Actually, using the terms as you seem to be using them, I agree. And certainly personal implementations and perceptions of both ethics and morals are heavily influenced by external ones (and may influence them in turn).
I suppose my definitions would be something like the following:
Ethics say "this thing will have consequences" (which I may or may not like). For instance wasting resources which will limit my (and others') future possibilities; if I spend all my money on toys then I won't have any left for food. Or murdering someonefor personal gain. There's little room for argument in that sort of thing, almost all societies will agree on it.
Morals say that regardless of actual consequences something is 'right' or 'wrong'. Some people would say, for instance, that reading anything other than the Bible is 'wrong'.
To take one very variable area, what societies define as incest can be very different. The ethical case is fairly simple, to limit the chance of genetic defects, but in some cultures marrying your (deceased) brother's wife is forbidden and in others it's almost compulsory. There's no ethical/practical reason why adopted 'siblings' shouldn't marry, but it's often regarded as 'wrong' (at least one society which forbids that allows first cousins to marry: go figure). (And I knew a person who wouldn't date a friend who was regarded as a 'brother', because it would "feel wrong".)
But, as I say, there are some people who would regard the above as having ethics and morals reversed. For the sake of sanity: define your terms (STR).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-06-29 12:21 pm (UTC)Actually, using the terms as you seem to be using them, I agree. And certainly personal implementations and perceptions of both ethics and morals are heavily influenced by external ones (and may influence them in turn).
I suppose my definitions would be something like the following:
Ethics say "this thing will have consequences" (which I may or may not like). For instance wasting resources which will limit my (and others') future possibilities; if I spend all my money on toys then I won't have any left for food. Or murdering someonefor personal gain. There's little room for argument in that sort of thing, almost all societies will agree on it.
Morals say that regardless of actual consequences something is 'right' or 'wrong'. Some people would say, for instance, that reading anything other than the Bible is 'wrong'.
To take one very variable area, what societies define as incest can be very different. The ethical case is fairly simple, to limit the chance of genetic defects, but in some cultures marrying your (deceased) brother's wife is forbidden and in others it's almost compulsory. There's no ethical/practical reason why adopted 'siblings' shouldn't marry, but it's often regarded as 'wrong' (at least one society which forbids that allows first cousins to marry: go figure). (And I knew a person who wouldn't date a friend who was regarded as a 'brother', because it would "feel wrong".)
But, as I say, there are some people who would regard the above as having ethics and morals reversed. For the sake of sanity: define your terms (STR).