NationStates Jolt Archive

Ethics (via Latin ethica from the Ancient Greek ἠθική [φιλοσοφία] "moral philosophy".

Morality (from Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behaviour") refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong—also referred to as "good and evil"—used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments—sometimes called moral values—shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct morality.

Personal morals define and distinguish among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within individuals. By contrast, ethics are more correctly applied as the study of broader social systems within whose context morality exists. Morals define whether I should kill my neighbour Joe when he steals my tractor; ethics define whether it is right or wrong for one person to kill another in a dispute over property.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Due to the majority of the world's population belonging to some type of religious group, I conclude that "Majority rules." does, in fact, rule. A regime, theist totalitarianism, if you will. We need anti-discrimination laws enacted to force the majority to allow equality in codes of ethics. Perhaps two codes of ethics, one for religious, and one made for, and by the non-religious.

Thoughts?

Due to the majority of the world's population belonging to some type of religious group, I conclude that "Majority rules." does, in fact, rule. A regime, theist totalitarianism, if you will. We need anti-discrimination laws enacted to force the majority to allow equality in codes of ethics. Perhaps two codes of ethics, one for religious, and one made for, and by the non-religious.

It can also be unfair to force the religious to live by their own set of ethics. For example, here in Malaysia, we have a seperate legal system for Muslims and a seperate one for Non-Muslims. Now, as demonstrated by the Lina Joy case, since it is haram and unethical to apostasise according to Sharia, a problem arises when Muslims leave their religion and no longer wish to be treated by the expectations of Islam. Yet the aposasy itself is a sin against Islam and the arbiters of these laws would like her to be punished. This is why secularism is just plain better, it would serve to avoid such situations.

It can also be unfair to force the religious to live by their own set of ethics. For example, here in Malaysia, we have a seperate legal system for Muslims and a seperate one for Non-Muslims. Now, as demonstrated by the Lina Joy case, since it is haram and unethical to apostasise according to Sharia, a problem arises when Muslims leave their religion and no longer wish to be treated by the expectations of Islam. Yet the aposasy itself is a sin against Islam and the arbiters of these laws would like her to be punished. This is why secularism is just plain better, it would serve to avoid such situations.


You are an apostate,no? Would you mind if I pm'ed you and asked some questions?

Yes right now, but I think things will change in the future.

You are an apostate,no? Would you mind if I pm'ed you and asked some questions?

Sure, thats fine.

No. Ethics are based on experience. If it feels bad to you, don't do it to others. No supernatural stuff needed.

I vote No and No
I would prefer to believe that ethics are inherent to humans interacting. Religion is an attempt to codify the ethics already in existence. As I personally believe that we are all spiritual beings having a physical experience there is nothing of this world to trully be worried about. Life happens; we die; and the spirit continues. The result of this attitude is much serenity (Love). Conversely, an alternate perspective encourages Fear and thereby much energy in attempts to be correct.

Some people have religious based ethics, and some don't. Ethics in general isn't one or the other. As long as people are willing to fairly examine their ethical stands, it doesn't matter to me whether they come from religion or personal intuition or a magical elf. :p

it doesn't matter to me whether they come from religion or personal intuition or a magical elf. :p

It does matter.

Why would you want someone else's beliefs forced upon you?

Nope.

It does matter.

Why would you want someone else's beliefs forced upon you?

Then analyse where his set of beliefs come from, don't analyse where opinions come from in general. They come from everyone.

No.

Perhaps a sort of compromise is in order...

When the dispute is intra-religion, that is all parties come from the same religion, we can use that religion's ethics. When the dispute is inter-religion, that is some parties hold differing religious views, we can use an arbitary ethical system. (note I did not mention objective ethical system)

The artibrary ethical system should then be ideally based in the country's constitution with international ethical conflicts going to an arbitrary international system... Much like the way law works now...

From the physiological standpoint, natural ethics (those that occur with the absence of religious or social influence), are in relation to pleasure seeking instincts.
Human beings have the capacity to think ahead and make plans, and thus they may forgo certain pleasures in the short term to ensure more pleasure in the long term. That capacity is the groundwork for empathy and compassion. If one assists another in need, they can become a friend and care for them in a way comparable to the way in which they cared for the friend initially.

Other ethical ideas, especially those pertaining to sex and sexuality, are not based on human experience that can be obtained in just one lifetime. Less frivolous sexual activity generally leads to a more stable and longer-lasting relationship. This can't be learned in one lifetime, since when the lesson is learned, the time to be frivolous is usually over. The lesson is based down, and taken on good faith in the one who taught it.

Undoubtedly there are different ethical lessons taught in different societies and religious cultures. Yes, ethics are religiously biased.

As for the other question. If any society makes specific sets of rules for people to follow based on what religion they follow, it's like giving out a get out of jail free card. The same basic rules apply for all religions: don't rape, murder, steal, etc., but the minor details in dogmatic practices would either be too insignificant to prosecute, or of a type that should be dealt with by the religious authorities.
To give an example, imagine that an Amish community lived in close enough proximity to a city that the residents of each interacted on a daily basis. If one of the Amish were to be shunned, should the county enforce that shun and minimize contact between the shunned and the residents of both communities.
Should I be fined for missing Sunday mass or daily prayers? Being off a few degrees when I pray towards Mecca, or not being Kosher?

I'd prefer rules based on natural ethics, keeping religious ethics in mind

It does matter.

Why would you want someone else's beliefs forced upon you?

But surly that is unethical? Can you show why an ethical system that comes from a religion would be forceing somebodies belifes on you?

I can't see it meself. If the Bible says thous shalt not kill, and a Christian makes this part of his ethical outlook, what is the differance between that and an athesits similar belife? Only the source, and the other poster is correct the source does not matter, what does are the actual ethics.

Given that morals are relative and ethics are a moral philosophy, I say that the nature of the ethics rely on your religiousity. One's ethics only become religiously based if one's morals are.

Ethics (via Latin ethica from the Ancient Greek ἠθική [φιλοσοφία] "moral philosophy".



http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Due to the majority of the world's population belonging to some type of religious group, I conclude that "Majority rules." does, in fact, rule. A regime, theist totalitarianism, if you will. We need anti-discrimination laws enacted to force the majority to allow equality in codes of ethics. Perhaps two codes of ethics, one for religious, and one made for, and by the non-religious.

Thoughts?

Any sane state is separated from religion. If you have a religious state, that is just asking for trouble.

Now, ethics is heavily based on religion, even if we dont want to see it. For example, in Japan, a place where christianity apeared quite late, the legal age for sexual consent is 13 years old, something our western mind feels is nothing but devious.

But for them, its normal.