I promised that I would be posting more on the Proposition 8 decision, and I have been working on it. The hardest part is that so much is worth reading. As I get my notes organized, here is a fun clip on what biblical marriages look like.
In search of reason,
Mike
Showing posts with label Definitions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Definitions. Show all posts
Ethics Part 1: Ethics and Morals
I want to do a series of posts on ethics to examine the topic from a variety of angles. Ethics is something I've gained a lot of enjoyment from studying formally, and another thing that I enjoy is sharing knowledge. I'll start with a post that short and sweet by clarifying the difference between ethics and morals.
Ethics, academically speaking, is the branch of philosophy concerned with questions of morality and ethical behavior. Ethics in more practical terms are codes of behavior created by and applied to groups, be they cultural, national, or professional. These ethical standards are the guidelines for what behaviors the group finds acceptable or "right," and deviating from them is "wrong."
Morals are personal. Everyone has a moral compass which is calibrated uniquely (more on the various moral compasses in the next post). This is your own sense of what is right and wrong.
Ethics and morals will not always align. A doctor having a sexual relationship with a patient may not be considered immoral if the doctor is not exploiting vulnerabilities of the patient, but it is always considered unethical by modern professional ethics. On the other side of the coin a defense lawyer may find murder immoral and know his client is guilty, but legal ethics require that every defendant be given a sincere defense regardless of what their lawyer thinks of them. In both of these examples it seems that ethical codes should trump personal morals. Should that always be the case? Why or why not?
Now that I've explicitly stated the meanings of the words I'll try to make sure that I use them correctly for the rest of the series. Feel free to hold me to that with some good natured chiding if you spot a mistake. I think I'll also try to leave an open ended question like the one above in all the posts for this series as well.
In search of reason,
Mike
Ethics, academically speaking, is the branch of philosophy concerned with questions of morality and ethical behavior. Ethics in more practical terms are codes of behavior created by and applied to groups, be they cultural, national, or professional. These ethical standards are the guidelines for what behaviors the group finds acceptable or "right," and deviating from them is "wrong."
Morals are personal. Everyone has a moral compass which is calibrated uniquely (more on the various moral compasses in the next post). This is your own sense of what is right and wrong.
Ethics and morals will not always align. A doctor having a sexual relationship with a patient may not be considered immoral if the doctor is not exploiting vulnerabilities of the patient, but it is always considered unethical by modern professional ethics. On the other side of the coin a defense lawyer may find murder immoral and know his client is guilty, but legal ethics require that every defendant be given a sincere defense regardless of what their lawyer thinks of them. In both of these examples it seems that ethical codes should trump personal morals. Should that always be the case? Why or why not?
Now that I've explicitly stated the meanings of the words I'll try to make sure that I use them correctly for the rest of the series. Feel free to hold me to that with some good natured chiding if you spot a mistake. I think I'll also try to leave an open ended question like the one above in all the posts for this series as well.
In search of reason,
Mike
Learning to Clutch... The Definitions
Since the topics we’re going to be writing about are often misunderstood or unclear, I thought it would be good to explain the lexicon we’re using. After all, you can’t hold a constructive conversation if people aren't using the same definitions.
I want to start by dispelling common misconceptions about “Agnostic” and “Atheist.”
An Atheist by definition is simply someone that doesn’t hold a belief in a god or gods. Theists propose god concepts, and those that aren’t convinced by any of them are Atheists.
An Agnostic by definition is someone who simply claims that they lack knowledge or certainty about a topic. You can claim to be Gnostic or Agnostic about any topic, we’re just most familiar with it in regards to religion.
This means that rather than a continuum from Christianity/Islam/etc. to Deism, to Agnosticism to Atheism we have two axis overlapping.
I want to start by dispelling common misconceptions about “Agnostic” and “Atheist.”
An Atheist by definition is simply someone that doesn’t hold a belief in a god or gods. Theists propose god concepts, and those that aren’t convinced by any of them are Atheists.
An Agnostic by definition is someone who simply claims that they lack knowledge or certainty about a topic. You can claim to be Gnostic or Agnostic about any topic, we’re just most familiar with it in regards to religion.
This means that rather than a continuum from Christianity/Islam/etc. to Deism, to Agnosticism to Atheism we have two axis overlapping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)