I really need to be doing things...

[avevale_intelligencer]

...but I can't let this go. Someone (whom I won't name because I don't know if they want their LJ and FB identities linked) just quoted on Facebook:

"Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religon is doing whatever you are told no matter what is right."

As an example of the statement that sounds good without at any point touching on truth, I don't think that can be bettered, and it shows up how insidiously persuasive a nice jingly Wildean paradox can be--I almost found myself nodding sagely at it for a second. But good grief, morality is *all about* what we're told--morality is tribal. And as for the stupid, facile old canard about religion being mindless obedience, I don't even need to bother refuting that, do I? I'm sure I've done it before, anyway, and I haven't got the spare computer time right now.

So, let's compose some nice jingly Wildean paradoxes.

"Bacon and eggs are tasty without being healthy. Muesli is healthy without being tasty."

See how it works? You have a try. See how convincing you can make any old rubbish just by balancing two phrases one against the other.

I'll check back tonight. I may award points.

Comments

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I incline to a modified "self-generated/imposed from outside" view; our personal ethics start out being defined by the morality we're taught, get modified as we think about things and come to our own conclusion, and in turn have a small but measurable effect on morality through our actions.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Yet another variant *g*.

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).