Morals as rules.

Here is the OP for a thread that I recently made on philosophyforums.com. My intention is to address the common confusion involving the subject of morals in forums such as that. As well as asking for comments on the below's accuracy, any other suggestions would be welcome. I intend on the below being just the first step to finding a concise way of exposing many prevalent morals and related issues.

----------
Below I'll describe the subject of morals as it is used when speaking common English, without concern for published works on the subject, which often don't correspond to the subject's common usage, and often confuse the subject rather than simplify.

----------
Morals are a type of rule. To speak of rules in general, there are what I call true rules and false rules.

-An example of a true rule is that if one jumps in the air one will fall.
-An example of a false rule is that if one jumps in the air one will fly.

----------
Among both true and false rules, there are rules which either have a neutral, positive or negative effect.

A rule with a neutral effect (or we may simply say; a neutral rule) is in the form of: If action x takes place, then neutral [edit: previously mistakenly said "positive"] effect y will follow. Rules of science, when not in a context that one may personalize, are neutral rules.

-A positive rule is in the form of: If action x takes place, then positive effect y will follow.
-A negative rule is in the form of: If action x takes place, then negative effect y will follow.

Here's an example of what is essentially the same rule, but the first in positive form and the second in negative:

-If one spends all his time on the job productively, then he'll continue being employed.
-If one wastes time on the job, then he'll be fired.

----------
Morals are most often used in the form of a negative rule. For example the line directly below is more commonly used than the other:

-If one lies, then negative effect y will take place.
-If one always tells the truth, then positive effect y will take place.

----------
-Rules considered laws or codes of conduct are often, but not always, considered morals.
-Rules involving commandments or other religious guidelines are almost always considered morals or something related.
-Morals are often rules that are not clearly written in an established text if at all, whose actions and effects are both very vague.
-Possibly the majority of morals are false, meaning their consequences are unreal such as a magical karma or Hell, or have vague consequences such as potential guilt.
-Social ostracization is a common consequence of breaking morals, but is a consequence that's often very inconsistently applied.

----------
There's no difference between the term morality and the term morals. For example if one says, "Let's discuss morality", he may as well say, "Let's discuss morals".

-----------
To ask if a particular action is immoral, is usually the same asking if there is a negative rule associated with the type of rules under the category of morals, concerning that action.

For example, if one asks if doing action x is immoral, he usually wishes ask if there's a moral in the form of: If action x takes place, then negative [edit: previously mistakenly said "positive] effect y will follow.

----------
While the terms "moral" and "ethic" (and their equivalent form as adjectives) often have situations where one is more commonly used than the other, but often the terms are essentially interchangeable.

An example of when they're interchangeable would be in the question, "Is it(unethical/immoral) to lie?"

An example of when they wouldn't be entirely interchangeable would be if one used the adjective "moral" rather than "ethical" if one were to ask a doctor something such as if it's ethical to release a patience files. Here, while the terms could be interchangeable at times, at others what one would essentially be only asking is if the doctor could get into trouble with a medical board or the law for releasing the files.

----------
I wish to know if others agree or disagree that the above description of the subject of morals is accurate, not pertaining to published works on the subject, but to how the subject is most often spoken of when using common English.

Morals as rules have two main purposes/directions.

Morals that tame down and homogenize.
Morals that breed up and differentiate.

-

Morals in culture usually have a different function from Morals in civilization.

Cultural mores set standards and select what is accepted and what is taboo, usually taking the form of a 'crime', 'corruption' - opposition to the times.
Civilizational mores as institutions of varying media - myths, music, customs - standardize the norm that has been set and act as deterrents to any deviations. Standardization inevitably breeds corruption of its own ossification.

-

Morals are must-oriented.
Ethics are ought-oriented. Ethics are rank-prioritization of morals.

-

Morals depending on vitality will work on two different planes defining the very meaning of ethics.

