Can they be separate? Does ethics not deal with rights, and morality deals with an individual's... erm.. preferences?
What I really need to know is: can I separate what is legitimate from a natural rights perspective and what I personally feel should be done. For instance, say that Rothbard is right and abortion is a legitimate exercise in property rights. Can I think that it is legitimate ethically, but morally abhorrent. I wish no one would do it, but they have a legal and ethical right to if they must.
I'm really working on the philosophy thing, so this is coming from a newbie. Thanks in advance for any help, and of course linking me to good sites or suggesting literature is always welcome! ; )
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
whipitgood:What I really need to know is: can I seperate what is legitimate from a natural rights perspective and what I personally feel should be done. For instance, say that Rothbard is right and abortion is a legitimate exercise in property rights. Can I think that it is legitimate ethically, but morally abhorrent. I wish no one would do it, but they have a legal and ethical right to if they must.
Yes, I believe so. I think this is where I ended up on abortion.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
So ethics and morals ARE separate? Most definitions paint them as the same. Where might I find a definition of each that positions them in this way?
whipitgood:and morality deals with an individual's... erm.. preferences?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
whipitgood:So ethics and morals ARE separate? Most definitions paint them as the same. Where might I find a definition of each that positions them in this way?
Basically, what Juan said. Ethics/Morals vs. Preferences.
Juan:Do you think your opinion makes it 'immoral' ? No way.
Maybe you have a point. Though...It would be hard for me to explain to someone that abortion is moral, but I really don't like the practice. Sounds like a contradiction. In any case, I don't want what to agree with something just because someone has a right to do it. I don't like hate speech or heroin use, but assuming no other complications, they're both within a person's rights. So maybe they're not 'immoral' but they are... what do i call that? Distasteful?
whipitgood:Maybe you have a point. Though...It would be hard for me to explain to someone that abortion is moral, but I really don't like the practice.
I was not advocating stopping them through force, I was merely pointing out that I need a term for disliking something that is ethically justified based on natural rights. (e.g. I really dont think anyone should use hard drugs, even though they clearly have the right to do so)
I take your point about rights/morals vs. prefferences though. I guess I was just putting more weight on the word 'moral' than I should have. Something being 'moral' does not mean that I must be comfortable with it personally.
Thanks for the speedy reply.
I believe Kant defines morality and ethics as seperate in Critique of Pure Reason.
I'm in a similar situation as you regarding abortion: I agree that women have a right to it, but I believe it is immoral. However, I don't think there's any necessary contradiction there - I can morally oppose abortion and still think it should be legal. Think of it this way: it is immoral to have an abortion, yes, but it would also be immoral to use violence to prevent someone from having an abortion.
It's a negative right - like all legitimate rights - no one can legally use violence to prevent you from having an abortion. But violence isn't the only thing in our toolbox as moral opponents of abortion (indeed, it likely isn't even the most effective method). Hoppe makes the excellent point in his introduction to The Ethics of Liberty that property owners could agree to ban abortion on their property, and if you had sufficient agreement among the community of land owners, you could effectively ban abortion in an area without aggressing against women. Opponents of abortion could also organize boycotts of people who performed or had abortions, to apply economic pressure. As you likely know, this type of thing can be very powerful. There are tons of possibilites which don't include the use of violence.
whipitgood:I was merely pointing out that I need a term for disliking something that is ethically justified based on natural rights.
liberty student: whipitgood:What I really need to know is: can I seperate what is legitimate from a natural rights perspective and what I personally feel should be done. For instance, say that Rothbard is right and abortion is a legitimate exercise in property rights. Can I think that it is legitimate ethically, but morally abhorrent. I wish no one would do it, but they have a legal and ethical right to if they must. Yes, I believe so. I think this is where I ended up on abortion.
Have you listened to this lecture? Abortion
The eighth in a series of ten lectures, presented at the "Radical Austrianism, Radical Libertarianism" seminar, hosted by the Mises Institute. Recorded 07/28/2005 [1:37:47]
What is wrong with Evictionism?
"Ethics" is derived from the Greek word for "custom" or "habit", and "morals" is derived from a synonymous Latin word. Now, in regard to a field of knowledge, "ethics" means "the science of morals."
whipitgood:Can I think that it is legitimate ethically, but morally abhorrent. I wish no one would do it, but they have a legal and ethical right to if they must.
Then you could say that, to you, abortion is immoral/unethical, but not criminal.
The word "criminal" has been taken over by the state to mean "contravening the state's decrees". But, to individualist anarchists, the state itself and its decrees are criminal, as are any other acts of aggression.
This is the dichotomy I prefer:
Criminal: Wrong in a way that justifies coercive retribution (acts of aggression, like murder, rape, theft, and enslavement)
Immoral/Unethical: Wrong in a way that justifies some degree of communal exclusion (harmful acts that do not qualify as aggression, like adultery and lying)
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
Conza88: Have you listened to this lecture? Abortion The eighth in a series of ten lectures, presented at the "Radical Austrianism, Radical Libertarianism" seminar, hosted by the Mises Institute. Recorded 07/28/2005 [1:37:47]
I will check it out.
Conza88: What is wrong with Evictionism?
Don't want to talk abortion (and attract the fanatics for and against) or jack this thread. Drop me a PM if you want to discuss it.
I've been thinking along the same lines as Juan, Daniel and others. You can have core laws built on core ethics/morals. I imagine it can be based on natural law and/or something like Molyneux's UPB. On top of this you have bubbles of outer ethics/morals built on say Christian values, Islam values, Secular values etc. There could be problems where the outer bubbles disagree with the core ethics. For some Christians, abortion ought to be outlawed. However, for other Christians I can imagine that they are prepared to simply discourage those thinking of abortion but accept that it cannot be written into the law of the land (after all the law does not require adherence to the 10 commandments - think especially of the first 4). Of course, we can't prevent Christians from considering abortion ungodly or immoral etc.
Pleasing everyone is a difficult problem. I reckon that freedom/liberty is for everyone: the smart and the dumb; the informed and the uninformed; the religious and the atheists. Something without universal appeal will fail. I am wondering if panarchy is a possible solution to these issues.
I don't think it helps to attempt to distinguish ethics and morals. m-w.com equates them. I do tend to think of morals more as traditional morals (particularly Christian). Ethics seems to be a more modern term that evokes philosophy and rationality. I think it's best to prefix when a specific meaning is required rather than to distinguish the terms. e.g. traditional morals and rational ethics.
I think morals are based on values/preferences. I think they are distinguishable, but for me what is moral is what I value. So though I can distinguish the concepts of morality and value, they are also present in each event unless there is conflict. But that's also true for morality and law. They are present at the same time, unless there is conflict.
A libertarian perspective takes note of what is moral when it comes to distinguishing a crime and non-crime. This is why smoking marijuana is a crime in the U.S., but a libertarian perspective says smoking marijuana is a moral question not a lawful question cause it's a personal decision not coercing others. So there is conflict between the current law and the moral issue. This conflict makes the law, morality, and value distinguishable depending on who's perspective this event is taken into consideration. The libertarian moral issue on smoking this, is it ought to be left to a personal choice to decide whether this is something the person values as being good or not, thus, it would be lawful in a libertarian society. Again no conflict between law, moral, and value, unless even the libertarian prefers not to smoke or even finds it immoral. Yet a libertarian wouldn't take it to the level of unlawful. So the only conflicts in a libertarian society might be distinguishable not in law but in moral and value issues.
