ... <
Then what do we call the will, motivation, intent, orientation, etc. to
achieve good for others as well as ourselves? We've got tons of words about
different rule systems: code, law, ethics, ethos, moral code, rule,
regulation, manners, etc. What do you call the thing that I am calling
"morality"?
IMO, ethical people don't follow rules per se, but examine their actions
to see if they are causing harm. They don't rely upon religious authority
to tell them the difference between right and wrong. <
It sounds like you are using "ethical" in the sense that I am using "moral".
But ethics are rules. A commitment to ethical behavior is a commitment to
follow principles. Principles are rule statements. The Ten Commandments are
rules.
Or a "moral" person may feel he is being perfectly moral by following the
Word of GodŽ, such as Paul Hill, whom considered himself righteous as he
gunned down two people. <
Or an "ethical" religious person may feel he perfectly ethical by following
the "Word of God".
The heart of a Christian, according to the Bible, is judged upon how
faithfully one follows the Word of GodŽ ... <
No that's just plain wrong. For Christians, it is the orientation of the
heart which is more important than any specific action. Jesus introduced the
radical idea that it was not enough to follow the Biblical Law, which was
the major concern of Judaism at the time, but to have a pure heart. And Paul
continued this theme, especially in Romans 14.
... not upon whether a specific act is considered good or bad by worldly
society. In fact, Christians are ideally supposed to distance themselves
from the judgement of the world and rely solely upon their personal
relationship with GodŽ, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, in order to live
their lives in a holy and righteous manner. It's about following the LordŽ
not about evaluating one's actions. <
It is about becoming Christ-like, in our motivation.
... A moral person follows his deity's rules. <
That classifies someone without a deity as immoral. Is that what you mean to
say? Or do you mean to say atheists are "amoral"? That's not acceptable to
this atheist.
Or murdering an abortion doctor. Protesting using civil disobedience is
not an unethical act, but it may be against the law. If one is peacefully
protesting for the greater good, then no harm is done except the possibility
of arrest for disobeying the law. But an ethical person may make that
decision for himself because ethics do not require one to obey unethical
rules. <
Well, perhaps "moral" and "ethical" are too intertwined, such that their
meanings are exchangeable. But I think it is extremely important to be able
to speak of the moral/ethical attitude/intent. It is a different very thing
from moral/ethical codes. I figured since we had two separate words we could
use them to make the distinction. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
suggests that "moral" is related not only to "custom" (rule) but also to
"mood" (attitude), not to mention the related word "morale".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
17 Aug 2004 07:50:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:07:12 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe2uu@earthlink.net> in news message
<AcwUc.754$2L3.157@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liz" <mtstack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:af375798.0408171020.59a1d018@posting.google.com...
I disagree with your categorization. I believe just the opposite -- that
morality is only about rules. ... <
Then what do we call the will, motivation, intent, orientation, etc. to
achieve good for others as well as ourselves? We've got tons of words about
different rule systems: code, law, ethics, ethos, moral code, rule,
regulation, manners, etc. What do you call the thing that I am calling
"morality"?
I think it is really close to what I am calling ethics.
IMO, ethical people don't follow rules per se, but examine their actions
to see if they are causing harm. They don't rely upon religious authority
to tell them the difference between right and wrong. <
It sounds like you are using "ethical" in the sense that I am using "moral".
Most likely.
But ethics are rules. A commitment to ethical behavior is a commitment to
follow principles. Principles are rule statements. The Ten Commandments are
rules.
I agree that ethics are principles of behavior. One must understand
the principles in order to judge whether one's behavior is ethical or
not.
OTOH, morals are "[r]ules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual
conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong." Moral
people "conform to the standards of right and just behavior", those
standards, which in most cultures have a religious basis, do not
depend on ethics, which I see as universal, but on arbitrary
standards, or rules, issued by GodŽ (if you are a believer), or by
those who control the Holy BooksŽ (if you do not believe)
Or a "moral" person may feel he is being perfectly moral by following the
Word of GodŽ, such as Paul Hill, whom considered himself righteous as he
gunned down two people. <
Or an "ethical" religious person may feel he perfectly ethical by following
the "Word of God".
Certainly in some cases that would be true. Many times, morals and
ethics overlap. It is only when they don't that conflict arises
between those who think that morals should be followed and those who
think that ethics should prevail.
