Morality is to Ethics...

[D-Light]

as Societal Government is to Self-Government/Anarchy.

 

 

Definitions used:

 

Morality - the prescriptive and proscriptive rules for behavior that are imposed upon the individual or group by an external authority through force, deception, or coercion, or as a requisite condition for association.

 

Ethics - the prescriptive and proscriptive rules for behavior that are self-imposed by the individual or group.

 

Government - control of the mind.

 

Societal Government (v) - the assertion or otherwise imposition of decision-making control by force, deception, or coercion over the mind (and therefore the behavior) of others.

 

Self-Government (v) - the assertion or otherwise exercise of decision-making control over one's own mind (and therefore one's own behavior).

 

Morality is anti-virtue as it is coercive at best, compulsory at worst.

 

Ethics on the other hand are the advancement and practice of virtue at best, and the absence of vice at worst.

 

 

[DCLugi]

as Societal Government is to Self-Government/Anarchy.

 

 

Definitions used:

 

Morality - the prescriptive and proscriptive rules for behavior that are imposed upon the individual or group by an external authority through force, deception, or coercion, or as a requisite condition for association.

 

Ethics - the prescriptive and proscriptive rules for behavior that are self-imposed by the individual or group.

 

Government - control of the mind.

 

Societal Government (v) - the assertion or otherwise imposition of decision-making control by force, deception, or coercion over the mind (and therefore the behavior) of others.

 

Self-Government (v) - the assertion or otherwise exercise of decision-making control over one's own mind (and therefore one's own behavior).

 

Morality is anti-virtue as it is coercive at best, compulsory at worst.

 

Ethics on the other hand are the advancement and practice of virtue at best, and the absence of vice at worst.

I don't think you'll find that definition of morality on this forum.

[D-Light]

Not stated so explicitly, but is it inaccurate?

[dsayers]

Not stated so explicitly, but is it inaccurate?

Yes. It fails to infinite regression.

 

I actually did a good job of explaining how/why you can reject any subjective model for morality here.

 

Near as I can tell, the relationship between morality and ethics is the relationship between action and theory. The proposition that if enough people agree, we can steal from everybody to pay for schooling is unethical. Actually putting such a levy on a ballot and/or voting on it would be immoral. In other words, that which is immoral in practice is unethical in theory.

[virtue]

Those definitions of morality and ethics come across, to me at least, as forced - someone pushing or forcing something on someone.  It seems wrong to associate external force with morality or ethics.

 

Morality is to a person as a light house is to a ship at night. It can help you to take certain paths and avoid others. Although there are many aspects to morality, I often think about it in terms of a set of true beliefs about the nature of reality. There has been times I thought about morality as the cause of the inclination to do good.

 

To throw a wrench here, it was Alan Watts who once said the source of morality is selfishness. I think even Stefan said, in one of his videos, that morality comes from self preservation or biology. Kant equated morality with a good will.

 

Interestingly, Noam Chomsky said that to be a moral agent, a person must, at the bare minimum, act according to the golden rule. I realized, and so did Noam Chomsky, the golden rule fails miserably when a person applying it is corrupt or has a compromised judgement to begin with. If, for example, I have a death wish and wished others to kill me, I can easily justify to myself killing other people. I satisfy the condition of the golden rule. Hence why Noam Chomsky considered it the bare minimum.

 

As for the difference between ethics and morality, ethics is the philosophical study or examination of morality, and morality is a set of true beliefs about the nature of reality. One is a study, the other a set of beliefs.

[dsayers]

Those definitions of morality and ethics come across, to me at least, as forced - someone pushing or forcing something on someone.

I address this in my article and reference its value in discarding subjective models here. Did you read either?

[D-Light]

Yes. It fails to infinite regression.

 

Near as I can tell, the relationship between morality and ethics is the relationship between action and theory. The proposition that if enough people agree, we can steal from everybody to pay for schooling is unethical. Actually putting such a levy on a ballot and/or voting on it would be immoral. In other words, that which is immoral in practice is unethical in theory.

