Not to get into a protracted debate but, that IS synonymy. http://thesaurus.com/browse/ethics

Notice that the word moral or morality is in ALL of the synonym lists for ethics. I didn't invent this.

Professionals often use these words with finer levels of meaning, and I clearly stated that in my post. Still, it is shaving hairs IMO.

My intent was neither to, nor not to, drive home your point, Snozz... but if it works that way for you, fine by me. I thought I was saying that the whole issue seems irrelevant.

The whole "natural" and "nature" thing always seems odd to me. Everything is natural. Nothing develops outside of nature. The only way to believe otherwise is to believe that somehow humans (and by extension, what we do) are not natural. As if we somehow created ourselves outside of nature and then inserted ourselves via cosmic artificial insemenation. It is an odd debate.

Anyway.

Sociopath's have a neural defect, they're not the norm. Some retarded or autistic people can't speak, but healthy normal humanbrains all have linguistic regions.

Some circumstances can be pathogenic in this sense, so i can see that within some community's there would be more sociopath's.

I don't agree that morality differs that much between society's. That's just how it looks from the outside. The basic underlying structure is more or less the same everywhere.
For instance, loyalty is considered an important thing in most cultures. Through the ages that specific parameter of morality can become more important because of, for instance, a famine.
Once loyalty has become such a strict code that people can no longer choose freely between loyalty and other value's such as fairness, it's easy to see how a moral trait like loyalty can cause human behaviour to escalate into a direction we would consider to be immoral.

But every society knows the value of loyalty and the fact that it comes in degrees depending on how connected you are with who you're loyal to. Danish society is not like libya, yet danish society doesn't provide the same level of healthcare or education to people outside of denmark so it is clearly more loyal to danish than to non-danish people, just like gaddafi's family is more loyal to 'the great liberator of africa' than to people from different tribes. The level of loyalty expected from them has just become so pressing that they can no longer distance themselves from immoral behaviour conducted by members of their clan.

It is a fact that most people in such society's wish that these kind of codes wheren't so strict.

The reason humans can appear to be immoral is because they're either sociopath's, their morality is directed within a certain group outside our scope of perception, or because they consider others to behave immoral and they behave immoral accordingly.

Even in auschwitz people had social codes. Even there, some people helped others and shared food or other things. It's obvious that war and famine can also bring out the worst in us, but war and famine are not the norm, otherwise we'd be like the dinosaurs by now.

The fact that people behave seemingly immoral when society fails, is not proof that morality is something artificial. If society fails, it fails not just objectively but also towards it's own people. So people behave accordingly.

Most of the luters in the wicked metropolis started luting only once they saw others luting. Because a state of lawlessness is a threat for everyone, standing up for your own interests and no longer playing by the rules of the society that fails to protect you at that very moment may be a morally weak response, but it doesn't show that morality was absent in those people;remember that not only did the state fail to protect innocent people against luters, but that many of the luters where innocent themselves before they started luting...so they themselves must have felt unprotected as well. Agression can be an apropriate response in such circumstances.

There may have been only a dozen people or so with severe mental impairments who realy started the whole thing, and only once it was clear they could get away with it, the rest of the people started to lute themselves.

This should be the convincing argument: It's not only the fact that we can't be neutral towards life and especially towards the actions of others, but that fact in combination with our social intelligence that forces us to be moral creatures, that forces moral choices upon us.

Looking at strategic (social) interaction problems like the prisonersdilemma, it becomes clear that the existence of rules is eventually the best thing for each individual.

The thing is...it takes some social intelligence to be able to see the 'logic' of the prisonersdilemma and how to solve it.

Social animals like humans, chimpansee's, gorilla's and many other species all have this capability. That has been clearly demonstrated with all kinds of tests(i hope it is clear that i mean they have the intellectual and social ability to understand the logic of the prisonersdilemma itself and not it's representation in diagrams).

And now the core of my argument: If 1-animals like humans cannot be neutral towards anything in life, like the actions of others, and 2-social animals have the innate ability to see through the logic of strategic interaction problems, they cannot deny the posibility that others have this capability as well. If you cannot deny this posibility, you logically speaking even HAVE TO assume others posses this skill, just like in a game of chess you have to assume that your opponent can anticipate on a next move, just like you.

