Morals are not the same as Ethics

Morals versus Ethics

This is an important distinction where law making is concerned.

Currently in New Zealand there is a not very new but freshly hot *discussion* in play regarding abortion law. To cut a long story short; a quite left winged party has a policy to change the laws regarding abortion, to legalise and extend the rules applying to abortion. And we have an election soon. Dynamite + flame = BOOM. 

Here's something I wrote a while back - LINK - that isn't technically about abortion but about choice and how religious doctrine is not the boss of me. I'm putting this here to save me having to reiterate the basic idea that your belief set is NOT THE SAME as mine; and until you can actually prove that I'm wrong, or at least have an open discussion about it, rather than just shouting your beliefs at me I don't much care what your opinion is.

What I want to discuss now is the difference between morals and ethics in this situation. People love to tell me what is morally correct - usually while telling me that I'm not. Morally correct is however a subjective interpretation of what is right - a moral set comes side by side with a belief set and the two are usually intertwined. For what it's worth - the first person to suggest that I have no beliefs because I identify as an Agnostic is likely to get a metaphorical smack; call that fair warning.  The first person to suggest that my morals are worth less because I don't believe in any deity can expect to hear the following, only with my caps lock on... I don't need a god figure to tell me whats right or wrong - I make my own decision based on fairness and decency and without the threat of eternal damnation. If you think this makes my morals worth less than yours you probably need to examine the concept more closely.

Morals are often arrived at by attachment to the belief set of a larger group, but they are arrived at by an individual based on those beliefs and can vary quite wildly both from group to group AND within a group. 

Ethics look at a situation from the perspective of the group definition of right. Ethics are reached by consensus and while they may mirror the morals of many they will sometimes be contrary to the morals & beliefs of even quite large groups. Ethics take the group consensus and turn it into a guideline for behaviour. The law takes ethical decisions and turns them into a rule set for common behaviour practices. The judicial system sets a system of punishments for the infringement of that rule set. There is no judicial or legal system in place for the transgression of a moral choice that is not also a transgression of an ethical choice. To put that more plainly, or at least differently. You will not be punished under civil law for a moral transgression UNLESS that transgression is also a breach of ethics. All the politicians would be in prison if you were. *Zing*. Your immortal soul is your own problem.  

The argument over abortion is currently mainly in the sphere of morals, as individuals argue over what they feel to be right. The decision on what is legally right is quite another story. While the moral opinion of the population at large should certainly be considered,  it is the facts of the case that will decide the ethics for the most part. 

So each and every one of you; if you want to be taken seriously in this debate there are several things you need to understand...

• The only thing you gain from the hurling of abuse at your opposites is the disdain of every sane voice.
• Saying 'I disagree' without following up with how, why and what could be changed to fix this is utterly without value. This is a debate not a poll of opinion.
• Stating an opinion as a fact is stupid. Backing up your opinion with facts is awesome.
• Facts you learned by googling and taking the first answer that agreed with you is not the same as backing your opinion up with facts. Though they may bear a close resemblance. Research is not a filthy word.
• Moist is a filthy word.
• Personal abuse is utterly unacceptable as a means of validating your argument. I'm fat, what's your point?
• If you call someone stupid merely because you disagree with them, you are saying far more about yourself than you are about them.
• I may be harping on about not being a dick - but have you READ some of the comments on these debates? 
• I will have far more respect for reasoned argument from someone I disagree with than for a throw away comment from someone I do agree with.
• Debate is GOOD; better ethical decisions are made the more members of the group affected by the decision talk about it.
• Trying to shut people out of the discussion because you don't think their opinion counts is a DICK MOVE. Yes, I know a lot of women feel that men shouldn't get any kind of a vote here BUT men are also half of the conception equation. What weight different opinions carry is in the end up to those who actually get to decide the matter. 
• Be willing to THINK about what your opposites are saying; if we dismiss everything we disagree with we will never reach any kind of consensus. We will only reach a bloody minded decision based on one set of ideals.