I do not see how my argument using my definitions fails to infinite regression. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how my argument using the definitions I have provided fails as you have suggested.

 

Clearly we have a difference of definition when it comes to the terms morality and ethics. The definitions I use are etymologically derived from the term from the Latin word "moralis" which is defined as "the proper behavior of a person in society", and ethics from the greek word "ethos" which refers to the nature, disposition, habit or character of the individual or group.

 

Those definitions of morality and ethics come across, to me at least, as forced - someone pushing or forcing something on someone.  It seems wrong to associate external force with morality or ethics.

 

When you say "it seems wrong", do you mean "it seems incorrect" or "it seems unethical/immoral"?  I am not attempting to force the acceptance of these ideas on anyone. I am simply asking that one consider them and offer their critique of my reasoning.

 

Morality is to a person as a light house is to a ship at night. It can help you to take certain paths and avoid others. Although there are many aspects to morality, I often think about it in terms of a set of true beliefs about the nature of reality. There has been times I thought about morality as the cause of the inclination to do good.

 

It is my hope that you understand precisely what I am saying. prescriptive and proscriptive rules of behavior which are imposed upon individuals by the whole of society are generally not intended to induce individuals or groups to do wrong; rather, the intention is to clarify if not in fact encourage others to do as society as a whole considers to be good. The difference I am pointing out between morals and ethics is that morals are externally originated prescriptive and proscriptive rules for behavior;  whereas, ethics are self-originated or voluntarily chosen behavior

 

To throw a wrench here, it was Alan Watts who once said the source of morality is selfishness. I think even Stefan said, in one of his videos, that morality comes from self preservation or biology. Kant equated morality with a good will.

 

I would definitely agree that ethics and morality are strongly tied to evolution and our tendency to be social creatures.

 

Interestingly, Noam Chomsky said that to be a moral agent, a person must, at the bare minimum, act according to the golden rule. I realized, and so did Noam Chomsky, the golden rule fails miserably when a person applying it is corrupt or has a compromised judgement to begin with. If, for example, I have a death wish and wished others to kill me, I can easily justify to myself killing other people. I satisfy the condition of golden rule. Hence why Noam Chomsky considered it the bare minimum.

 

I believe the capacity or facility of empathy is what drives the Golden Rule, and I also believe that empathy is but one aspect of multiple drives which inform our ethical (or what others might term our moral) compass.

 

As for the difference between ethics and morality, ethics is the philosophical study or examination of morality, and morality is a set of true beliefs about the nature of reality. One is a study, the other a set of beliefs.

 

You call morals the "true beliefs about the nature of reality." Obviously, the definition is quite a bit narrower than that, lest it end up including physics, and a host of others disciplines. Would you care to get a bit more narrow and precise than that?

[dsayers]

I do not see how my argument using my definitions fails to infinite regression. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how my argument using the definitions I have provided fails as you have suggested.

Certainly.

 

Morality - the prescriptive and proscriptive rules for behavior that are imposed upon the individual or group by an external authority through force, deception, or coercion, or as a requisite condition for association.

Fails to infinite regression. Who gave this external body its authority? We'll call that person/group X. Who gave X the authority to give to the external body? We'll call that Y. Who gave Y...

 

Your use of the word authority begs the question. Using this in a definition is poisoning the well.

 

I hope you will return the favor by addressing the case I've made as to why we can discard any model for morality that is subjective.

[D-Light]

Fails to infinite regression. Who gave this external body its authority? We'll call that person/group X. Who gave X the authority to give to the external body? We'll call that Y. Who gave Y...

 

Okay, I can see what you're saying about "authority" failing to infinite regression, however such "authority" is not integral to the definition at all.

 

Morality - the prescriptive and proscriptive rules for behavior that are imposed upon the individual or group by an external individual, group, or representative of such external individual or group through force, deception, coercion, or as a requisite condition for association

 

Your use of the word authority begs the question. Using this in a definition is poisoning the well.