This means that now, not only are humans capable of understanding the logic and usefullness of rules and inhibitions, but they are aware that others are aware of these things as well.
Humans therefore know that some rules and inhibitions are good for themselves as well as others and they must be aware that, because others know this as well and therefore will have expectations towards them, just like they'll have towards others.

In other words: all humans are moral creatures because their innate ability's leave them with the choice to act morally.

The problem occurs here because one of the essences of morality is that it is not something you'll automatically follow and obey, but can choose to ignore.
People will sometimes act immorally because they have the choice between morality and other things, and sometimes one of these other things can be very tempting.

Yet, humans always have this choice, unlike tigers, mosquito's or rattlesnakes. We cannot be neutral and because of all our extra abilities, we cannot be neutral towards this choice either. We know what is right and what is wrong. This choice comes with the realisation of it's usefullness and being burdened/blessed with it is in my view an inherent part of being human.

It says "moral philosophy" which is not "morals". It's a semantic nuance...a moral philosophy is a collection/system of morals. A solar system is not a planet...it's a collection/system of planets. This is an important distinction, because one is ultimately made up of the other.

As to nature, I completely agree...everything is natural. Everything is amoral, it takes social groups of humans to declare morality. Again, this is why systems of morality (ethics) vary from society to society and culture to culture. Yes, there are common themes, but that's also because there are commonalities to human social arrangements. But, there are also groups that will buck the common themes entirely; such as the headhunters of various localities.

As I said...I really don't want to debate this as I see no purpose, it's not going to change my conceptualization and it's not going to change anyone else's. Most likely it will just get heated as both sides advocate for their view.

polytrip, I understand your examples, but you've argued both sides with the lion and ultimately still ignore the social origins of morality (a sole human has no need/function for morals...thus they're not springing from the human but a society that the human is plugged-in to, imo, and I've already given my thoughts on having a "capacity for X" ). Because I understand this to be a social phenomenon and you disagree with that, we will simply not see eye to eye on this. I accept your view and your right to hold it, I simply don't share it. I hope you understand/accept that.

Snozzleberry, i don't see this as a fight, but as an attempt to find truth. Your arguments help me to get a clearer understanding of things because you have showed me weak spots in my arguments.

This is not a useless discussion in my view, but a discussion that is evolving.

I hope you'll keep posting, because as far as i'm concerned viewpoints evolve trhough criticism....and who wouldn't want that?

As for your counterargument: Humans are born into society's for millions of years. Wouldn't it be possible that through evolution, society has left it's marks on what humans have become? That would make it less clear-cut what's 'society' and what's 'human'. The distinction is not that simple, i think.

Snozz... not sure if you are a skimmer, purposefully obtuse, or some other thing, but there are 3 entries for Ethics at the top of the page, and farther down the page there is an entry for Morals. The 1st entry says moral philosophy in the definition, under synonyms you find morality. The 2nd entry also says morality as a synonym. The 3rd actually says moral underlined. Under the entry for Morals, you find the word Ethics in BOLD.

Fact is that in standard usage of English, Morals and Ethics are synonymous. Argue with Miriam Webster if you disagree.

Sure, in the study of the philosophical discipline of Ethics, Ethics is defined as the study of morality or a specific system of morality... no one ever denied that. The point is you are arguing a nuance rather than a true issue.

For the life of me, I can not see why either you or Polytrip think that the semantics of this make any difference whatsoever. Whether nature is moral or amoral is a matter of what definitions you are using, and has no bearing on what we as humans should do about aggression and violence.

Nature, being everything that exists, includes everything, and can thus be BOTH moral and amoral. As these are subjective and abstract concepts, it is clearly in the eyes of the beholder.

The ontology of human violence is a more interesting discussion in the context of the OP, IMO.

But if you and Poly want to split hairs and argue points that are epistemologically un-debatable... feel free.

poyltrip - Sorry I must have misread some of the "intent", my apologies.

I didn't want this to escalate into an argument (damn I hate flat text sometimes).