This decision is far to important to not take seriously; make your voice heard but don't forget that everyone else's voice gets to be heard too. Dickishness not withstanding. 

Peace. Out.

The religious argument. It burns me.

The following came about as a result of my thinking about the argument about contraception. I didn’t include it with that, partly because it was getting quite long as it was, partly because it would detract from the point I was trying to make. So it does hinge a bit on the contraception debate, is what I'm trying to say :P

I’m going to phrase some stuff here as if I were contemplating the religion of it. Because I am. I’m not anti religion. I’m anti using religion to make others do things your way. So let’s put it like this: if you take away my right to use free will in a decision haven’t you taken away my ability to make the ‘right’ decision? If you make it so that the will of your God is forced upon me, haven’t you excluded me from the ability to become righteous? I’m trying to find my way here, to how the argument that ‘God said so, therefore it’s law’ makes any sense in God’s big picture. Aren’t we supposed to be living a good life, making good choices that reflect our faith in God? How can I make ‘good’ choices if you’ve taken away all the ‘bad’ options? If I can be called righteous even though I had no part in making myself so, what is the point?

Alright, I’m going to try to see a little further into the other side. So there is this whole sanctity of life argument. Which I have many opinions on myself. But I want to think from the point of view of someone else today. The problem is, I can’t find anything to back up the conviction that life begins at conception. I mean obviously from a purely scientific perspective, it does sort of. But which part of being alive is the important part in this argument? Obviously simply being alive isn’t enough or God would be insisting that we all eat nothing but seeds - or maybe not, is there anything we can safely eat on that premise? Dirt doesn’t seem very appetising. The important ‘line’ is what? The soul? When does that arrive? It seems to me that this God fellow hasn’t actually given us enough information to KNOW his will on this one. Which is OK because he gave us free will for just this sort of occasion. Reason. The trouble with reason, is that what you reason isn’t necessarily what I reason, and who are you to tell me I’m wrong? Just another fallible mortal I’m afraid. Yes, I know, you might think you’re special because you’re one of God’s chosen people. But you see that’s just your opinion, and mine differs.

It irritates me greatly when people use the ‘God said so’ argument, because the only evidence you have for this is written by fallible humanity. And no matter how much more special you may think the leaders of your Church are, to me they are just people. Every bit as fallible as everyone else is. Think I’m wrong? Go have a look at the history of your religion. Every church has its douchebags, just like every other part of human endeavour.

Religion is very important to very many people, and in many lives is a very good thing. The trouble is which religion is right? I have no idea, and due to a number of personal convictions, I have chosen to go with, none of them. But given that there are way more religious denominations than I can be bothered counting, and each of them differs in a number of ways from each other, who then should get to tell me how I should run my life? Pretty simple. None of them. Having actively chosen not to follow any religious organisation it becomes none of their business. I live in one of the many countries in the world in which Church is, at least in principle, separate from State. Kudos for me, I suspect it might be inconvenient to be an agnostic in a religious State. FYI Church dudes, this also means State is separate from Church. This can be a massive bonus for you. Think about it before you start getting too excited about running the country you’re in. If nothing else ‘attempted religious genocide’ looks really bad on your resume.

Don’t get me wrong, many people treat their part in religious debate with decency and respect. It’s perfectly possible to have beliefs and not be a dick about it, 98% (a guess) of people manage it on a daily basis. Unfortunately the ones that don’t manage it have a tendency to be loud about it. It’s not limited to those who believe in a God or Gods, Atheism and Agnosticism have their share of douchebaggery too. It’s part of the human condition. Some of us are dicks. Even those of us that aren’t dicks have our bad days. I’m not sure I count myself as ‘not a dick’ either, I have been known to be quite vocal in my opinions. On the plus side (for my potential dickitude) I don’t expect you to change your mind just because I told you my opinion.


Peace. Out.