In ethics do you think morality objective or subjective?
927752
Morality comes from empathy. Empathy is a social animal characteristic taken to the extremes, and warped due to separation from nature. We evolved to watch out for each other, because when everyone does that, the individuals have a greater chance of surviving. (many animals group together for this. We just took it further by becoming more highly evolved.....)
694653
There are ethics and then there are morals.  Morality is what has to do with your motive: breaking some law in order to do a greater good (say to save someone) would be moral, but unethical.  Ethics are more like a code of conduct set by society, and aren't based on 'right' and 'wrong' but rather just conventions of behavior society expects you to follow so that it can operate smoothly.\n\nGenetically engineering a mutant human race wouldn't neccessarily be unethical.  However, in my opinion it'd be immoral; any motivation to make a new species is not likely a noble one.  At best, they'd be pons for research and bizarre experiments.  Furthermore, to even consider such a task with the limited understanding of genetics that we have would be wrong (morally) b/c its certain to result in abominations and travesties.  Even clones, which aren't new species, are not the same as 'normal' organisms.  They have a shorter lifespan, and some notable defects.  There's just something about it that seems wrong to me.  We should have some limitations on what we do, at least until we understand things better.
245407
>A moral realist is a person whose view in philosophy is that there are objective moral values. Moral realists argue that moral judgments describe moral facts. This combines a cognitivist view about moral judgments (they are belief-like mental states that describe the state of the world), a view about the existence of moral facts (they do in fact exist), and a view about the nature of moral facts (they are objective: independent of our cognizing them, or our stance towards them, etc.). It contrasts with expressivist or non-cognitivist theories of moral judgment (e.g., Stevenson, Hare, Blackburn, Gibbard, Ayer), error theories of moral judgments (e.g., Mackie), fictionalist theories of moral judgment (e.g., R. Joyce, M. Kalderon) and constructivist or relativist theories of the nature of moral facts (e.g., R. Firth, Rawls, Korsgaard, Harman).\nSome moral realists include David Brink, John McDowell, Peter Railton, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Michael Smith, Russ Shafer-Landau, G.E. Moore, and Thomas Nagel.
711582
Of course, at first glance, one is tempted to say "yes, life would be better if it were fair".\nWhen giving it serious thought it occurred to me that "fair" is objective. What I consider fair -good people get good, bad people get bad- others would define fair in other ways; i.e. everyone gets good, only good; or these people deserve bad and these deserve good, these deserve mediocre...\nI have to conclude that there is no 'fair' in our world as we know it.\nIt would require that everyone think, feel and believe the exact same thing. We can't get a consensus on anything in our own country much less around the world.
459727
morality - is defined as society's guidelines for conduct and for right from wrong. They are otherwise known as ethics. Each society in the world has different ethical boundaries and moral grounds for their conduct and actions. ie: in Muslim countries, women are generally surpressed and must be robed in public, in some European countries, there are places where women are allowed to walk around fully nude with no issues.\nIt is up to each person to decide their own moral code and ethics rules, however, if you diverge too far from what society expects, you are judged and will be made accountable to society's rules.
998783
gravesendian said it perfectly as far as I'm concerned.  I agree 100%.  \n\nMorality is a purely human construct.  What is "moral" or lawful in one part of the world, can be immoral or illegal in another part.  Take prosititution...in some countries it is legal, in others not.  What makes the difference?  Difference in human perception...difference in what is considered an acceptable standard of behaviour.
419398
Conscience is your judgement of right or wrong, Ego is what your personality is due to your surrounding enviornment. They crossover at some point but are two different things.
895246
I measure a persons "worth" by some very basic standards; are they a man or woman of their word, do they take full responsibility for their own actions both good and bad, do they maintain their integrity in all situations or practice "situational ethics" and believe that the end justifies the means? It boils down to people that I trust vs. people that I would never turn my back on. And yes, on a practical everyday basis we have every right to place value on another human being. They all have every right to exist, but they're not entitled to be "valued" by anybody, thats an earned right.
163041
can we really know what is good or what is evil to say which one is winning? all the causes and all the results have some sort of evilness even though they are claimed to be good, and evil ones have some sort of goodness within. i believe in moral relativism, and thus right and wrong are variables.
215454
There is no such thing as good or bad what I find bad sombody else might disagree and say its good e.g somking/stealing. Its what ever you feel is good or bad and then yes there is a diference
1057387
misising a few words I think ... anyway moral is flexible and relative. if yet you ind yourself in question I guess you have to live with it ...
1063730
Morally, if we were to universally follow The Law given to Man by his Maker, then it is a resounding "YES!"\n\nHowever, our man-made laws have yet to acquiesce to being held accountable and liable to such a MORALITY clause...
259863
In addition to various factual questions (such as how many people on both sides might have been killed in an invasion, or whether hostilities might have been ended without an invasion or the bombs), you'll want to define the terms.  Yes, moral/justified are two differet words, but they may or may not have different meanings in context; it depends on your values.  If morality is everying to you, than moral = justified.  If morality is not your highest value, then there must be some other values by which you measure what is justified.
8920
Both are about values and right and wrong, but ethical usually is more related to professional behavior where morality is more personal.  Government, to me, should act ethically.  When government gets "moral", I feel like they are taking on more personal beliefs.  As a government, I think we need to be ethical about right and wrong, as long as those definitions are universals instead of those related to a scripture.
275299
Depends on your moral and ethical beliefs. Whether you believe it is stealing or whether you believe turning it in makes you a better person. It is all based on what kind of person are you.
163833
Been reading Plato's Socratic dialogue with Euthyphro?  The question is: Is something good because it is loved by God(s), or is something loved by God(s) because it is good?  It's a delicious paradox.  Since I'm an atheist, I answer it by saying that morality stems from that which is considered good  in the society in which one is brought up.  Immorality stems from that which is considered wrong in that same society.  Right and wrong are not absolutes, but also not under the control of any beings other than ourselves.
883211
i dont know hw to critics,in my simple thoughts 'words ethics is deals attitude honesty,good deeds refers to ethics maybe it start with in innerself and the other maybe earnd out side homes and studied in college.