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.

Human rights. The decent* of man.

-This is an old one copied over from facebook, but I'm reposting it and re-linking it all over the place because I think it's important.-

It was brought to my attention recently that the definition for 'Human Rights' is getting a bit cloudy. Maybe because people are more inclined these days to ask, and expect, to be treated equally regardless of their race, religion, sexuality, whatever.

Someone, in a postion of not insignificant authority, was suggesting that the subject of gay marriage had nothing to do with human rights. Someone needs to buy a dictionary I think. The argument actually ran more along the lines of human rights ONLY being about basic necessity. Food. Shelter. I guess someone better go tell Nelson Mandela. And Martin Luther King Jr. And the many, many thousands of others who have stood up for all kinds of rights that apparently don't count as human rights. WTF dude?

I can manage to agree that at the core of human rights are a bunch of things that everyone should expect to have access to with absolute disregard for any outside influence. That food and shelter stuff, that's not something we should even be arguing about. I don't think however that the fact that I don't need to be able to marry my girlfriend to live, stops it from being a human right issue that I be allowed to, should I so choose. Don't get your hopes up kids, I'm as straight as a poorly manufactured arrow.

I'm getting a bit fed up with all the debate over human rights. Why? Because it sickens me that people need to be told to treat each other with a modicum of respect. It flat out flabberghasts me that people don't grasp the fairly basic concept that turn about is fair play. Why the hell should I respect your lifestyles and credos if you aren't prepared to respect mine? That's not tricky right? I don't have to believe in your god to respect your right to, do I? No. Obviously not. So stop being a gigantic DERP about it and let me get on with my life. Not that anyone actually directly gets on their high horse at me - because I'm seldom stupid enough to tell anyone I think MIGHT. I have a couple of Christian friends who occasionally try to 'save my soul', I offend one quite regularly with my inability to grasp that there is anything wrong with it in the first place.

Certainly according to my own system of belief, I'm doing alright.

I think this over-prevalent attitude of  'my beliefs are right, therefore yours are unacceptable' is crazy. No, this is not a colloquialism. I mean crazy. Actual. Batshit. MENTAL. We have minds, we think, we have opinions. If we all agreed all the time, there would be little point in our having the capacity for debate. Why would it even have developed, if it wasn't useful for something? We're not MEANT to agree all the time, because we would get NOWHERE if we did. Without disagreement, that stick we first picked up to pick an ant out of a log would never have developed into a 27 tool pocketknife. That sits in a draw doing nothing.

Debate is an important part of development, and forcing a lack of debate will only hold us back. Sure there's a whole lot of development we could arguably have done without. But I'm quite fond of my laptop. As evidenced by my lying in bed with it propped up on a few books in my lap while I write this. And the zillion other rants I've written.

It's time, and well past time, humanity accepted its need for debate and accepted that being different is not the same as being wrong. We tell our children off for picking on each other for the little differences in their lives, and yet blithely ignore the gapping hypocrisy going on all around us. We expect our children to learn to be decent and fair human beings, while all around them they see inequity and outright hostility over differences much larger than the things they play at being little bastards over. What exactly are we teaching them?

I've very, very proud of my daughter**. She has an astonishing grasp of fairness, and a matching unwillingness to tolerate inequity around her. She stands up for her friends when they are bullied and, much harder, she stands up TO them when they're being dicks. I haven't had to steer her a lot, she was born this way. It's a pleasure watching her growing into an immensely lovable adult. Sometimes it amazes me how decent she is, given that she's had to grow up in a broken home (thankfully not very messily broken) with a sick mother who has very little extra energy most of the time. I suppose with a lack of physical energy I have put a lot more of my time into mental pursuit - we talk a lot. She's a smart kid, it's amazing to watch mental development in progress. Amazing to watch her thinking through complicated moral situations and come to her own conclusions. We don't always agree, but then I don't expect to.

Peace. Out.

*nope, that isn't a spelling mistake in the title ;)

** I don't mean to sound arrogant here, she is completely awesome. But I actually think she is 90% awesome just because of who she is. I didn't do it, her dad didn't do it, she just IS a very cool human being who's been allowed to develop her own coolness. That's the bit I got right.

The two sides of a coin can never touch.

Occasionally I rant about intolerance. Which often leads into a rant about religious intolerance. (Because I’m sorry to say that a lot of the most vocal intolerance I see is religiously motivated). Which often leads to some friends of mine being hurt because ‘I hate their beliefs’. Which I don’t. It isn’t religion I dislike, its fanaticism; it’s the uncontrollable desire to force other people to think the same way you do. Only one of my Christian friends even comes close to falling into that category, and she doesn’t quite manage it since she knows when to shut up.

There’s nothing wrong with faith. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to follow the moral code you believe your deity has laid before you. Or the moral code that you have settled upon by any other method. The point at which I start getting upset is when you take your moral set and try to impose it upon others with no consideration for their own moral set. Believing that someone is wrong and knowing they are wrong are two very different kettles of fish. I understand that some of the things I believe go utterly against some of the things other people believe. I believe that I am right. I do not object in the slightest to an intellectual debate of the differences in our beliefs. If your argument is valid you have a chance of swaying me. Please do not be offended if my opinion does not change. I will not be offended if I fail to sway you.

