Diff in Ethics, Morality and the Law

[Veritas Aequitas]

Video on the difference between Ethics, Morality and the Law.

The world around us is a smorgasbord of beliefs, claims, rules and norms about how we should live and behave.

It’s important to tease this jumble of ethical pressures apart so we can put them in their proper place. Otherwise, it can be hard to know what to do when some of these requirements contradict others.

Let’s talk about three different categories of demands on how we should live: ethics, morality and law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xki2fRA0bY8&t=83s

I notice, in most discussions involving Ethics, most do not differentiate between Ethics, morality and laws [legal, social and customary] also taking into account applied ethics.

My view is;
Morality and Ethics is significantly independent from Law.

Morality and Ethics are often interchangeable.
My take is,
Ethics is the general topic that cover whatever are ethical behaviors.
Morality [Pure] involves the universal principles grounding ethical behaviors.
Applied Ethics involved the practical aspects of Ethics.

Discuss?
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS
Just as Pure Mathematics are distinguished from Applied [Mathematics], Pure Logic from Applied [Logic],
so if we choose we may also distinguish Pure Philosophy of Morals (Metaphysic) from Applied [Ethics] (viz., applied to Human Nature).

By this designation we are also at once reminded that [Pure] Moral Principles are not based on properties of human Nature, but must subsist a priori of themselves,
while from such Principles, Practical Rules must be capable of being deduced for every rational Nature, and accordingly for that of man.

[FlashDangerpants]

3 minute video about ethics v morality in philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAkqh9pfVkc

If that's too long... in philosophy we don't typically distinguish between the two. I've certainly never noticed any philosopher making any use of such a distinction in any work on the topic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

3 minute video about ethics v morality in philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAkqh9pfVkc

If that's too long... in philosophy we don't typically distinguish between the two. I've certainly never noticed any philosopher making any use of such a distinction in any work on the topic.

Philosophers who differentiated between Morality vs Ethics for a matter of being rigorous and avoid confusions.

Philosophers I am aware of who distinguish the two [Morality vs Ethics]:
Hegel does draw a distinction in his considerations of Sittlichkeit (often translated to "ethical life") and Moralität (translated for obvious reasons as ethics) in the Phenomenology of Spirit

Kant draws a somewhat similar one in either the Lecture on Ethics or Metaphysics of Morals (not to be confused with the Groundwork)... But some 20th century philosophers have used these in the opposite ways.

Anscombe in her Modern Moral Philosophy builds on where morality is understood somewhat pejoratively as a synonym for moral theory and ethics is understood positively as Aristotelian. N.b., Aristotle has no word "morality" or "morals".

The two English terms differ in origin in that "ethics" is a Greek-derived term and "morality" is a Latin-derived term.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... and-morals

Kant introduces a clear distinction (as also stated by Virmaior) in his Metaphysics of Morals:
In ancient times “ethics” signifıed the doctrine of morals [Sittenlehre, can also be translated to doctrine of customs]; (philosophia moralis) in general, which was also called the doctrine of duties. Later on it seemed better to reserve the name “ethics” for one part of moral philosophy, namely for the doctrine of those duties that do not come under external laws (it was thought appropriate to call this, in German, the doctrine of virtue [Tugendlehre]). Accordingly, the system of the doctrine of duties in general is now divided into the system of the doctrine of Right (ius), which deals with duties that can be given by external laws, and the system of the doctrine of virtue (ethica), which treats of duties that cannot be so given; and this division may stand. (Ak. 6:379.3-12)
That means that for Kant, morals are about the system of all duties, whereas ethics are about the sub-category of duties that cannot be codified and enforced via laws.
Ibid

The above re Kant is not very precise.
Kant did introduce a very clear distinction between Morality [pure - Categorical Imperatives] and Ethics [applied - Hypothetical Imperatives and general].

[FlashDangerpants]

So, like I already said, nobody makes any actual use of a distinction that only a handful even bother to mention.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, like I already said, nobody makes any actual use of a distinction that only a handful even bother to mention.

That is the reason for the slow moral progress within humanity since humans first emerged with an inherent moral potential.

Those who do not differentiate between morality and ethics are dealing with "too many cooks ..."
On the other hand, note the expeditious progress where the Pure is differentiated from the Applied, as in Mathematic, Science [various sub-science], economics and others.

Those who depend on the law [which provide minimal benefits], it is 'one man's meant is another man's poison' and such subjectivity cannot facilitate expeditious progress to reduce and prevent evil acts.

THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS
Just as Pure Mathematics are distinguished from Applied [Mathematics], Pure Logic from Applied [Logic],
so if we choose we may also distinguish Pure Philosophy of Morals (Metaphysic) from Applied [Ethics] (viz., applied to Human Nature).

By this designation we are also at once reminded that Moral Principles are not based on properties of human Nature, but must subsist a priori of themselves,
while from such Principles, Practical Rules must be capable of being deduced for every rational Nature, and accordingly for that of man.

[FlashDangerpants]

So, like I already said, nobody makes any actual use of a distinction that only a handful even bother to mention.

That is the reason for the slow moral progress within humanity since humans first emerged with an inherent moral potential.

