Moral Principles Learned via Social Osmosis
I came across this statement “for everything human beings do by intelligence rather than instinct, any course of conduct they choose when they might have chosen differently, is a moral action in “The Metaphysical Club by Louis Menand and it stopped me in my tracks. I had to study this statement and make a decision about its validity.
I consider the words ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ to be interchangeable.
We all have the ability to do harm or to do good to other people; and we all are fully aware of that capacity. How can we know this? We can know this because we are capable of imaginatively placing our self into the boots of the other person?
Young children know this, as is evident by there shouts of condemnation:
“That’s not fair!—“She won’t share!—“He hit me and I didn’t do anything to him!—“He promised!—“Cheater, Cheater!—“Liar, Liar!—“It’s my turn!
I suspect most of us, adults and children; learn these ‘ethical principles’ through social osmosis (without conscious effort). We ‘know’ these principles of ethical behavior but often fail to practice them because there are always so many other forces pulling us in another direction.
The forces pulling us into unethical behavior are many; for example, ego and social centric forces, self-delusion, selfishness, and especially because of our ignorance and the complexity of the problems we face.
Webster defines educate as—to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically [beauty] especially by instruction. Webster defines indoctrinate as—to imbue [infuse] with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.
I think that it is imperative for each adult to become conscious (aware plus attention) of the difference between these two terms--‘educate’ and ‘indoctrinate’--and also to recognize just how much of our attitude toward matters of ethics results from our education or from our indoctrination.
I agree with the statement in the first paragraph, do you? I find it I to be staggering to realize this to be a fact, do you?
Moral Principles Learned via Social Osmosis
Moral Principles Learned via Social Osmosis
coberst;1032439 wrote: Moral Principles Learned via Social Osmosis
I came across this statement “for everything human beings do by intelligence rather than instinct, any course of conduct they choose when they might have chosen differently, is a moral action in “The Metaphysical Club by Louis Menand and it stopped me in my tracks. I had to study this statement and make a decision about its validity.
I consider the words ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ to be interchangeable.
We all have the ability to do harm or to do good to other people; and we all are fully aware of that capacity. How can we know this? We can know this because we are capable of imaginatively placing our self into the boots of the other person?
Young children know this, as is evident by there shouts of condemnation:
“That’s not fair!—“She won’t share!—“He hit me and I didn’t do anything to him!—“He promised!—“Cheater, Cheater!—“Liar, Liar!—“It’s my turn!
I suspect most of us, adults and children; learn these ‘ethical principles’ through social osmosis (without conscious effort). We ‘know’ these principles of ethical behavior but often fail to practice them because there are always so many other forces pulling us in another direction.
The forces pulling us into unethical behavior are many; for example, ego and social centric forces, self-delusion, selfishness, and especially because of our ignorance and the complexity of the problems we face.
Webster defines educate as—to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically [beauty] especially by instruction. Webster defines indoctrinate as—to imbue [infuse] with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.
I think that it is imperative for each adult to become conscious (aware plus attention) of the difference between these two terms--‘educate’ and ‘indoctrinate’--and also to recognize just how much of our attitude toward matters of ethics results from our education or from our indoctrination.
I agree with the statement in the first paragraph, do you? I find it I to be staggering to realize this to be a fact, do you?
I agree with the statements in the first paragraph, but don't find it staggering, just informative.
Many are indoctrinated in religion and politics as well as social behavior. Indoctrination tends to give a very limited view to the recipient with extreme bias from those indoctrinating. Racism as taught and practiced by the KKK for example. Education on the other hand seeks to broaden and expand a persons thinking, presenting a number of alternatives.
I came across this statement “for everything human beings do by intelligence rather than instinct, any course of conduct they choose when they might have chosen differently, is a moral action in “The Metaphysical Club by Louis Menand and it stopped me in my tracks. I had to study this statement and make a decision about its validity.
I consider the words ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ to be interchangeable.
We all have the ability to do harm or to do good to other people; and we all are fully aware of that capacity. How can we know this? We can know this because we are capable of imaginatively placing our self into the boots of the other person?
Young children know this, as is evident by there shouts of condemnation:
“That’s not fair!—“She won’t share!—“He hit me and I didn’t do anything to him!—“He promised!—“Cheater, Cheater!—“Liar, Liar!—“It’s my turn!
I suspect most of us, adults and children; learn these ‘ethical principles’ through social osmosis (without conscious effort). We ‘know’ these principles of ethical behavior but often fail to practice them because there are always so many other forces pulling us in another direction.
The forces pulling us into unethical behavior are many; for example, ego and social centric forces, self-delusion, selfishness, and especially because of our ignorance and the complexity of the problems we face.
Webster defines educate as—to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically [beauty] especially by instruction. Webster defines indoctrinate as—to imbue [infuse] with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.
I think that it is imperative for each adult to become conscious (aware plus attention) of the difference between these two terms--‘educate’ and ‘indoctrinate’--and also to recognize just how much of our attitude toward matters of ethics results from our education or from our indoctrination.
I agree with the statement in the first paragraph, do you? I find it I to be staggering to realize this to be a fact, do you?
I agree with the statements in the first paragraph, but don't find it staggering, just informative.
Many are indoctrinated in religion and politics as well as social behavior. Indoctrination tends to give a very limited view to the recipient with extreme bias from those indoctrinating. Racism as taught and practiced by the KKK for example. Education on the other hand seeks to broaden and expand a persons thinking, presenting a number of alternatives.
Moral Principles Learned via Social Osmosis
I consider the words ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ to be interchangeable.
I wonder if that might be what causes you to find the earlier statement so track-stopping.
Traditionally, the distinction between morals and ethics is one wherein morals are your internal sense of which things you consider good and which things you consider bad, whereas ethics are the actual applicable rules formed -from- your morals, by which you actually live your life.
In that sense, the idea that every action done by intelligence, and free choice is a moral action, because your morals are the internal sense of right and wrong that you needed to have developed, and critically evaluated before you acted.
To then interchange the terms and say that every action done by intelligence and free choice is an ethical action, it makes less sense to me, because an action is only ethical insofar as it corresponds with your morals. Generally, ethical choices tend to not even really -be- choices, because if you were able to bring yourself to choose an alternate action than the ethical one, it points to a failure of your morals to properly distinguish between good and bad choices in the way they are supposed to.
In that way, I suppose that I'd argue that you technically cannot commit an unethical action, only an immoral one. Because ethics are the rules you've developed for acting based on your morals, any action you commit for which you don't feel remorse or guilt is an action wherein you've applied your morals into an appropriate ethic of behavior. And any action you commit for which you do feel remorse or guilt suggests not that you've violated your code of ethics, but that you failed to properly convert your morals into an appropriate ethical code in the first place.
I wonder if that might be what causes you to find the earlier statement so track-stopping.
Traditionally, the distinction between morals and ethics is one wherein morals are your internal sense of which things you consider good and which things you consider bad, whereas ethics are the actual applicable rules formed -from- your morals, by which you actually live your life.
In that sense, the idea that every action done by intelligence, and free choice is a moral action, because your morals are the internal sense of right and wrong that you needed to have developed, and critically evaluated before you acted.
To then interchange the terms and say that every action done by intelligence and free choice is an ethical action, it makes less sense to me, because an action is only ethical insofar as it corresponds with your morals. Generally, ethical choices tend to not even really -be- choices, because if you were able to bring yourself to choose an alternate action than the ethical one, it points to a failure of your morals to properly distinguish between good and bad choices in the way they are supposed to.
In that way, I suppose that I'd argue that you technically cannot commit an unethical action, only an immoral one. Because ethics are the rules you've developed for acting based on your morals, any action you commit for which you don't feel remorse or guilt is an action wherein you've applied your morals into an appropriate ethic of behavior. And any action you commit for which you do feel remorse or guilt suggests not that you've violated your code of ethics, but that you failed to properly convert your morals into an appropriate ethical code in the first place.