The heart of a Christian, according to the Bible, is judged upon how
faithfully one follows the Word of GodŽ ... <
No that's just plain wrong. For Christians, it is the orientation of the
heart which is more important than any specific action. Jesus introduced the
radical idea that it was not enough to follow the Biblical Law, which was
the major concern of Judaism at the time, but to have a pure heart. And Paul
continued this theme, especially in Romans 14.
I possibly worded that poorly. It is one's belief that is paramount,
not one's actions. What I meant, but did not express well, was that
one should emulate Jesus as revealed by the Word of GodŽ.
... not upon whether a specific act is considered good or bad by worldly
society. In fact, Christians are ideally supposed to distance themselves
from the judgement of the world and rely solely upon their personal
relationship with GodŽ, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, in order to live
their lives in a holy and righteous manner. It's about following the LordŽ
not about evaluating one's actions. <
It is about becoming Christ-like, in our motivation.
Yes, to emulate Jesus.
... A moral person follows his deity's rules. <
That classifies someone without a deity as immoral. Is that what you mean to
say? Or do you mean to say atheists are "amoral"? That's not acceptable to
this atheist.
It is acceptable to me. I consider myself an ethical person. I am
totally neutral as to morality based upon religion.
Or murdering an abortion doctor. Protesting using civil disobedience is
not an unethical act, but it may be against the law. If one is peacefully
protesting for the greater good, then no harm is done except the possibility
of arrest for disobeying the law. But an ethical person may make that
decision for himself because ethics do not require one to obey unethical
rules. <
Well, perhaps "moral" and "ethical" are too intertwined, such that their
meanings are exchangeable. But I think it is extremely important to be able
to speak of the moral/ethical attitude/intent. It is a different very thing
from moral/ethical codes. I figured since we had two separate words we could
use them to make the distinction. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
suggests that "moral" is related not only to "custom" (rule) but also to
"mood" (attitude), not to mention the related word "morale".
It is a puzzlement. Wouldn't it be wonderful if words were as
precise as we would want to make them while still retaining the
richness of language? As it is, is seems that we have both put our
subjective connotations on the words "moral" and "ethical" and have
come up with opposite conclusions.
Liz #658 BAAWA
We may have lost our moral compass but we still have our chaste
sextant, our modest flashlight, our ethical pen knife, and our
virtuous canteen. -- jwkinraleigh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
17 Aug 2004 08:50:58 PM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:v395i0hu6qqej0smbhe6fsmiamiuj95hoo@4ax.com...
I think it is really close to what I am calling ethics. <
Well, if all else fails, we can use the dictionary, which seems to put them
as overlapping and reflective of each other:
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1979):
ethic "1: pl but sing or pl in constr: the discipline dealing with what is
good and bad and with moral duty and obligations.
2 a: a set of moral principles or values
b: a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ~>
c: pl but sing or pl in constr: the principles of conduct governing an
individual or group <professional ~>"
moral "1a: of or relating to the principles of right and wrong in behavior:
: ETHICAL <~ judgments>
b:expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior < a ~ poem>
c: conforming to a standard or right behavior
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a ~
obligation>
e: capable of right and wrong action <a ~ agent>"
"...syn MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE shared meaning element:
conforming to a standard of what is right and good"
So the dictionary pretty much equates their underlying stuff.
... I agree that ethics are principles of behavior. One must understand
the principles in order to judge whether one's behavior is ethical or not.
.... <
But in the same fashion that several have suggested that different cultures
and religions hold to different moralities, one might say that different
cultures and religions hold to different ethics.
OTOH, morals are "[r]ules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual
conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong." Moral people
"conform to the standards of right and just behavior", those standards,
which in most cultures have a religious basis, do not depend on ethics,
which I see as universal, but on arbitrary standards, or rules, issued by
GodŽ (if you are a believer), or by those who control the Holy BooksŽ (if
you do not believe) <
But religion plays no role in the dictionary definition of either term.
... Many times, morals and ethics overlap. It is only when they don't
that conflict arises between those who think that morals should be followed
and those who think that ethics should prevail. <
Rules are rules. An ethical code is functionally equivalent to a moral code.
We cannot say that ethics are immune from religious influence and that
morals are basically religious.
Here are the two things that I'm trying to express: A) A moral/ethical
intent, where we recognize in a person the will to do what is right and
good. B) A moral/ethical rule, where we have established a principle that
serves this moral/ethical intent. I've been calling the intent "morality"
and the rules "ethics". Perhaps I should be more explicit and use the terms
"moral intent" and "ethical rules" (someone else might say "ethical intent"
and "moral rules").