As to your counterpoint...a few questions:

1) Evolution has measurable/quantifiable effects on a population. I would assume that in this case you are saying that there would be some sort of biological/physiological pathway that would code for morality. Is this a correct assumption?

To my mind I don't really see a problem with that, except, if we take into account the fact that morality varies from one society to the next it would seem that again, all we have is the capacity for morality. The specific morality would need to be mapped onto or imprinted to those biological characteristics. This is like the language example I presented earlier. We all have the capacity for language, but the type of language we speak varies based on a number of factors.

When applied to morality, this means that there are a number of dynamic "moralities" from which humans can be imprinted based on their cultural upbringing. In a Western society, murder would be considered immoral. In a headhunting society, murder (in the context of the grief that drives headhunting) would be perfectly acceptable. The reason I choose such an extreme example is because I feel it illustrates the fact that morality is so open to interpretation that even if we do have physiological pathways that encourage positive community interactions (morals) it is impossible to say what is moral. In other words, due to the mutability of what is moral within the scope of societies there is no inherent morality.

2) Is society necessary to comment on what is human? I don't think so...the cases might be few, but "feral" humans have popped up before. Are they not human because they're not in a society?

I think it is important to remember and be aware of how much people can differ from one society to the next...the elasticity of babies' minds is a wonderful example of this. I think it is safe to say that there is a biological/physiological entity known as a "human being." This entity has the potential to be radically different based on the culture/society it is raised in. The entity has a myriad of capacities, but the actual traits presented (be it linguistic; type of langaugue/sub-dialect, temporal; comprehension of time/space, or moral; acceptable actions) are dependent on the circumstances the entity happens to be in. With regards to all three examples, cultures/societies tend to dictate the terms of these understandings. If a lone human grew up in the wilderness in isolation from humans, the specific manifestation of his/her capacities would most-likely be directly dependent on his/her experiences. I see no reason why this could not exclude social understandings/structures of morals. At the point where personal survival is paramount (and not understood to potentially be subjugated for "the good of others" ) morals don't factor in; this is the basis of my initial statement that nature is amoral.

If a wild human chooses not to kill another human he stumbles across, it wouldn't necessarily mean he's moral, it could just as easily mean there's no adaptive benefit or survival reason to kill him. Additionally, if he does kill him, it doesn't mean he's necessarily immoral, it could just as easily mean there is an adaptive benefit or survival reason to kill him. This, to my mind, is what we see amongst animals and is the reason for my understanding of nature as amoral. Decisions are made and carried out based on the impact on their survival of the individual animal. When we start to get into social groups, a certain amount of personal impact is alleviated...this is one of the benefits of being social animals. If you have a hard time with something, others can help out in a variety of ways. As such, survival is mitigated in part by the group and morals begin to make sense in order to allow for social cohesion.


HF - if you look at the three definitions, 2 of the three put it in the terms I presented (with their first definitions presenting ethics as systems of morals). As I said and you repeated…it is a nuance. There are plenty of terms presented as synonyms that are less than perfect as far as synonymy goes (just use the thesaurus feature on M$ word; there are numerous examples). Personally I think it is an important nuance, but clearly we differ on that. Such is life. The only reason I'm engaging in this is because I made a statement and was essentially asked to clarify. I've pretty much said the same thing as you with regards to the relevance or application of this conversation, which was the main thrust of my last post. This was also the reason why I made the comment regarding to the applicability of your earlier post to my statement.

As polytrip wants to continue the discussion in order to whittle away at some concepts, I see no issue with that. I'm sorry if you think me to be obtuse or to not have given your post an appropriate amount of time/thought. As I said, we clearly differ as to our thoughts on certain semantic distinctions. I'm not trying to argue or get your goat or create problems, I'm merely presenting things as I see them.

Yes, good points once again snozzle.
Now i think of it i think i actually agree with you that morality is a social phenomenon and not a purely individual, biological thing (although the nuance here would be that there should be some characteristic already present within the individual that allows for social behaviour).

