But I would ask him if these fine examples of religious morals in action are ethical? Or more importantly are they "right?"

But he won't answer you in a meaningful way.

---

Morals are the principles, ethics is the way you act to uphold said principles. Having morals without ethics is pointless and just makes you a hypocrite (Homophobic priests who end up sleeping with male prostitutes kind of hypocrisy) and ethics without morals do not exist.

Who's morals? Who's ethics? Who defines?

Irrelevant to my point really.

Who's morals? Who's ethics? Who defines?

Irrelevant to my point really.

Thank you for the non-answer, to a relevant question regarding what your definition of morals and ethics are.

Hi Clyde... the discussion started because of ID's statement about real men having morals, not ethics or something like that. :)

Who's morals? Who's ethics? Who defines?

Irrelevant to my point really.

Thank you for the non-answer, to a relevant question regarding what your definition of morals and ethics are.

Hi Clyde... the discussion started because of ID's statement about real men having morals, not ethics or something like that. :)

Interesting .... very interesting ....

So ID's real men have morals, their tablet, but per ID no ethics. Мишель says ethics is putting morals into action.

Interesting .... very interesting ....

---

Thank you for the non-answer, to a relevant question regarding what your definition of morals and ethics are.

My definition of morals and ethics are irrelevant. My point is that morals make up what you consider to be good practices (don't kill people, don't steal other peoples possessions) and ethics are the specific behavior patterns that support your moral values (IE, not trying to murder people or not trying to steal peoples stuff).

When you ask for a definition of morals and ethics after this, I assumes it means you want to know what my morals are and how I behave to support my moral convictions. Which is irrelevant.

Who's morals? Who's ethics? Who defines?

Irrelevant to my point really.

Thank you for the non-answer, to a relevant question regarding what your definition of morals and ethics are.

Hi Clyde... the discussion started because of ID's statement about real men having morals, not ethics or something like that. :)

Interesting .... very interesting ....

So ID's real men have morals, their tablet, but per ID no ethics. Мишель says ethics is putting morals into action.

Interesting .... very interesting ....

Aren't we born with morals? Don't know about ethics...

Looks like it!

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source, e.g. their profession or religion. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

Мишель says ethics is putting morals into action.

Of course it does! The morals get triggered.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Who's morals? Who's ethics? Who defines?

Irrelevant to my point really.

Thank you for the non-answer, to a relevant question regarding what your definition of morals and ethics are.

Hi Clyde... the discussion started because of ID's statement about real men having morals, not ethics or something like that. :)

Interesting .... very interesting ....

So ID's real men have morals, their tablet, but per ID no ethics. Мишель says ethics is putting morals into action.

Interesting .... very interesting ....

Aren't we born with morals? Don't know about ethics...

Looks like it!

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source, e.g. their profession or religion. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

Мишель says ethics is putting morals into action.

Of course it does! The morals get triggered.

The more this gets discussed the more inclined I am to believe that morals and Ethics and the obverse and reverse of the same coin. That they refer to the same object, the coin.

---

Who's morals? Who's ethics? Who defines?

Irrelevant to my point really.

Thank you for the non-answer, to a relevant question regarding what your definition of morals and ethics are.

Hi Clyde... the discussion started because of ID's statement about real men having morals, not ethics or something like that. :)

Interesting .... very interesting ....

So ID's real men have morals, their tablet, but per ID no ethics. Мишель says ethics is putting morals into action.

Interesting .... very interesting ....

Aren't we born with morals? Don't know about ethics...

Looks like it!

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source, e.g. their profession or religion. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

Мишель says ethics is putting morals into action.

Of course it does! The morals get triggered.

The more this gets discussed the more inclined I am to believe that morals and Ethics and the obverse and reverse of the same coin. That they refer to the same object, the coin.

Yes, but Ethics come from 'outside'

Isn't it so that we learn ethics and the morals come from oneself? Although one could say that we influence Ethics as well, who has invented Ethics for starters? Us... You could be right with that coin Gary...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Who's morals? Who's ethics? Who defines?

Irrelevant to my point really.

Thank you for the non-answer, to a relevant question regarding what your definition of morals and ethics are.

Hi Clyde... the discussion started because of ID's statement about real men having morals, not ethics or something like that. :)

Interesting .... very interesting ....

So ID's real men have morals, their tablet, but per ID no ethics. Мишель says ethics is putting morals into action.

Interesting .... very interesting ....

Okay... I'll have a stab at it :)

Just my opinion mind... :) but I think of morals as being the warm, fuzzy, subjective things we tell ourselves we are, to make us feel that we're decent, and above all right in what we do and say :) Ethics on the other hand (arrived at through the consensus of many) is an objective yardstick against which we get to measure those morals. If we measure up well, on balance, then our warm fuzziness is much easier to justify to others. If we don't, it's not.