The key is that a moral/ethical intent underlies all moral/ethical
positions, and is the implicit yardstick by which different positions are
compared, that is, which principle is more likely to accomplish the intent.
It is acceptable to me. I consider myself an ethical person. I am
totally neutral as to morality based upon religion. <
I'm not willing to be labelled "immoral" or "amoral" because of my atheism.
I do not surrender the term "morality" to the theists.
It is a puzzlement. Wouldn't it be wonderful if words were as precise as
we would want to make them while still retaining the richness of language?
As it is, is seems that we have both put our subjective connotations on the
words "moral" and "ethical" and have come up with opposite conclusions. <
Well, the benefit of the discussion is that it helps me choose words and
phrases more wisely, to express myself more accurately. And for that I'm
grateful.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
17 Aug 2004 09:58:55 AM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Marvin Edwards <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10i1o61hgrt9e34@corp.supernews.com...
Some moralities advocate killing others that have a different religion.
That may not agree with a morality that you subscribe to, but it is still a
morality. <
I doubt that there is any ethos which says simply "kill everyone who doesn't
believe the way we do". Usually the killing requires some justification. In
the Old Testament, for example, the Israelites were being actively seduced
by the harlots of the other religion. Even Al Qaeda claims that the West has
"invaded holy land". It's not just that we have a different religion.
My point is that there are a multitude of moralities and that two
different moralities may have principles that are opposed to each other.
I used the word "ethos" instead of "morality" because I believe morality is
about intent rather than about rules. A "ethical" person can follow all the
rules to the letter and still do much harm by ignoring their spirit. A
"moral" person may feel he must break a rule to serve a higher good. I think
that is the key difference between ethics and morality. The words "moral
code" seem to fit your assertion better than "moral intent".
Are you arguing that there shouldn't be a morality consisting of moral
principles?
How can you hope to evaluate "moral intent"? Is someone who kills
infidels for his god acting with moral intent?
Since you claim that everyone commits both immoral and moral acts, I think
that defining people as either moral or immoral is an imprecise
categorization. <
We can define the terms precisely. But we cannot always know what action
will produce the best good and the least harm in the long run. But we can
easily define morality as the intent to achieve good, for others as well as
ourselves.
It doesn't matter what the intent of a serial killer is, he is still
committing immoral acts.
There is a difference between morality and ethics. A moral person may commit
an unethical act (as in protesting using civil disobedience). An ethical
person may commit an immoral act (as in Nazis Germany, where orders and
rules were followed).
Morality and ethics are synonyms. The law may not correspond to
the best moral principles just as a morality may not be the best.
I object to your labeling people as moral or immoral when it's their
actions that are moral or immoral.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
17 Aug 2004 06:07:13 PM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10i479fnrvf4ee4@corp.supernews.com...
How can you hope to evaluate "moral intent"? <
The point is not to "evaluate" moral intent, but to cultivate it.
Is someone who kills infidels for his god acting with moral intent? <
Possibly. But his "means" of serving that intent are immoral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
17 Aug 2004 10:28:29 PM |
|
|
In article <BcwUc.755$2L3.479@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10i479fnrvf4ee4@corp.supernews.com...
How can you hope to evaluate "moral intent"? <
The point is not to "evaluate" moral intent, but to cultivate it.
It is quite presumptuous to think that anyone's moral code should be
cultivated. The reality seems to be that there are complex and varied
systems that are contrary to a philosopher's quest for universal truths.
Is someone who kills infidels for his god acting with moral intent? <
Possibly. But his "means" of serving that intent are immoral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
18 Aug 2004 05:24:27 AM |
|
|
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-ACFBEA.23293117082004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
It is quite presumptuous to think that anyone's moral code should be
cultivated. The reality seems to be that there are complex and varied
systems that are contrary to a philosopher's quest for universal truths. <
My point is that morality is not what divides us, but what we share in
common. Even though people disagree about the rules, their intent is to
improve good and reduce harm. There are individuals whose general intent is
different, who intend to fulfill their own selfish desires no matter what
the harm to others. The moral intent, along with the moral code we
personally believe in, is what we seek to cultivate in our children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
18 Aug 2004 08:14:18 AM |
|
|
In article <v7GUc.1466$2L3.1413@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-ACFBEA.23293117082004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
It is quite presumptuous to think that anyone's moral code should be
cultivated. The reality seems to be that there are complex and varied
systems that are contrary to a philosopher's quest for universal truths. <
My point is that morality is not what divides us, but what we share in
common. Even though people disagree about the rules, their intent is to
improve good and reduce harm. There are individuals whose general intent is
different, who intend to fulfill their own selfish desires no matter what
the harm to others. The moral intent, along with the moral code we
personally believe in, is what we seek to cultivate in our children.
