Sometimes it seems that I make things up but that is because I am right and "they" are wrong. The definition of morals and ethics make it appear that they are synonyms. In some cases synonyms are appropriate but when the condition being described has such a narrow meaning the duplicate words won't do, none should be devised.
My definitions assign authority of the rules of conduct in each instance to different sources. Ethics are inspired by man and morals by God. While it is true that some overlapping can be seen, it is because those designing ethical codes had been influenced by moral codes. In the time before monotheism became widely accepted, the recognition that some kinds of behavior were detrimental to a society, for example theft and murder, the objection could not have been on moral grounds but on practical, ethical ones.
While ethics are generally constructed by members of a group with similar interests, there are some which are imposed on a group by an outside authority. An example of this is the so-called "work ethic". Workers did not come together and establish rules for their own behavior, instead, employers established the ethic and then informed would be workers that in order to work for them, these are the rules you must follow. Those that embraced the rules became workers. Individual ethics are possible but limited. There is not much need for an individual to tell himself how to behave to please himself. He is responsible only to himself.
For me, even if technically I could be wrong, only people of God can be moral or immoral since only they believe that His laws matter. For example, an a-theist, that is a non-God person, who commits murder, even though the crime is the same as if a person of God committed it, the prior is responsible in an ethical way only and responsible to society, while the latter is responsible in an ethical and moral sense and he is responsible to society and to God.
You must agree that the two situations are different and require a distinction to be accurate. That is why I believe my definitions make sense. Otherwise, how would you express this difference?
My definitions assign authority of the rules of conduct in each instance to different sources. Ethics are inspired by man and morals by God. While it is true that some overlapping can be seen, it is because those designing ethical codes had been influenced by moral codes. In the time before monotheism became widely accepted, the recognition that some kinds of behavior were detrimental to a society, for example theft and murder, the objection could not have been on moral grounds but on practical, ethical ones.
While ethics are generally constructed by members of a group with similar interests, there are some which are imposed on a group by an outside authority. An example of this is the so-called "work ethic". Workers did not come together and establish rules for their own behavior, instead, employers established the ethic and then informed would be workers that in order to work for them, these are the rules you must follow. Those that embraced the rules became workers. Individual ethics are possible but limited. There is not much need for an individual to tell himself how to behave to please himself. He is responsible only to himself.
For me, even if technically I could be wrong, only people of God can be moral or immoral since only they believe that His laws matter. For example, an a-theist, that is a non-God person, who commits murder, even though the crime is the same as if a person of God committed it, the prior is responsible in an ethical way only and responsible to society, while the latter is responsible in an ethical and moral sense and he is responsible to society and to God.
You must agree that the two situations are different and require a distinction to be accurate. That is why I believe my definitions make sense. Otherwise, how would you express this difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment