View Single Post
Old 07-05-2010, 07:02 PM   #677
troymc
Groupie
troymc will become famous soon enoughtroymc will become famous soon enoughtroymc will become famous soon enoughtroymc will become famous soon enoughtroymc will become famous soon enoughtroymc will become famous soon enough
 
Posts: 161
Karma: 608
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Device: Sony PRS-505 + B&N Nook + Motion LE1700 + Motorola Xoom Wifi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
What's niggling me is that we haven't pinned down what ethics/morality actually is - it seems to have been shape shifting throughout this thread. Or, more likely, I just haven't understood what's been going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS View Post
That's a very good point and I think part of the "dispute" of the thread relates to just that.
...
It seems to me that there has been a fair amount of talking at cross-purposes simply because different people have implicitly adopted one or other of these positions and someone else responded from a different position, and neither have been explicit about the position they are coming from.
I agree. I've noticed some conflation of the idea of a moral concept with the moral value associated with it. A item may or may not have a specific quality of color, and that quality may have a specific value - red/blue/green. In the same vein, an action may or may not have a moral quality, and the value of that moral quality may vary - good/bad.

1) I walk over and pick an apple from a tree.
2) I walk over and pick up your money from your desk.

Both actions are physically identical - but the 2nd one has a moral quality to it. The moral value [good/bad] associated with it differs depending upon a culture's underlying value system. eg. Native American cultures did not even have a concept of "personal property", while most modern cultures do and would consider it "theft" therefore "bad".


Troy

Last edited by troymc; 07-05-2010 at 11:20 PM.
troymc is offline   Reply With Quote