I seriously question this perspective. My obervations and experience has
been that most of the things that we do are in service of the self's
wants and needs. Even acts that are generally termed altrusitic have
this similarity. Unfortunately, most people lack the conscious
awareness, or honesty to discuss their "ill" or intent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
18 Aug 2004 02:59:03 PM |
|
|
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-D1B67A.09143118082004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
... My obervations and experience has been that most of the things that we
do are in service of the self's wants and needs. Even acts that are
generally termed altrusitic have this similarity. ... <
Indeed. Social norms of morality (family, church, community, school, clique,
etc) help to make altruism desirable, such that one feels good about doing
good. That's what I meant by "cultivating" a moral intent. Very few people
are wholly sociopathic, with no feelings at all about others. Others may
have a sense that what they are doing is wrong, but justify it to themselves
in some fashion. Ideally, people would do good simply because it feels good.
And that's one role of churches, to provide a "spiritual" community
(spiritual as in "how one feels about things" rather than ghosts) that is
like a support group for people seeking good for themselves and others.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
17 Aug 2004 05:16:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:58:55 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <10i479fnrvf4ee4@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
How can you hope to evaluate "moral intent"? Is someone who kills
infidels for his god acting with moral intent?
Probably, but that is no reason not to shoot him down like a mad dog.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 04:58:01 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:43:54 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <10i0esakc119b0b@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
In talk.philosophy.humanism Marvin Edwards <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
1) Morality is the intent to achieve good, for others as well as for
ourselves.
A morality can have the intent to cause harm.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 05:48:39 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:i811i0treopb52nuv88fngpkf4stdp8qh0@4ax.com...
Almost everybody who refers to "moral" means "what I think that you should
do". <
Of course. Everyone practices moral judgement on a daily basis, and forms
opininons about "this is right" and "that is wrong". There is a common basis
for these judgements: "what is likely to cause harm versus what is likely to
cause benefit to others as well as myself".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 07:59:32 AM |
|
|
In article <bi0Uc.23540$nx2.9217@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:i811i0treopb52nuv88fngpkf4stdp8qh0@4ax.com...
Almost everybody who refers to "moral" means "what I think that you should
do". <
Of course. Everyone practices moral judgement on a daily basis, and forms
opininons about "this is right" and "that is wrong". There is a common basis
for these judgements: "what is likely to cause harm versus what is likely to
cause benefit to others as well as myself".
Of course, people do not attempt morality. What happens is that people
avoid their individual and social conceptualizations of immorality for
fear of consequences. Those conseuqnces are usually based in
abandonment, violence and death. It's basic psychological conditioning
-- punishment and reward systems.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 05:08:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:48:39 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe2uu@earthlink.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<bi0Uc.23540$nx2.9217@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:i811i0treopb52nuv88fngpkf4stdp8qh0@4ax.com...
Almost everybody who refers to "moral" means "what I think that you should
do". <
Of course. Everyone practices moral judgement on a daily basis, and forms
opininons about "this is right" and "that is wrong". There is a common basis
for these judgements: "what is likely to cause harm versus what is likely to
cause benefit to others as well as myself".
Harm and benefit as defined by the user. And that is frequently the
problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
16 Aug 2004 06:04:43 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:52c2i0d82k7jt6o8a6lb7rs1oeup5vpfms@4ax.com...
Harm and benefit as defined by the user. And that is frequently the
problem. <
Of course. But the problem is not in morality itself. Each of us has our own
beliefs about right and wrong. But we share more areas of agreement than
areas of dispute. The practical rules in the 10 Commandments, the ones which
address behavior toward others, are pretty much in agreement between theists
and atheists. It is the several which address God and the Sabbath which get
us ticked off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality and Ethics of Stem Cells |
17 Aug 2004 12:10:59 AM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Marvin Edwards <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:52c2i0d82k7jt6o8a6lb7rs1oeup5vpfms@4ax.com...
Harm and benefit as defined by the user. And that is frequently the
problem. <
Of course. But the problem is not in morality itself. Each of us has our own
beliefs about right and wrong. But we share more areas of agreement than
areas of dispute. The practical rules in the 10 Commandments, the ones which
address behavior toward others, are pretty much in agreement between theists
and atheists. It is the several which address God and the Sabbath which get
us ticked off.
And the one that legitimizes slavery.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
