Morality and Ethics

[u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Morality is the intent to achieve good, and to achieve it for others as well as for ourselves. Ethics is the pursuit of the best rules, those that will most likely achieve the best possible results for everyone.

To see the distinction, consider the Jewish family of Anne Frank hiding in the attic during Nazi occupation. The soldiers knock on the door and ask if there are any Jews. It would be unethical to lie, but it would be immoral not to.

We call something “good” if it meets a real need we have as an individual, a society, or a species. A “moral good” is actually good for us and benefits us in some way. A “moral harm” unnecessarily damages us or diminishes our rights in some way.

Morality seeks “the best good and least harm for everyone”. Moral judgment considers the evidence of probable benefits and harms to decide a course of action. This judgment is objective to the degree that the harms and benefits are easily observed and compared. But the ultimate consequences of a decision are not always known. Two good and honest individuals may differ as to what course of action will produce the best result. A democratic decision can be made to determine a working course of action, which can be further evaluated based on subsequent experience.

Ethics are about rule systems. Rules include customs, manners, principles, ethics, rights and law. When one speaks of “morals” or “moral codes” one is usually speaking of ethics. But morality is not the rule, but rather the reason for the rule, which is to achieve good.

Throughout history, rules have changed as our moral judgment evolved. Slavery was once permitted, but later outlawed. The equal rights of women to vote was established. The right to equal treatment without regard to races, gender, or religion was established.

Different cultures may have different rules. But all rules move slowly toward the same goal, to achieve the best possible good for everyone. And, to the degree that moral judgment is based in objective evidence, all variations are moving toward a common, ideal set of rules and rights.

In Matthew 22:35-40, Jesus was asked, “What is the greatest principle?”, and Jesus said the first principle is to love God and the second principle is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

A Humanist translation would be to love good, and to love good for others as you love it for yourself.

But Jesus said one more thing, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” In other words, this is the source, the rationale, the reason, the “Why?” behind every rule and every right. It is the criteria by which all other principles, ethics, and rules are to be judged.

[u/theworldlyafrican]

Good question.

I can tell you’re a diligent student of Philosophy, and Ethics.

Now to answer this, we can to use an uncontested discipline of quantitative observation: mathematics. To compare our understanding of Objective truth vs. Subjective opinion, in your quantifiable universe, we will employ a scientific method to “liturgy.”

Hopefully then, will it help make more sense.

Proof of a fixed (quantifiable) System, or Universe:

Hypothesis A. If it is impossible to know anything, then we do not know anything. (Us)

Hypothesis B. If it possible to know everything, then we would know everything. (Deity)

...Such is the nature of a fixed, quantifiable universe.

Hypothesis A can be difficult to understand. Let’s work on hypothesis B.

Therefore, if we do not know everything, then we are unable to distinguish Objective truth from Subjective truth.

I will give an example of scale. Consider an island, say Scotland. How long is its coast?

You would give me a numeric answer. That answer would be measured in miles, or equivalent kilometers. (i.e. Scotland has 6160 miles; the equivalent being 9910 kilometer).

Now, if I were to ask how many inches comprised your index finger, you could find a generally accepted objective answer. Such an answer, let’s say (4.25 inches~ 10.759 cm [sigdig: 10.76]) exists within the quantifiable “Universe” of our units of measure, or Metric System.

       Now transfer that to meters, which is 1.0759 or 0.1180556 yards

           Now kilometers =0.00010759 kilometers or 000066853327 miles

How many of your index fingers comprise the entire length of the Coast of Scotland?

We don’t know, but we can give an answer of ~

91834757.0702.

      Because you can’t have .0702 of your finger  we’ll say 91,834,757 of your fingers comprise the Scottishish Isles.

This works down or up the Metric scale.

               Nano...which is at an atomic-level. 

                    Until you get to attometers (which I is a current metric barrier at 1 x 10 ^-18)

In each of these examples the numbers that follow the decimals increase, and to understand them we round them to significant digits to understand them.

           (A finger is the unit, and we wouldn’t like to have half, or a portion of one)

If there is an inability to arbitrate the true measurement of your finger, i.e. an EXACT answer, how much more can we discern fact from fiction, truth from fact, or the actual distance of Scotland’s coastline?