I am talking about real philosophers. Whatever KFC magical thinking you might cook up to hallucinate the matter into a fact isn't really relevant to that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Notes:

THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS
Just as Pure Mathematics are distinguished from Applied [Mathematics], Pure Logic from Applied [Logic],
so if we choose we may also distinguish Pure Philosophy of Morals (Metaphysic) from Applied [Ethics] (viz., applied to Human Nature).

By this designation we are also at once reminded that [Pure] Moral Principles are not based on properties of human Nature, but must subsist a priori of themselves,
while from such Principles, Practical Rules must be capable of being deduced for every rational Nature, and accordingly for that of man.

The bits you insert in square brackets are your own additions aren't they? Kant didn't distinguish between morals and ethics in that passage, you just inserted your own mistranslation.

[LuckyR]

Video on the difference between Ethics, Morality and the Law.

The world around us is a smorgasbord of beliefs, claims, rules and norms about how we should live and behave.

It’s important to tease this jumble of ethical pressures apart so we can put them in their proper place. Otherwise, it can be hard to know what to do when some of these requirements contradict others.

Let’s talk about three different categories of demands on how we should live: ethics, morality and law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xki2fRA0bY8&t=83s

I notice, in most discussions involving Ethics, most do not differentiate between Ethics, morality and laws [legal, social and customary] also taking into account applied ethics.

My view is;
Morality and Ethics is significantly independent from Law.

Morality and Ethics are often interchangeable.
My take is,
Ethics is the general topic that cover whatever are ethical behaviors.
Morality [Pure] involves the universal principles grounding ethical behaviors.
Applied Ethics involved the practical aspects of Ethics.

Discuss?
Views??

My understanding is compatible with yours, though takes a different tack. Namely that morality refers to personal moral codes, whereas ethics to community ethical standards.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS
Just as Pure Mathematics are distinguished from Applied [Mathematics], Pure Logic from Applied [Logic],
so if we choose we may also distinguish Pure Philosophy of Morals (Metaphysic) from Applied [Ethics] (viz., applied to Human Nature).

By this designation we are also at once reminded that [Pure] Moral Principles are not based on properties of human Nature, but must subsist a priori of themselves,
while from such Principles, Practical Rules must be capable of being deduced for every rational Nature, and accordingly for that of man.

The bits you insert in square brackets are your own additions aren't they? Kant didn't distinguish between morals and ethics in that passage, you just inserted your own mistranslation.

If one were to read Kant thoroughly and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's take on Morality & Ethics, that inserted [Ethics] resonates with the whole of Kant's dealing of Morality and Ethics.

[FlashDangerpants]

Notes:

The bits you insert in square brackets are your own additions aren't they? Kant didn't distinguish between morals and ethics in that passage, you just inserted your own mistranslation.

If one were to read Kant thoroughly and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's take on Morality & Ethics, that inserted [Ethics] resonates with the whole of Kant's dealing of Morality and Ethics.

You fool yourself very easily that dead philosophers agree with you. Yet you have zero traction with any living ones.

[CIN]

The bits you insert in square brackets are your own additions aren't they? Kant didn't distinguish between morals and ethics in that passage, you just inserted your own mistranslation.

If one were to read Kant thoroughly and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's take on Morality & Ethics, that inserted [Ethics] resonates with the whole of Kant's dealing of Morality and Ethics.

You fool yourself very easily that dead philosophers agree with you.

Hasn't VA told you about his seances?

[Atla]

He [p-realist] who is cruel to animals [tortures them] becomes hard [murderous] also in his dealings with men [targets anti-p-realists]. We [wise anti-p-realists] can judge [using FSK-d judgement] the heart of a man by his treatment of animals [animal-treatment-proper FSK]. - Immanuel Kant

[CIN]

He [p-realist] who is cruel to animals [tortures them] becomes hard [murderous] also in his dealings with men [targets anti-p-realists]. We [wise anti-p-realists] can judge [using FSK-d judgement] the heart of a man by his treatment of animals [animal-treatment-proper FSK]. - Immanuel Kant

Kant also said, in the same lecture:

"Animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.... Our duties toward animals are merely indirect duties toward humanity.... Vivisectionists, who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments."

Kant was a speciesist shithead.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The bits you insert in square brackets are your own additions aren't they? Kant didn't distinguish between morals and ethics in that passage, you just inserted your own mistranslation.

If one were to read Kant thoroughly and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's take on Morality & Ethics, that inserted [Ethics] resonates with the whole of Kant's dealing of Morality and Ethics.

You fool yourself very easily that dead philosophers agree with you. Yet you have zero traction with any living ones.

Your thinking is bankrupt.
The greatest philosophers of all time happened to dead thousands and hundreds of years ago.
https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/greatest- ... -all-time/
It is the same with of the greatest in many other established fields of knowledge.

As with philosophers who are alive at present, there are none that are very great as compared to the famous philosophers who are dead.
Your Simon Blackburn?

Even if there are any 'great' living philosophers [I can think of any that warrant the term 'great' -who? Noam Chomsky?], they are standing on the "shoulders of giants" of the dead ones.