Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaleon Moonshae" data-source="post: 1603476" data-attributes="member: 12147">I can agree with some of what you say. For the record the main reason ethics and morals have been turned into interchangable terms is a problem with laymen (not saying you here because you seem to be able to do your research) since philosophy *does* distinguish between morals and ethics (or at least most philosophical traditions); they just can't agree on whether ethics are the social rules we live by and morals are the personal rules we live or vice versa. You will get a large part of the philosophers today say that ethics are what we, as a society, say is right and wrong (hence why doctors are always talking about ethical questions rather than moral) and that morals are somehow *above reality* in the since that they represent some kind of universal cultural notion of right and wrong. I find that it is truly easier to use them interchangably with most people since no one agrees on which is which.I have to agree that *religious* societies all over the world tend to agree on what is fundamentally *right* and *wrong* hence why every culture basically share the same basic ten comandments. The reason I tend to think that most societies are fundamentally different is how they interpret those fundamentals. I know that this si where you say that it becomes a non-moral/ethical question but I just don't agree. To me these societies are still *very* different and where the ethical (from ethos) line is concerned they aren't. Ethics, if you look at them as what you must do in order to have civilization (which is the common idea right now, wait ten minutes and it might not be, gotta love philo) then they are fundamentally the same from culture to culture and maybe this is what you are trying to say. I agree with that, only the *flavor* text used is different from society to society. Most societies, in order to be successful as a civilization, must have ideas such as 'blatant theft' is wrong, 'premeditated murder' is wrong, 'rape' is wrong. They may split hairs on what each of those mean, true, but they are all there and I think maybe that is what you are trying to say. This is more a case of Lawful vs Chaos, however, and even the handbook says (or used to at least) that law/chaos is the character's "ethos" where good/evil is their "moral."Where I think we are getting confused is that you seem (maybe I'm wrong) to lump is good/evil with law/chaos. Whereas it is true that societies have the same basic concept of ethos, their morals are not similar sometimes at all. Since I personally think all moral questions are ethic questions at heart (which here I think we might be more in agreement than I thought) I know that I am not the majority of people. Morals are very fundamental and gut reaction. It goes back to the ten commandments as a good example. Understand that the ten commandments were both an ethical AND moral framework. The ethical side comes into crime and punishment. It is against the law to "murder" someone and it is against the law to "burglarize" someone. The law, most times has some leeway here and that is where ethics come in. Law allows there to be 'self-defense' and will also usually let you off easy if you say stole a loaf of bread to feed your kids. Ethics are a lot of different shades and is a fine balance between law and chaos if it is to be successful (america has, until recently, been pretty good at this).The moral side, however, is *very* cut and dried. "thou shalt not kill" means just that, don't kill...period. If you do kill it had better be sanctioned by god himself (which was the ever present loophole in everything moral). "Thou shalt not Steal" meant just that, stealing is *bad.* It doesn't mean that if you steal a loaf of bread from mister rich that's not as bad as say stealing a car, they're both equal in "god's" eye. The ten commandments is a very cut and dried moral framework. Other socities do not always have such a cut and dried form of morals and *that* is where the fundamental difference in societies comes in. To me that makes it a *moral* difference. They may have to prosecute someone for theft but the people themselves may believe that it was justified and not wrong.America is really hard to use in examples like this because modern america is a true boiling pot of moral thought. You can easily say that 'well if america says this about this and so and so country says this, then morals are similar" and you are right *in a sense.* I am happy to see morals coming into alignment with ethics because I think we need that in order to have "world peace." If you want an idea of where morals are different then look at saudi arabia versus the celts. Saudi arabians, at their basic and original morals see women as objects and nothing more, they are possessions. That is not an ethical stance because it has nothing to do with law/chaos. Giving women the rights of men is *wrong* to them because they see women as objects. The celts, on the other hand, saw women as *higher* than men and saw men as objects. Women could trade men, and it was women who held the power in the culture. These are two very different *moral* archtypes, even though *ethically* they shared a lot of the same laws (cutting off hands of theives, women able to kill husbands for cheating on them).I don't know if I made any sense, am at work and shouldn't evne be on here, lol, but i hope it was a little coherent at least.P.S. I guess I should say one other thing: Yes, women as objects has to do with law *presently* but I was specifically talking about the original cultural perspective. Culture usually dictates certain minor laws in societies just like a lot of america's christian laws (such as gay merriage) which do not have a direct effect on law/chaos.</blockquote>

Verification