Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ethics, morality

Expand Messages
  • alcyon11
    CSW, I think we should fight to change systems and assert our ethics when we are so certain that continuing the present course diminishes the greater good of
    Message 1 of 50 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      CSW,

      I think we should fight to change systems and assert our ethics when
      we are so certain that continuing the present course diminishes the
      greater good of individual freedoms. When we feel so strongly that
      our civil rights are being threatened, that our life, liberty and the
      pursuit of happiness are under attack. How? Within the law as much as
      possible, civil disobedience if necessary.

      For a larger, existential view, not strictly a political view, we
      really do need to be sure of our ground don't we? Is what we are
      proposing as an alternative based in some essential human truth? That
      certainly is a lot more complicated. How? By just about any means
      possible, short of torture and murder.

      Mary Jo

      <So, how and when should we assert our ethics? How and when should we
      fight to change systems?> - CSW

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@t...>
      wrote:
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron J. Brauer" <ucjb001@u...>
      > wrote:
      > > Actually Amanda, as a student in ethics at the U of Minnesota I
      > > consider myself to have some understanding of the difference.
      > > Ethics and morality (in existentialism) both must begin as
      internal
      > > causes. As you said, it was described very well by CSW
      previously,
      > > so I'm not going to repeat it. --Cameron
      > >
      >
      > Existential Ethics are outlined by Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and
      Tillich,
      > among others. The notion of a "group ethic" does exist in
      > Existentialism, but the individual system of ethics and morality
      take
      > primary import. The problem is how you fit within society...
      >
      > The discussion should be how we, as individuals, can and should
      > influence social ethics.
      >
      > Sartre was politically active, and said all men should be. (He
      seemed
      > a bit sexist, if you ask me. *JK*)
      >
      > So, how and when should we assert our ethics? How and when should we
      > fight to change systems?
      >
      > - CSW
    • louise
      the water s cold, Cameron, but then i m British Louise ... repeat it. ... itself does not imply a specific of application. It is best to use a qualifying
      Message 50 of 50 , Mar 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        the water's cold, Cameron, but then i'm British

