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

Re: ethics, morality

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 50 , Mar 1, 2005
      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
    • 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
        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.