 

It doesn't REALLY beg the question, though, because I do not view any non-voluntary, external authority (including moral authority) as legitimate, hence the comparison of morality to government (which I like-wlse view as illegitimate unless expressly voluntary, like contractual relationships such as those between an employer and an employee). When it comes to authority, there is only one source, the individual. The individual has self-authority (a.k.a. self-governance, self-control, self-rule, etc.). The individual can cede a portion of their authority to another, (e.g., an employee), but they cannot ever do so irrevocably; one can only ever cede control to another over that which may justly be controlled without force (i.e., one's possessions, one's unconscious body or remains, etc.)

 

I hope you will return the favor by addressing the case I've made as to why we can discard any model for morality that is subjective.

 

Happy to. Please see my post in the other thread first for my explication of why morality is inherently, definitively subjective. Then, if you feel I have not addressed your position sufficiently, or if you find something amiss in my argument, please let me know.

[dsayers]

That definition still fails to infinite regression. Unless you can delineate in what way one individual would be fundamentally different in a way that they would own themselves, but others wouldn't.

 

I've read your other post and all you've done is assert that morality MUST be subjective. This does nothing to address the case I've made, which is actually the best I've done at pointing out why morality is either objective or utterly worthless. I won't put more effort into this than you will.

[D-Light]

That definition still fails to infinite regression. Unless you can delineate in what way one individual would be fundamentally different in a way that they would own themselves, but others wouldn't.

 

Again, I appologize, but I don't undrestand how you believe the argument fails to infinite regression unless you specifically point it out. Nevertheless, what I am guessing is that you believe I am attempting to make an argument in favor of government by attempting to compare it favorably to morality when in fact I am doing precisely the opposite, making an argument against morality by comparing it to government. Nevertheless, if there is yet something I am missing please point it out more specifically.

 

I've read your other post and all you've done is assert that morality MUST be subjective. This does nothing to address the case I've made, which is actually the best I've done at pointing out why morality is either objective or utterly worthless. I won't put more effort into this than you will.

 

Okay, I will humor you in addressing your argument; however, my reason for directing you to my post in the other thread was for you to see that the foundational premises of your argument are false; so any subsequent argument you might have made, even if perfectly valid, would nevertheless fail as unsound because of the deficiency of a false premise. If you find any fault in my argument or definitions, please point them out specifically and clearly so that I may address them.

 

[dsayers]

 

Again, I appologize, but I don't undrestand how you believe the argument fails to infinite regression unless you specifically point it out.

All you did was offer a tautology, replacing authority with the same thing. If you understood how it fell to infinite regression to make the correction, then you understand how it fails now. And I did point it out by addressing that people are not fundamentally different.

[D-Light]

All you did was offer a tautology, replacing authority with the same thing. If you understood how it fell to infinite regression to make the correction, then you understand how it fails now. And I did point it out by addressing that people are not fundamentally different.

Addressing it and refuting it are not the same thing. I ought to have been more precise. You claim that people are not fundamentally different, that is irrelevant to the definition of morality which I provided which again, only fails to infinite regression if you infer things I have not implied. The KEY idea is that the morality is being imposed by another rather than self-imposed. The supposed authority of others in imposing the morality is completely irrelevant.

[dsayers]

Addressing it and refuting it are not the same thing. I ought to have been more precise. You claim that people are not fundamentally different, that is irrelevant to the definition of morality which I provided which again, only fails to infinite regression if you infer things I have not implied. The KEY idea is that the morality is being imposed by another rather than self-imposed. The supposed authority of others in imposing the morality is completely irrelevant.

This just indicates you don't understand what you're talking about even when you provide the definition! Kudos.

 

Imposed by another fails to infinite regression. In order for this imposition to be just, people would have to be fundamentally different in such a way that for some people, it would be valid to do the inflicting and other people it would be valid to be inflicted upon. If you cannot provide this distinction, then it fails to infinite regression, as well as self-detonation.