Yes, but Ethics come from 'outside'

Isn't it so that we learn ethics and the morals come from oneself? Although one could say that we influence Ethics as well, who has invented Ethics for starters? Us... You could be right with that coin Gary...

Do they? If the moral principle is to not kill people needlessly, do you have to teach people that in order to uphold that principle its probably best if they don't try to stab each other? Or are ethics perhaps self evident once the moral principle is established, and can anyone of sound mind understand what patterns of behavior should be avoided in order to uphold the accepted moral principle.

Yes, but Ethics come from 'outside'

Isn't it so that we learn ethics and the morals come from oneself? Although one could say that we influence Ethics as well, who has invented Ethics for starters? Us... You could be right with that coin Gary...

Do they? If the moral principle is to not kill people needlessly, do you have to teach people that in order to uphold that principle its probably best if they don't try to stab each other? Or are ethics perhaps self evident once the moral principle is established, and can anyone of sound mind understand what patterns of behavior should be avoided in order to uphold the accepted moral principle.

I think if you need to be taught not to kill people, then there is something wrong with you.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I think if you need to be taught not to kill people, then there is something wrong with you.

Exactly! For most people there is no need to be taught that doing things that could get people killed is unacceptable behavior. Once they accept that murder is bad, they understand that some behavior is therefor bad as well.

I think if you need to be taught not to kill people, then there is something wrong with you.

Exactly! For most people there is no need to be taught that doing things that could get people killed is unacceptable behavior. Once they accept that murder is bad, they understand that some behavior is therefor bad as well.

You don't need to be taught anything except empathy. Once you are capable of stopping and thinking "would I like it if someone was doing this to me?" you can rule out most anti-social behaviours.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I think if you need to be taught not to kill people, then there is something wrong with you.

Exactly! For most people there is no need to be taught that doing things that could get people killed is unacceptable behavior. Once they accept that murder is bad, they understand that some behavior is therefor bad as well.

You don't need to be taught anything except empathy. Once you are capable of stopping and thinking "would I like it if someone was doing this to me?" you can rule out most anti-social behaviours.

Yes. Some brains simply can not process empathy and I suspect others over process it.

---

I think if you need to be taught not to kill people, then there is something wrong with you.

Exactly! For most people there is no need to be taught that doing things that could get people killed is unacceptable behavior. Once they accept that murder is bad, they understand that some behavior is therefor bad as well.

You don't need to be taught anything except empathy. Once you are capable of stopping and thinking "would I like it if someone was doing this to me?" you can rule out most anti-social behaviours.

Yes. Some brains simply can not process empathy and I suspect others over process it.

+1

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I think if you need to be taught not to kill people, then there is something wrong with you.

Exactly! For most people there is no need to be taught that doing things that could get people killed is unacceptable behavior. Once they accept that murder is bad, they understand that some behavior is therefor bad as well.

You don't need to be taught anything except empathy. Once you are capable of stopping and thinking "would I like it if someone was doing this to me?" you can rule out most anti-social behaviours.

Yes. Some brains simply can not process empathy and I suspect others over process it.

Studies have shown that the richer you are the more problem you have with empathy.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I think if you need to be taught not to kill people, then there is something wrong with you.

Exactly! For most people there is no need to be taught that doing things that could get people killed is unacceptable behavior. Once they accept that murder is bad, they understand that some behavior is therefor bad as well.

You don't need to be taught anything except empathy. Once you are capable of stopping and thinking "would I like it if someone was doing this to me?" you can rule out most anti-social behaviours.

Yes. Some brains simply can not process empathy and I suspect others over process it.

Studies have shown that the richer you are the more problem you have with empathy.

I think it lies within oneself, what ones opinion is on money that is, the empathy part lies more within the EQ of a person.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I think if you need to be taught not to kill people, then there is something wrong with you.

Exactly! For most people there is no need to be taught that doing things that could get people killed is unacceptable behavior. Once they accept that murder is bad, they understand that some behavior is therefor bad as well.

You don't need to be taught anything except empathy. Once you are capable of stopping and thinking "would I like it if someone was doing this to me?" you can rule out most anti-social behaviours.

Yes. Some brains simply can not process empathy and I suspect others over process it.

Studies have shown that the richer you are the more problem you have with empathy.

I suspect that is the effect, not the cause.

---

I think if you need to be taught not to kill people, then there is something wrong with you.

Exactly! For most people there is no need to be taught that doing things that could get people killed is unacceptable behavior. Once they accept that murder is bad, they understand that some behavior is therefor bad as well.

You don't need to be taught anything except empathy. Once you are capable of stopping and thinking "would I like it if someone was doing this to me?" you can rule out most anti-social behaviours.

Yes. Some brains simply can not process empathy and I suspect others over process it.

Studies have shown that the richer you are the more problem you have with empathy.

I think it lies within oneself, what ones opinion is on money that is, the empathy part lies more within the EQ of a person.

How Wealth Reduces Compassion
As riches grow, empathy for others seems to decline

---

Reality Internet Personality