Morals that are non-self-referentially self-assigned discriminations - Master morals,
and morals that depend on reactive recognition and passive identifications - slave morals.

-


Satyr wrote on this before:

Satyr wrote:

"A Moral is a set of rules, institutionalized, directing the members away from actions that have consequences to the system, and not, necessarily, to the individual. The consequences are then placed upon the individual BY the system, so as to control his behavior.
Morality is an imposed standard."

Satyr wrote:

"Morality = the reaffirmation of an individual's dependencies upon the others.

All social organism's have a behavioral equivalent to what man codifies into commandments and rules and laws as ethical behavior.
It's how through natural selection the organism adapts to its weakness by making compromises, so as to increase the probability of its survival.


So, we've got a few definitions.


--- Evil = An act perpetrated against a human being, and through this act against ALL human beings, with a motive, a benefit, which only one, or a few enjoy.
Evil is a denial of universal pleasure, or of a common benefit for a cost.
The idea is usually expressed as a "thuo shalt not" which was the first Deification of the rule of Law, establishing the first Theocracy.
The social method of population control is usually accompanied by a text, a book, a shared reference which is ascribed to a divine origin, a Beyond, so as to prevent men from questioning it.

To reject social norms is to be an anarchist.
To deny Divine norms is to be an atheist.
It's why communism had to destroy religious faith for it to establish its secular humanist religion.


--- Evil = An act we cannot relate to, having no ability to imagine and no personal or knowledge based experiences to connect the act/behavior to.
A psychological response to whatever mystifies us or causes anxiety in us because we cannot relate to it.
The incomprehensibility of the act is an inability to find the benefit in the cost, or to judge the benefit as highly as the actor did, given the potential high risk/cost involved - the risk/cost being a communal product, sometimes given a universal edge by calling it Karma.
Essentially the majority cannot relate to the actor's act in relation to the outcome - the ambiguous benefit in relation to the pragmatic cost.
The perpetrator is called a "monster" or "evil" to make him/her less incomprehensible, decreasing the majority's anxiety in relation to the uncertainty of the unknown.


In both cases "evil" only makes sense within social structures, and outside of them it is a nonsensical term, contributing to the animosity of the majority to an indifferent, mysterious, uncertain, nature, when compared with the ordered, structured, predictable, human artifices of society.

Once more the irony of being anti-authoritarian, anti-order, anti-evil, while at the same time remaining obsessed with human order, institutional authority, and the atheistic innate "goodness" of man, is interesting.

The religious faith: all acts, behaviors, contrary to the interests of the group must be learned, rather than restricting human choices to those which benefit the group, or some elite, must be trained/educated and learned.
The nihilistic inversion in sociobiology.

Man restricts human choices, training children to behave within acceptable parameters, and then calls this the epitome of freedom, whereas the child's escape from social rules is a "slavery" an entrapment in an illness that might be healed, rehabilitated.
Freedom through the whole - independence via dependence."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lyssa wrote:

Morals are must-oriented.
Ethics are ought-oriented.

One could say, "If one jumps in the air one must fall." Or, "One ought not jump in the air, (if one wishes) to avoid falling." The former being a 'true rule' which isn't a moral and the latter being a rule which is a 'negative' moral. But, to use the word 'must' in a rule which is a 'negative' (or 'positive') moral, one would say, "One must not jump in the air, (if one wishes) to avoid falling." So concerning a rule which is a moral, I'm not clear on how the use of the terms 'must' and 'ought' differ significantly.

Quote :

Ethics are rank-prioritization of morals.

I don't understand, would you please give an example?

Between must and ought is a question of conscience and the conscious. Morals are the "must" pull of conscience, while, ethics or ethos of a society are demands from your conscious... what "ought" to be the proper action in such and such circumstance vis.-a-vis. the public.

For example, many recent articles speak of how [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Whatever your morals may be, ethical behaviour demands contextual civic priorities, and so you could say, morals are about being, while ethics are about being-there.