[D-Light]

This just indicates you don't understand what you're talking about even when you provide the definition! Kudos.

 

Imposed by another fails to infinite regression. In order for this imposition to be just, people would have to be fundamentally different in such a way that for some people, it would be valid to do the inflicting and other people it would be valid to be inflicted upon. If you cannot provide this distinction, then it fails to infinite regression, as well as self-detonation.

The fact that it fails to infinite regression is still irrelevant to my argument that the very idea of morality is internally inconsistent with liberty; that only voluntary ethical behavior is necessary for a peaceful society, and it cannot by definition be imposed upon others not even in four special cases.

[dsayers]

The fact that it fails to infinite regression is still irrelevant to my argument

Any "argument" based off of an invalid definition will be invalid.

 

is internally inconsistent with

I already gave you credit for not understanding what you're talking about. Here, the word "with" refers to an external item of comparison. Nothing can be internally inconsistent with because the descriptor before and after "inconsistent" are pointing in different directions.

 

it cannot by definition be imposed upon others not even in four special cases.

The items you are referring to as "four special cases" aren't inflicted! The perpetrator is telling you with their very actions that they understand their actions to be wrong.

[D-Light]

Any "argument" based off of an invalid definition will be invalid.

 

No. An argument dependent upon the validity of a definition will be invalid if the definition is invalid. An argument that is not dependent upon the validity of a definition will not be affected by the validity of the definition. Nevertheless, in the case of the aforementioned definition of morality which I provided, the fact that it fails your conception of what would be just is completely irrelevant to the fact that morality fails for those concerned with liberty.

 

Here, the word "with" refers to an external item of comparison. Nothing can be internally inconsistent with because the descriptor before and after "inconsistent" are pointing in different directions.

You are correct. It was a mistake for me to use the word "internally" in this particular instance. What I meant to convey is that morality is inherently inconsistent with liberty because morality is an imposition of will by others, as contrasted by ethics which is self-imposed. That morality which is imposed by others fails to infinite regression according to your moral system which demands morality be egalitarian, and founded upon the premise of self-ownership is entirely irrelevant to the argument I am making. The next post you make inserting your dogma into the argument I'm making will simply be dismissed as the willful creation of a strawman argument.

 

The items you are referring to as "four special cases" aren't inflicted! The perpetrator is telling you with their very actions that they understand their actions to be wrong.

Morality is inflicted. That is the NATURE of morality. Morality is the imposition of prescriptive and proscriptive behavior upon the members of society. ARTM are not performative contradictions. You've failed to demonstrate that they are and every claim you make about them being performative contradictions or the perpetrator of ARTM "telling you with their actions that they understand their actions to be wrong" is nothing more than a warrantless dogmatic assertion. They are merely inconsistent with a moral system founded upon the sentiment of either self-ownership liberty and the sentiment of egalitarianism. Those who engage in ARTM (and other behavior commonly considered immoral) are telling you by their actions that they believe themselves to be justified or right or at the very least not wrong. Nobody chooses to act in a way they believe to be wrong, not even when they're being willfully self-destructive.

[dsayers]

 

Morality is inflicted. That is the NATURE of morality.

This is begging the question. Your consistent demonstration that this is not a discussion has led to my decision to no longer treat it as such. I offer the rest to further call attention to your lack of integrity for the benefit of others who are enticed by your sophistry...

 

 

ARTF are not performative contradictions. You've failed to demonstrate that they are and every claim you make about them being performative contradictions or the perpetrator of ARTF "telling you with their actions that they understand their actions to be wrong" is nothing more than a warrantless dogmatic assertion.