I think it is possible to say that one society is 'better' than the other though....if you'd assume that humans could leave everything behind (like in a DMT trip) and would for one moment allow themselves to be totally reasonable, i think you could ask the question:"what do you hope to establish with your set of morals?" and find that some morals are simply a better answer to the need for moral codes than others (although i must agree that circumstances play a huge part here).

It's like when you decide to play football or whatever, before the match you can argue about what the best rules of the game would be.
Ofcourse people cling onto whatever they have during the game. But before the game begins, i think you could say that some rules are more reasonable to accept.

A rule like "don't physically hurt players of the other side" would be something everbody would agree with when they've reached a state of reasonability...during a match some players may find that they're physically much stronger than players of the other team, so maybe during the match they would, if you'd ask them say: "oh, i think hurting the opponent is quite alright"...But if you look at the game in a reasonable way i think every player would agree with that rule. Especially if they don't know yet who the opponent is gonna be.

I don't mind splitting hairs btw. Some people split atoms and get away with it, so splitting some hairs shouldn't be that bad.

Hey Snozz

You are clearly a thoughtful person. I appreciate the fineness with which you and Poly are attempting to dissect the issue.

I never questioned the definitions or usage of these terms, but rather stated and showed verifiably that Ethics & Morals are synonyms in nearly every thesaurus you could check. It is not that I don't understand that they have different definitions and usages, but rather that the overarching ideation here doesn't require such fine distinctions.

The only thing I will say about this is that our moral or ethical concepts are to be considered in their macro (sociological) and micro (personal) expressions. As individuals, we can distill our morality down to our conception of our SELF. The more inclusive and encompassing such a conception is, the more profoundly one can identify with and, thus extend one's concern for, all things that seem to be other.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" dissolves into larger conceptions of self.

Fundamental unity of being implies a sort of übermorality.

The boundary of this debate is merely the boundary of one's awareness. Consciousness expands and generates its own morality based on the context of the principles of interaction.

To bring this back down to Earth... Morality is only an issue if you perceive another as being separate from yourself. Macrophages attacking "foreign" bodies are not aware that they exist inside of a larger system we call a human being.

People tend to miss the bigger picture.

morality as a survival instinct does appear to code for some specific things
in general territoriality, sympathetic bonds and mating patterns all relate to natural morality
both being protective and being tolerant are seemingly codified by nature into social animals
for example animals appear to know who their kin are, as well as who are in their social group, like a pack, they give preferential treatment in patterns that are well conserved in social animals, in general individuals who do not conform to the patterns are frequently banished from the group, or in some cases killed.

Mob mentality might be considered a form of group morality, or the conforming of general behavior according to a value based code. In nearly every case this type of behavior increases survival, for through cooperation social animals typically have access to more resources than their solitary counterparts. Also social animals are more capable of defending themselves through group effort and thus may be able to better withstand predation.

The moral code of nature tend to be fairly clear, it is largely about respecting your family unit and allies above strangers, protecting property and allies/kin from damage, invasion or attack, establishing mating rites and rituals often designed to minimize or manage conflict in a controlled manner, cooperation in work and hunting with established and practiced roles, reduced tolerance of deviant behavior, etc

How we define deviant behavior in our own society does largely vary, but we are behaviorally speaking typical in the domains that we establish moral precepts in accord with, such as in regard to mating rites and rituals, for example.

A lot of morality may come from our perceptions of pain and pleasure and thus our recognition that others also experience these things. Sympathy has been observed in many animals, as has abhorrence. Our moral code though it varies in the details typically defines what is and is not acceptable behavior. It tends to tell us how to work, eat, hunt, mate, defend and attack, both as individuals and as groups, but there is no doubt that there is a difference between social morality and individual morality in terms of inclination. Individual behavior typically reflects personal morality that may not be the same as the social morality prescribed for the individual via culture. This does not always represent a deviation however, because individual morality can differ from social morality without conflict arising. For example an individual may have moral precepts that can be considered additional to the social precepts, thus the acts of such an individual can be independently moral and not constitute behavior defined by the social precepts as deviant. This is likely because moral codes in social animals are defined by what behavior is unacceptable, they do not try to prescribe what acts are acceptable other than that they are not those that are taboo.