Of course certain preferences such as eating an onion versus not eating this vegetable would not be considered a right or wrong on most people's part I would figure, unless somebody that doesn't like onions would find it wrong or not good to taste them. I know in some cultures eating certain animals (immoral and unlawful to eat otters, young ravens, etc...) are taboo, and thus wrong to eat. It is immoral and would be unlawful according to the culture for anybody to eat the animals [more examples: Hebrew, Islamic, and Seventh Day Adventists (Christian) find it immoral/not-kosher to eat pig and possibly even unlawful]. Yet, the animals are edible. Just like onions are edible.
So why are they taboo, immoral, and even unlawful at times? I think the basics to this are preferences and thus values. If these values are not in conflict with individuals/society morals, then these values are also moral issues. Ultimately values and morals are undefined, but what we can intellectualize is not ultimate reality. We can intellectualize it, but our intellectual patterns are not the dynamism of ultimate reality. This leaves plenty of space for individuality and an expression of individuality is culture. And cultures indeed are diverse, wonderful, and beautiful around the world.
So if somebody would eat what we might think to be a perfectly edible and thus good animal, if you did in their culture you would be committing a taboo translated into our culture as a sin to God, so to speak. In other cultures it is taboo and morally wrong and sometimes criminal for a woman to show their face in public. Used to be taboo for woman to show ankles in the U.S. and Europe, seen also as an immoral act. Today most people in these cultures would probably leave this to preference.
The impact of preferences sometimes are not high on the moral scale, such as this onion example, reaching the level of social or intellectual events of discord or harmony. Yet other preferences, such as the U.S. central bank (intellectual Keynesian) prefering to spend their way out of debt, is not only considered immoral by a libertarian but also a criminal act that is intellectually and socially discordant.
The impact of values and morals can be lower or higher on a value-moral scale. But this is my opinion and I know there are different perspectives on this.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
whipitgood:Can they be separate? Does ethics not deal with rights, and morality deals with an individual's... erm.. preferences?
Knight_of_BAAWA: whipitgood:Can they be separate? Does ethics not deal with rights, and morality deals with an individual's... erm.. preferences?Ethics is the science; morality is the code.
So ethics are observed and morals are not observed by others, unless the morals are made explicit into ethics?
Steven Shaw:I've been thinking along the same lines as Juan, Daniel and others.
The problem is that Juan and Daniel gave me two different answers.
Juan said that ethics/morals deal with rights and preferences are individual values. (e.g. using hard drugs is not immoral/unethical, but I would prefer if others did not use them.)
Daniel said that ethics/morals deal with individual values, and criminality deals with rights. (e.g. using hard drugs is not criminal, but I consider it to be unethical/immoral)
Wilderness restates what I originally believed to be the case (e.g. using hard drugs is not criminal or unethical, but I consider it to be immoral.)
We're all talking about two distinct things. On one hand, we have what is permissible from a natural law perspective (things that are non-criminal or ethical) and on the other hand, we have things that are ok from a natural rights perspective, but we personally dislike (our preferences, or our moral code)
Seems like a semantics game to me. Which is it?
whipitgood: The problem is that Juan and Daniel gave me two different answers. Juan said that ethics/morals deal with rights and preferences are individual values. (e.g. using hard drugs is not immoral/unethical, but I would prefer if others did not use them.) Daniel said that ethics/morals deal with individual values, and criminality deals with rights. (e.g. using hard drugs is not criminal, but I consider it to be unethical/immoral) Wilderness restates what I originally believed to be the case (e.g. using hard drugs is not criminal or unethical, but I consider it to be immoral.)
i vote with Juan, ethics and morals are synonymous, though because people often feel personal prefences strongly, and using moral language is attractive because it has moral force (should;shouldnt) people often mistake preferences for moral rules and they consciously or unconsciously muddy the water by saying 'being rude to someone is immoral' 'telling a falsehood is immoral;
well, no.... if one insists on such a practice one should at least start to make a (false) distinction between objective universal ethics, and a personal/private ethics. but it should be clear that the latter hardly deserves the label ethics, as it is just personal preference and bias.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap