Ethics and morality are often used to mean the same thing. Should Demystified / Philosophy & Religion, Society Both morality and ethics loosely have to do with distinguishing the difference between “good and bad” or “right and wrong. 'Morality And Society' from the section 'The Judeo-Christian Ethic And Moral an individual responsibility and religion a more personal relationship between. Relationship Between Morality And The Law This essay will look at the Some laws mirror the majority of society's moral view, for example.
There's also no sense that the rules are necessary for maintaining greater social order. Stage 2 -- Instrumental relativist orientation Preconventional The focus in this stage is on satisfying the desires of one's self and of others who are cared about.
Very practical and physical reciprocity is also incorporated into the moral system e. Stage 3 -- Interpersonal concordance Conventional In this stage, the rightness of actions is determined by intentions.
The goal is to win approval from others by pleasing and helping them. Stage 4 -- Law and order orientation Conventional Morality is absolutely determined by the rules and laws established by authority.
Maintaining law and order is more important than selfish desires. Stage 5 -- Social contract orientation Postconventional In this stage, what is right is determined by the laws which a community has chosen.
However, the laws do not absolutely define values and principles, and the laws may be changed using established procedures. Stage 6 -- Universal ethical principle orientation Postconventional Morality is defined in this stage by an ethical system defined and chosen by one's self.
Society of Morality
The conscience is the guide to defining the principles, however one is not at liberty to choose arbitrary morals. The ethical system constructed must be universally applicable and logically consistent. Kohlberg discovered that many of the same results which applied to the development of common sense reasoning also applied to the development of morals.
People seem to progress through the stages sequentially, with each stage relying on things learned in the previous stages. Higher stages can't be explicitly taught, but can only be learned over time. People also showed an inability to fully understand stages higher than their own. There were also some differences from the common sense stages.
Different people progress through the stages at different rates, and most people never reach the highest stage. In fact, stages three and four are the most common among adults see Figure 2. In many experiments, no subjects were identified to be in stage six. The stages Kohlberg identified do not specify explicit morals or rules of conduct. Rather, they provide a managerial layer for organizing specific rules into a coherent whole.
Without a clear organization, we would be wholly inconsistent in our moral judgements and would have trouble reaching conclusions. Discrete stages are probably seen here for many of the same reasons that stages are seen in other areas. As we find that the organization of our morals is insufficient for dealing with the problems we encounter, we construct a new management layer see Section When this layer is complete and can perform all the functions of the old layer, the new management layer replaces the old one.
What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?
During the early stages, we regularly encounter situations which our moral systems are unable to deal well with. This prompts us to move up to higher stages. When we start reaching higher stages such as four and five, there become fewer and fewer situations where our moral systems run into trouble.
As a result, not everyone reaches the highest stages. In some ways this parallels the development of our theories of how things operate in the physical world.
The common sense physics models most people have don't properly encompass orbital mechanics simply because we haven't had situations where our physics models fell short because of this lacking. Philosophers, religious figures, and politicians have been arguing for centuries over whether morals are something we are "born with". From our point of view, the question becomes somewhat clearer.
A more relevant question is whether moral restraint is a separate agency in and of itself or whether it uses the same mechanisms used for other things such as learning and using common sense knowledge. In the moral restraint agency, it seems likely that we learn a set of rules about what is right or wrong. Early on, the rules may be related to what causes us to be punished and what doesn't. Later on, they may be rules handed down from a higher authority. There's no real reason that these rules can't be learned using the same mechanisms that we learn other things with.
There's no real distinction between "you must stop at red traffic lights" and "you shouldn't stick your hand into the toaster," although one is a "law" and the other isn't. Above this layer of rules, the moral restraint agency has a managerial structure which decides what rules to follow and how to organize our decisions based on them. The structure of this managerial agency evolves in much the same way as the managerial structures for our common sense agencies.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that they use the same mechanisms for their development. There seems to be a key difference, however, in that the output of the moral restraint agency is used almost entirely for suppression and censoring. One possibility is that although the moral restraint agency has evolved to be a separate agency, its learning mechanisms are actually governed by a separate outside agency like a B-brain which is also used for the learning of common sense knowledge.
It is critical that social animals develop some sort of morals. Communities would rapidly fall apart without any adherence to rules or suppression of actions. The development of social order, and hence some form of morality, is important to the survival of any social species. As a result, it would seem highly likely that some sort of mechanism would be evolved to ensure the development of a system that prevented individuals from always acting in their own personal best interests.
The Empathic Response Agency The empathic response agency, the other side of the Society of Morality, seems to be totally separate from the moral restraint agency. Empathy itself, which is the response to the emotions of others, is seen even in very young children. The link between emotions and facial expressions, together with the hard-wired facial-expression recognition agencies, make it appear as if empathy itself is something we are born with.
Empathy itself may be a very low level agency which is tied in closely with other similar low level agencies like anger, fear, and desires to sleep, eat, and reproduce. From our daily interactions with people, it seems like empathy has a strong affect on our own emotions.
What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics? | assistancedogseurope.info
The anger of others often spills over onto us, as does their fear and their grief. Empathy has many benefits to the survival of social animals. The ability for fear to rapidly spread allows herds of animals to quickly react to predators. The ability to sense anger allows us and animals to quickly judge the threat posed by an adversary. Most of these aren't related directly to the empathic response agency. However, reacting to the needs of a child or the suffering of a comrade is beneficial to the survival of a society and the species to which that society belongs.
It's this sort of thing which is a part of the empathic response agency. Through it, we react to the apparent needs of others and take actions to try to fulfill them. Although empathy itself is almost definitely innate, the response to it may not be. For example, the empathic response agency may be learned as a way of reducing the desires generated by empathy. If it feels good to help people, we help people in a desire to feel good more often. Gaining the approval of others by helping people may be an added reinforcement.
After this has been learned, we may help people even in cases where we get no reward from it. The empathic response and moral restraint agencies do occasionally interact.
For example, the desire to help someone might be suppressed by some moral restraint. On Point 1, Professor Lewis says most reasonable people agree. By Point 2, however, we begin to see problems occurring. Consider the popular philosophy "I'm not hurting anyone but myself," frequently used to excuse bad personal choices.
How can we be the good people we need to be if we persist in making these choices, and how will that result not affect the rest of our society? Bad personal choices do hurt others. Point 3 is where most disagreement surfaces. While the majority of the world's population believes in Godor at least in a godthe question of Creation, as a theory of originsis definitely hotly debated in today's society.
A recent report in Psychology Today concluded: People who consider themselves very religious were least likely to report deceiving their friends, having extramarital affairs, cheating on their expenses accounts, or even parking illegally.
Without belief in a Creator, the only option that seems to be left is to adhere to moral standards we make up for ourselves. Unless we live in a dictatorial society, we are free to choose our own personal moral code. But where does that freedom come from?
The view of many who do not adhere to Creation is that morality is a creation of humanity, designed to meet the need of stable societies. This ultimately leads to a system of virtues and values. What if something I believe I need in order for my life to continue results in death for you? If we do not have an absolute standard of truthchaos and conflict will result as we are all left to our own devices and desires. Morality and Our Conscience Morality impacts our everyday decisions, and those choices are directed by our conscience.