Moral Principles Learned via Social Osmosis
Devonin
You have a good point that I must think about a bit before replying.
You have a good point that I must think about a bit before replying.
Moral Principles Learned via Social Osmosis
Devonin;1033477 wrote: I wonder if that might be what causes you to find the earlier statement so track-stopping.
Traditionally, the distinction between morals and ethics is one wherein morals are your internal sense of which things you consider good and which things you consider bad, whereas ethics are the actual applicable rules formed -from- your morals, by which you actually live your life.
In that sense, the idea that every action done by intelligence, and free choice is a moral action, because your morals are the internal sense of right and wrong that you needed to have developed, and critically evaluated before you acted.
To then interchange the terms and say that every action done by intelligence and free choice is an ethical action, it makes less sense to me, because an action is only ethical insofar as it corresponds with your morals. Generally, ethical choices tend to not even really -be- choices, because if you were able to bring yourself to choose an alternate action than the ethical one, it points to a failure of your morals to properly distinguish between good and bad choices in the way they are supposed to.
In that way, I suppose that I'd argue that you technically cannot commit an unethical action, only an immoral one. Because ethics are the rules you've developed for acting based on your morals, any action you commit for which you don't feel remorse or guilt is an action wherein you've applied your morals into an appropriate ethic of behavior. And any action you commit for which you do feel remorse or guilt suggests not that you've violated your code of ethics, but that you failed to properly convert your morals into an appropriate ethical code in the first place.
What you say is evidently correct; ethics is the action taken and morality is the motivation for the action.
Ethics is the external manifestation (action taken) of an intrinsic value (moral emotion).
The books I have been reading inform me that fear and morality are two emotions. I would go a bit further and say that fear is a first level survival emotion and morality is a second level survival emotion.
When a man runs because of fear we will say “he is afraid or he is fearful, when he runs because of morality we will say “he is ethical. It appears that for some reason we have a separate word for an action motivated by moral feelings whereas that does not seem to be the case with many other emotions.
In searching Webster’s Dictionary about these matters I found the whole vocabulary confusing. I guess that might be another indication that we badly need a science of morality.
Traditionally, the distinction between morals and ethics is one wherein morals are your internal sense of which things you consider good and which things you consider bad, whereas ethics are the actual applicable rules formed -from- your morals, by which you actually live your life.
In that sense, the idea that every action done by intelligence, and free choice is a moral action, because your morals are the internal sense of right and wrong that you needed to have developed, and critically evaluated before you acted.
To then interchange the terms and say that every action done by intelligence and free choice is an ethical action, it makes less sense to me, because an action is only ethical insofar as it corresponds with your morals. Generally, ethical choices tend to not even really -be- choices, because if you were able to bring yourself to choose an alternate action than the ethical one, it points to a failure of your morals to properly distinguish between good and bad choices in the way they are supposed to.
In that way, I suppose that I'd argue that you technically cannot commit an unethical action, only an immoral one. Because ethics are the rules you've developed for acting based on your morals, any action you commit for which you don't feel remorse or guilt is an action wherein you've applied your morals into an appropriate ethic of behavior. And any action you commit for which you do feel remorse or guilt suggests not that you've violated your code of ethics, but that you failed to properly convert your morals into an appropriate ethical code in the first place.
What you say is evidently correct; ethics is the action taken and morality is the motivation for the action.
Ethics is the external manifestation (action taken) of an intrinsic value (moral emotion).
The books I have been reading inform me that fear and morality are two emotions. I would go a bit further and say that fear is a first level survival emotion and morality is a second level survival emotion.
When a man runs because of fear we will say “he is afraid or he is fearful, when he runs because of morality we will say “he is ethical. It appears that for some reason we have a separate word for an action motivated by moral feelings whereas that does not seem to be the case with many other emotions.
In searching Webster’s Dictionary about these matters I found the whole vocabulary confusing. I guess that might be another indication that we badly need a science of morality.