        Louise

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
        > Cameron,
        >
        > I tend to agree with you. I expressed this before, but I will
        repeat it.
        >
        > Ethics is the study of morality and behavour. So the word of
        itself does not imply a specific of application. It is best to use
        a qualifying adjective [e.g. a personal morality or a social
        morality] so that there is not a confusion.
        >
        > eduard
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Cameron J. Brauer
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:47 AM
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: ethics, morality
        >
        >
        > Actually Amanda, as a student in ethics at the U of Minnesota I
        > consider myself to have some understanding of the difference.
        > Ethics and morality (in existentialism) both must begin as
        internal
        > causes. As you said, it was described very well by CSW
        previously,
        > so I'm not going to repeat it. --Cameron
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Amanda Lemesonoka
        <kamy_ams@y...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Cameron,
        > >
        > > what you wrote only shows that you're not aware of the meaning
        of
        > both "ethics" and "morality". there is a difference and that has
        > been described very well by CSW previously, so i'm not going to
        > repeat it.
        > >
        > > Amanda
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > "Cameron J. Brauer" <ucjb001@u...> wrote: This is silly.
        (That's
        > right, I said it.) As an Existentialist,
        > > there can be no difference between what is ethical and what is
        > > moral. There can be no external determinant of either. This
        > `rule'
        > > may pertain to other ethical systems, but not Existentialism.
        > >
        > > Cameron Brauer
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Amanda Lemesonoka
        > <kamy_ams@y...>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Susan,
        > > >
        > > > yes, i do think that following a rule could be ethical, not
        > moral.
        > > but this is very difficult question - how does one determine
        the
        > > relation of being ethical - not moral. how far would i go,
        being
        > > ethical, but not being moral? or being moral, but not ethical?
        > > >
        > > > Amanda
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Susan Schnelbach <susan@t...> wrote: Amanda -
        > > >
        > > > So, does this cycle back around to the previous posts
        > of 'morals'
        > > > versus 'ethics?'
        > > >
        > > > If ethics are the rules of society and morals are one's
        > personal
        > > > beliefs and values, then following society's rules, even
        when
        > > wrong
        > > > would be being ethical, but not moral, right?
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > On Friday, February 27, 2004, at 07:12 AM, Amanda
        Lemesonoka
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Louise,
        > > > > yes that is exactly what i say and still think - it is
        stupid
        > > to
        > > > > follow a rule just because it is a rule, not because it is
        a
        > > wise
        > > > > rule. and with the word "wise" i don't mean at
        > > all "good", "needful"
        > > > > etc. there are certain rules which i consider not so
        important
        > > or good
        > > > > for my life, but i still now that those are wise rules,
        > because
        > > if i
        > > > > wouldn't follow them, i would destroy something. i think
        that
        > > the
        > > > > consideration process is very important. even if i don't
        > accept
        > > a rule
        > > > > because of my own belief system, i may follow the rule
        > because
        > > > > following makes me function better in the society.
        > > > > Amanda
        > > > >
        > > > > louise <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
        > > > > Amanda,
        > > > > Hope I haven't upset you. Here is the post in question.
        You
        > > accuse
        > > > > the man I call Eduard, it seems to me, of following a rule
        > > whether
        > > > > the rule is wise or not. I have never met Eduard, but am
        > > completely
        > > > > confident that this is a slander. Don't want you to feel
        bad,
        > > > > though. I think you're a good woman, very mature in some
        > > respects,
        > > > > but trying to deal with some things also that are too much
        for
        > > you
        > > > > to understand. However, I think you learn fast.
        > > > > Louise
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Amanda Lemesonoka
        > > <kamy_ams@y...>
        > > > > wrote:
        > > > >>
        > > > >> eduard,
        > > > >>
        > > > >> i don't argue with the statement that we all follow
        rules,
        > but i
        > > > > call it insane, if a person follows a rule, without even
        > > thinking,
        > > > > if this rule is wise or not, just taking it as an absolute
        > truth.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Amanda
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >> eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote: Amanda,
        > > > >>
        > > > >> "Following the rules" does not mean that you lose free
        will,
        > nor
        > > > > that the "whole process" is insane. Actually, we always
        follow
        > > > > rules without thinking. That is why they are rules*; so
        that
        > we
        > > > > don't have to go through the whole thing of working them
        for
        > > scratch
        > > > > again.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> I like rules -- by that is my own thought.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> eduard
        > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
        > > > >> From: Amanda Lemesonoka
        > > > >> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > > >> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:24 AM
        > > > >> Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Unable to understand
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >> eduard,
        > > > >>
        > > > >> first of all. i didn't call the items insane, but the
        whole
        > > > > process when someone applies a doctrine directly in his
        life,
        > > > > without applying his own thoughts to it and
        exactly "following
        > > the
        > > > > rules" - and this is what many religious people tend to do.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> secondly. i don't remember at the moment what were the
        exact
        > > > > things Mary Jo wrote because i deleted already yesterdays
        > posts,
        > > but
        > > > > there was something like turning the other cheek etc. from
        my
        > > > > perspective i find that simply ridiculous, but that is my
        own
        > > > > thought.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Amanda
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >> eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote: Amanda,
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Hmmmm ...
        > > > >>
        > > > >> What is "insane" about any of the items on the list??
        > > > >>
        > > > >> eduard
        > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
        > > > >> From: Amanda Lemesonoka
        > > > >> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > > >> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:01 AM
        > > > >> Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Unable to understand
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Mary Jo,
        > > > >>
        > > > >> this was a perfect description of what happens to a
        > person
        > > who
        > > > > doesn't think himself, rather rests upon someone elses
        > (whether
        > > it's
        > > > > bible, a priest...) thoughts...
        > > > >>
        > > > >> to have a doctrine may be of good, but you have to be
        very
        > > > > careful with it. if you can develop your own thoughts or
        > beliefs
        > > out
        > > > > of it, it's only of benefit. but if you try to imply it
        > directly
        > > > > into your life, then it really is insane.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Amanda
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.