Nice word salad. I'm assuming ARTF is meant to indicate theft, assault, rape, and murder, even though it can't anagramatically, but must contextually. Theft is a person using their labor to deprive somebody else the effects of their labor. Assault and rape is a person using their body to deprive somebody else the use of their body. Murder is somebody using their life to deprive somebody else the use of their life. You are peddling your assertion in multiple places, so if I truly failed to elucidate my claim of performative contradiction here specifically, I do apologize to the audience.

 

 

An argument dependent upon the validity of a definition will be invalid if the definition is invalid. An argument that is not dependent upon the validity of a definition will not be affected by the validity of the definition.

You had said:

 

The fact that it fails to infinite regression is still irrelevant to my argument that the very idea of morality

Your argument is about morality and your definition of morality is internally inconsistent. I'm not sure what mental gymnastics trying to claim it was not dependent upon is about when that's exactly how you framed your argument, but I'm done giving you my time. I'm not sure why you need for morality to be drek just because most people use it as such, and frankly I don't care at this point.

[D-Light]

 

Morality is inflicted. That is the NATURE of morality.

This is begging the question.

 

Nice try, but no, it is not. Begging the question is the attempt to prove an assertion by using the conclusion as a dependent premise.  I have not attempted to prove the definition of morality here, merely reiterate what I have claimed in my OP where I describe what morality is; therefore, it does not beg the question.

 

Your consistent demonstration that this is not a discussion has led to my decision to no longer treat it as such. I offer the rest to further call attention to your lack of integrity for the benefit of others who are enticed by your sophistry...

 

Poisoning the well by asserting a lack of integrity on my part? Looking at other posts you've made in the past, this seems to be a pattern of behavior for you--asserting a lack of integrity in people who best you in reasoning and intellect. You might want to investigate the term "projection" as it applies to psychology and do some very deep self-reflection. That shouldn't be too difficult for you given how invested you claim to be in self-knowledge.

 

ARMT are not performative contradictions. You've failed to demonstrate that they are and every claim you make about them being performative contradictions or the perpetrator of ARMT "telling you with their actions that they understand their actions to be wrong" is nothing more than a warrantless dogmatic assertion.

 

Theft is a person using their labor to deprive somebody else the effects of their labor. Assault and rape is a person using their body to deprive somebody else the use of their body. Murder is somebody using their life to deprive somebody else the use of their life. You are peddling your assertion in multiple places, so if I truly failed to elucidate my claim of performative contradiction here specifically, I do apologize to the audience.

 

You have failed time, and time, and time again, as you have failed yet again above.

You assert that a person using their labor to deprive another person of the effects of their labor (theft), is a performative contradiction. Such is simply not an example of a performative contradiction. An action which is a performative contradiction must do the opposite of what it purports to be... so in order for theft, rape, murder, and assault to be performative contradictions, an act of theft must be an act of giving another property, and act of rape must be an involuntary act of anti-intercourse (whatever that might possibly be), an act of murder must give life to the person, and an act of assault must remove injury (or the threat of injury) from that person. Since it is self evident that this does not occur, your claim that these are performative contradictions is ridiculously false. If your argument is founded upon faulty reasoning, your argument is invalid, if its foundation is upon false premises, it is unsound. Your argument is both unsound, and invalid.

 

Your argument is about morality and your definition of morality is internally inconsistent.

 

No, in fact it is not. That you continue to insist that it is is nothing more than a strawman.

 

I'm not sure what mental gymnastics trying to claim it was not dependent upon is about when that's exactly how you framed your argument, but I'm done giving you my time.

 

That "sentence" does make any more sense than your ridiculous attempts at proving your delusionary notion of objective morality.

 

I'm not sure why you need for morality to be drek just because most people use it as such, and frankly I don't care at this point.

 

I don't need morality to be anything other than what it is. Someday, if you're not the hypocrite you seem to be, and you actually do keep an open mind about the things other people have to say, you might actually discover the truth about morality as I have.  Until that time, best wishes.

[virtue]

I address this in my article and reference its value in discarding subjective models here. Did you read either?

 

I read your first post and that's what I responded to. I did not see a link to an article.