My Christian friends occasionally think that I hate their religion. Because occasionally someone calling themselves a good Christian stands up and says something that I find morally abhorrent, and I feel the need to respond. Because when I see someone hating in the name of their religion it makes me cross. Because the only kind of God I am capable of believing in wouldn’t expect that kind of nastiness from their brethren. So I can only assume that the decision to spout hate about the lifestyles of their fellow man has very little to do with their belief in God.

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? I’m pretty sure these same people trying to make me conform to their beliefs would be very opposed to me trying to make them conform to mine; would be the first to scream ‘foul’ if I tried to get my government to make laws excluding them or forcing them to do things my way.

Your government is supposed to make its decisions without bias. To show no favouritism to any group. Of course it seldom works this way. Because people are greedy, self absorbed and insensitive. We all want it our way. But we cannot all have it our way. So wherever possible we should be aiming to make laws that include everyone; that allow everyone to have their own beliefs. Beliefs should only be a legal issue when they impose themselves on people’s wellbeing. If you believe that God wants you to run around shooting people, it’s definitely time for the law to tell you that’s not ok. Anything that isn’t hurting anyone is no one’s business but yours. Before you say something stupid let me point out that removing someone’s rights counts as hurting them. If in doubt; DON’T BE A DICK.

It’s time, and long past, for people to put aside their malice. To accept that others have the same right to their beliefs as you do. Time to understand that to make others live by your beliefs is to strip them of their free will. 

Peace. Out.

FFS Less intolerance you bastards! -an intolerant rant about intolerance-

(contents may offend - well the odd word here and there...)

It's been a pet hate of mine for years, the way that [many] people feel the need to think less of someone for what they believe over and above that someones actions.

If I'm a demonstrably decent person, what difference does it make whether I think that 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything or not? If I think we should reincarnate Atilla the Hun and let him rule the known universe, who cares as long as I don't actually make it happen? I like blue and would probably vote labour if there was ANY candidate worth having. Does that have any bearing at all on my ability to create beautiful things?

I have some slightly odd beliefs. Not to mention a slightly skewed moral set. I'm also nice to animals and volunteer at the local Primary School. Which has more value when you judge me? I could say why are you judging me, but face it we all do it. I'd just rather people were a bit less dissmissive of 'good' and a bit more tolerant of 'bad' (I don't mean good or bad of course I mean agrees/disagrees with me or, I can/can't relate to).

But this is not about me - in fact most people I know DO take me at face value despite the constantly changing hair colour and obsession with World of Warcraft. But I watch people blow stuff out of all proportion every day. And god (don't ask WHICH god) knows I've started any number of bitchslapfights with my strange need to discuss ideas. The exchange of ideas should be a beautiful thing. But humanities greed and insecurity conspire to make the free exchange of ideas a timebomb, at zero someone decides that you've said something personally offensive about their beliefs and BOOM. It's a very special kind of time bomb too because it can go off multiple times, and can lie in wait for long periods before randomly going off again.

There's a scale to these things of course. There's worlds of difference between ("I think everyone should wear a purple ribbon tomorrow to express their sympathy at my suffering Fibromyalgia" - "I totally can't wear purple you tool, it clashes with my hair") and say ("I'm thinking of voting RIGHT at the next election" - "OMG all right-side voters are baby eaters, I can't believe you advocate eating babies!") Oddly I can live with the first, but get this tingly thing going on in my (fingertips, lips, whichever bit is most appropriate) at the second... It actually matters not a single bit to me whose side I might have more sympathies with I'll always defend the non douchebag. The more the assailant thrashes about, the more I feel the need to reach for a stone and sharpen my wit. I won't go as far as AGREEING with someone just because they have a douchebag in their face (now THERE'S an image) of course. Tell the dickhead FUUSE4aPWN* though, that I'll do. Or just saying hey I think that guys an AFC*, sorry you had to put up with that - that I'll do.

It's the differences in life that make it interesting. If you have too much in common with someone your relationship with them is almost bound to become stale very quickly. (Did I just hear the sound of divorce lawyers salivating? - forget it I'm not a fucking clairvoyant, and my opinion is unlikely to affect the numbers.) Celebrate the differences of opinion. Enjoy them. Don't sweat them.

Peace. Out.

*Acronyms courtesy of Rtmiss' dictionary of abuse (translations available on request) I have a million more. Well I will when I've made them up.

-contrary to limited opinion this has not been written in response to one incident, but many.
-Yes Charlotte the baby eaters bit was especially for you. Thought it was only fair the 'darkside' wore that one this time.
-All opinions expressed here are mine. Don't like'em? Fuck you. Nah really, feel free to disagree your brains out, just don't expect to change my mind.
-Almost all examples in this were MADE UP so don't feel the need to be a douchebag OK?
-I really do have Fibromyalgia, among other things, but I don't need you to wear a purple ribbon. Please don't, it'll make you look stupid.