4 ms·

They don't have to be objective or subjective. I've never understood the argument that morals are individually subjective. If individual people freely did anyth

They don't have to be objective or subjective. I've never understood the argument that morals are individually subjective. If individual people freely did anything all the time then where would morals come from?

fit2rule 7y ago
Morals are for the individual, ethics is for the group. The level and state of each realm, defines the state of the other.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  Even if that's true, which I'm not sure it is, it doesn't necessarily mean that morals emerge from individual choice. Personally I think morals are emergent from groups.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    Morals are an individual personal choice - derived from the word 'morales', which means 'custom'. Individuals adopt customs - both learned individually, and mores adopted from a group. Ethics are a group choice - a set of morals, in the plural, derived from "ethike" - the 'science of morals'. They're interlocked, sure, but it is an individual who makes a moral decision for themselves, but an ethical decision for their group... EDIT: I mean, all you have to do is look at the definition of both words in a few dictionaries. Its pretty clearly stated that ethics are a group of morals formulated around the purposes of a group, where morals are derived from and based on an individual decision. Can't have one without the other. Of course, you are within your rights to disagree - such is the nature of the ethics of philosophical discussions.
    - staticautomatic 7y ago
      You've obviously defined it that way but I don't see why it's true. Your argument is essentially that morals emerge from individuals because of the etymology of the world moral. I don't find that very convincing.
    - FabHK 7y ago
      Not sure that's an accepted definition. Others consider ethics the study of morality.
yifanl 7y ago
I don't agree with the relativistic point of view either, but it's a common enough viewpoint that I can forgive the GP's casual usage of the term :)

fit2rule 7y ago

Morals are for the individual, ethics is for the group. The level and state of each realm, defines the state of the other.

staticautomatic 7y ago
Even if that's true, which I'm not sure it is, it doesn't necessarily mean that morals emerge from individual choice. Personally I think morals are emergent from groups.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Morals are an individual personal choice - derived from the word 'morales', which means 'custom'. Individuals adopt customs - both learned individually, and mores adopted from a group. Ethics are a group choice - a set of morals, in the plural, derived from "ethike" - the 'science of morals'. They're interlocked, sure, but it is an individual who makes a moral decision for themselves, but an ethical decision for their group... EDIT: I mean, all you have to do is look at the definition of both words in a few dictionaries. Its pretty clearly stated that ethics are a group of morals formulated around the purposes of a group, where morals are derived from and based on an individual decision. Can't have one without the other. Of course, you are within your rights to disagree - such is the nature of the ethics of philosophical discussions.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    You've obviously defined it that way but I don't see why it's true. Your argument is essentially that morals emerge from individuals because of the etymology of the world moral. I don't find that very convincing.
  - FabHK 7y ago
    Not sure that's an accepted definition. Others consider ethics the study of morality.

yifanl 7y ago

I don't agree with the relativistic point of view either, but it's a common enough viewpoint that I can forgive the GP's casual usage of the term :)