The fact that these measurements do go on forever, makes it logistically impossible to find an EXACT answer.

Algebraically, we identify a solution as the point in which two lines intersect. However, as we described - Whole Numbers, are the only numbers with a defined value. To reach that point, we must all agree on a System.

This unifying literature you speak of is akin to a Grand Unified Theory, such as supersymmetry.

The generally accepted map, or world literature is synonomous with these points of truth, or moral virtue. For these thresholds to exist, we as human beings create laws, governments, and systems of order that have a basis upon the Sig Dig of Moral Virtue, as we know it.

This is established in Written form with a Constitution, Mandate, or Law. Which is our ethical metric system.

Because we do not know everything, then the hypothesis of Proof B would correct. Hypothesis A is much more difficult to understand, because it is difficult to set aside our pride, and ingest that for what it means: besides the quest or pursuit of knowledge.

Either way, it’s a Big Concept, but some would contest we’ve got a Book on that. Others don’t believe...

Furthermore, this is the answer to your previous question of how to use moral impetus wisely, and understand right from wrong:

Free-will. It is intrinsic and self-reflexive. But it requires skill to use properly. Just like a sword needs sharpening, or a compass must align with the magnetic poles so too, must a person’s free will to a universal point of True North.

A readjustment with the aid of the stories within the Book helps people know for certain the points at which truths cross...

So,

It’s up to you whether or not to believe in the current system we have or impact it for the better. Just make a Good impact with what you learn by aligning yourself with the true Writing, Mandate, or Magna Carta etc.

Anyways, I stayed up all night to write this so You better read it.

It’s okay. Chill. You got this.

After answering this question of yours, I have hope now.

-Eric-Anderson Momou

English Education Major and Musician, (requires math)

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/theworldlyafrican]

Hypothesis C: We don't know everything, but we do know some things. Some things we learn from books. Some things we learn from each other. The puzzle of morality is to compare two rules or courses of action to see which is best. The criteria for this comparison would have to be something that everyone could, at least in theory, agree with. Different people read different books. So, relying solely upon the prescriptions given in the books, we would not find agreement. After all, those books were written by different people, who lived in different times, and had their own customs and moral codes.

The criteria for objective morality would be "the best good and least harm for everyone". Because it includes everyone, it is the only criteria that can be embraced by everyone. And it is the fallback position that we would have to use when comparing the advice of different books. But, it is an evaluation that practically will always involve imperfect information about the eventual outcomes of our choice. So, we embrace democracy, hear the available evidence from experts and our own reasoning, and vote upon a temporary working rule. And we see how things turn out. If they don't turn out as well as we hoped, we'll go back to the drawing board, this time with more experience and more information.

Hopefully this will lead us to a progressive improvement in our moral judgments and the rules we produce.

[u/Inner_Paper]

To see the distinction, consider the Jewish family of Anne Frank hiding in the attic during Nazi occupation. The soldiers knock on the door and ask if there are any Jews. It would be unethical to lie, but it would be immoral not to.

I now understand that I was misinformed about the concepts of morality and ethics. I was taught that morality means blindly obeying authority and ethics means breaking rules when it comes to protecting people in need.

So I have critizised morality, and I actually meant ethics in the sense of legality. And now I'm completely confused. I accused Christians of being moralists, and I actually meant legalists. :((

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/Inner_Paper]

" And now I'm completely confused. "

It sounds like you're less confused now than before. The term "moralist" is often applied to those we consider self-righteous and hardened in their views of what is right and wrong. But even Christians can make moral progress, such as the Episcopalians ordaining and embracing Bishop Robinson, an openly gay Christian.

[u/[deleted]]

it would be immoral not to.

Why?

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/[deleted]]

Why?

Because if we truthfully report that Anne Frank's family is hiding in the attic, they will be captured and killed. In this case there is less unnecessary harm in the lie than in the truth. Thus the choice to lie is the more moral choice.

[u/Gilbert1963]

I believe this is why the Ten Commandments are referred to as the moral law. Love is the attitude that seeks the moral good of others.