4 ms·

>while my point was that ethics was used to shame practices when the legal system couldn't be used because of a lack of rigor. I'm confused as to why that woul

>while my point was that ethics was used to shame practices when the legal system couldn't be used because of a lack of rigor. I'm confused as to why that would be a bad thing. For instance, liars are shamed, even though it would be ridiculous (and harmful) to create laws against lying in all cases. At the same time, the law sometimes takes account of ethics (rather than harm) to make laws, for example, the illegality of corpse desecration is not about harm, but about ethics - what it says about our society if it were legal.

908B64B197 5y ago
> For instance, liars are shamed, even though it would be ridiculous (and harmful) to create laws against lying in all cases. But lying under oath or false advertising are illegal. > for example, the illegality of corpse desecration is not about harm, but about ethics - what it says about our society if it were legal. That's morals, not ethics. And it's rooted in religions.
- claudiawerner 5y ago
  >But lying under oath or false advertising are illegal. That's why I said "in all cases". Clearly, lying isn't only immoral in the cases of lying under oath or false advertising. It's still immoral for me to say that a ball is "out" in tennis when I clearly saw that it's "in", even if doing so is not illegal in most cases. >That's morals, not ethics. And it's rooted in religions. The difference is immaterial. Even most ethical codes are rooted in religious thinking at some poitn in their formation. That doesn't make them invalid ethical codes. Ethical codes are generally constructed on the basis of morality, or in some cases on the basis of professional conduct - but even that isn't only practical.
visarga 5y ago
"Liars are shamed" had a different meaning in 1990's than today. We've gotten to the point of pervasive surveillance and infinite storage. That's why public shaming, a social tool based on mob justice, is becoming an even worse act of violence. It destroys lives with little due process, riding on powerful preexisting social and political emotions.

908B64B197 5y ago

> For instance, liars are shamed, even though it would be ridiculous (and harmful) to create laws against lying in all cases. But lying under oath or false advertising are illegal. > for example, the illegality of corpse desecration is not about harm, but about ethics - what it says about our society if it were legal. That's morals, not ethics. And it's rooted in religions.

claudiawerner 5y ago
>But lying under oath or false advertising are illegal. That's why I said "in all cases". Clearly, lying isn't only immoral in the cases of lying under oath or false advertising. It's still immoral for me to say that a ball is "out" in tennis when I clearly saw that it's "in", even if doing so is not illegal in most cases. >That's morals, not ethics. And it's rooted in religions. The difference is immaterial. Even most ethical codes are rooted in religious thinking at some poitn in their formation. That doesn't make them invalid ethical codes. Ethical codes are generally constructed on the basis of morality, or in some cases on the basis of professional conduct - but even that isn't only practical.

visarga 5y ago

"Liars are shamed" had a different meaning in 1990's than today. We've gotten to the point of pervasive surveillance and infinite storage. That's why public shaming, a social tool based on mob justice, is becoming an even worse act of violence. It destroys lives with little due process, riding on powerful preexisting social and political emotions.