Values, Morals and Ethics

[Zeb_Carter]

Yes but if I were a business man who wants to sell something to you I would be polite to you. There could be no law for that.

Also. Laws change from place to place. Over here in the UK we have child work laws. In another country they may not. A business over here may well have morals and say 'We will not buy from you because you employ children'. This is Ethics at work.

You can also twist ethics... Look at the Hobby Lobby ruling in the US.

We still need morals, values and ethics. The law is not enough.

There is an old saying...

Morality shouldn't be legislated.

Of course there are exception as there always is.

Killing a person while immoral, is also against the law...there are exceptions to this also. (see, there are always exceptions, even to the exceptions)

Having sex with your brother is not only immoral, but in most case against the laws of nature as in most cases it produces nothing but monsters. But, (exception coming) it is not against the law in a lot of places, just frowned upon.

Theft, (this includes all forms of theft...fraud, stealing, etc.) is not only against the law, but is immoral and unethical. Except, when the theft is necessary to preserve ones life. (in most states in the US)

Cheating spouse. While this is in most peoples eyes immoral and unethical, it is no means against the any official government law. Should there be one? I vote no. It's none of the governments business who a spouse sleeps with.

There are many other moral and ethical situations that aren't against the law. Should they be? Again, that depends on who, what, where, when, and how. But broad brush...it's probably none of the governments business, so they should but out.

 

[stickygirl]

Yes but if I were a business man who wants to sell something to you I would be polite to you. There could be no law for that.

Also. Laws change from place to place. Over here in the UK we have child work laws. In another country they may not. A business over here may well have morals and say 'We will not buy from you because you employ children'. This is Ethics at work.

You can also twist ethics... Look at the Hobby Lobby ruling in the US.

We still need morals, values and ethics. The law is not enough.

I totally agree - I was meaning that the law is being used as poor substitute for innate morals. Not wishing to beat the religious drum too much, but in the West our laws are based on Christian values? (and then how monarchies decided to interpret it). So are our ethics. One might suggest that the loss of religious influence in our lives has gone hand in hand with the breakdown of community and the sense of morality. I'm not religious myself but it does seem inextricably linked to ethics and morality.

Sorry I'm probably missing the morals v ethics hairsplit: but one seems to be a personal value, while the other is a group one.

Had to check the dictionary
Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct, often addressing disputes of moral diversity.
Morals of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.

 

[Kalamain]

*SNIP for brevity*

There are many other moral and ethical situations that aren't against the law. Should they be? Again, that depends on who, what, where, when, and how. But broad brush...it's probably none of the governments business, so they should but out.

Absolutely.
The law is also 'interprited' through the courts. There is no way on this planet we would get a consensus of ideals from lawmakers in the same REGION... Let alone countrywide!

I totally agree - I was meaning that the law is being used as poor substitute for innate morals. Not wishing to beat the religious drum too much, but in the West our laws are based on Christian values? (and then how monarchies decided to interpret it). So are our ethics. One might suggest that the loss of religious influence in our lives has gone hand in hand with the breakdown of community and the sense of morality. I'm not religious myself but it does seem inextricably linked to ethics and morality.

Sorry I'm probably missing the morals v ethics hairsplit: but one seems to be a personal value, while the other is a group one.

Had to check the dictionary
Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct, often addressing disputes of moral diversity.
Morals of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.

Ok... I see where you are going with that... But I have to respectfully desagree with you on the Religion front. As an atheist and anti-theist I almost have to!

but my reasoning is this.
Religion has a set of morality that is VERY MUCH skewed to a desert dwelling, stone age principals. On the other hand is DOES have a lot of good laws and rules... But Religion didn't come up with them! they stole a lot of them from earlier principals.
(CLICK ME FOR INFO!)

But even then the Abrahamic laws were pants... You could keep slaves!
You try keeping slaves nowadays and see where others stand on the ethics of owning another person.

Also. I am a good person. Not because of any religious code. And, to be honest about it, not because of the laws of the land.
I'm good and ethical because I want what is right and good by *my* standards.

I don't steal... I don't lie.... But I will if I need to. But, as stated earlier i MUST justify what i do.

 

[stickygirl]

But Religion didn't come up with them! they stole a lot of them from earlier principals.

But even then the Abrahamic laws were pants... You could keep slaves!
You try keeping slaves nowadays and see where others stand on the ethics of owning another person.

Oooo - ya gonna burn in hell for that! Religion stole? Good point though, plus the Bable is brim full of contradiction.

Also. I am a good person. Not because of any religious code. And, to be honest about it, not because of the laws of the land.
I'm good and ethical because I want what is right and good by *my* standards.

I don't steal... I don't lie.... But I will if I need to. But, as stated earlier i MUST justify what i do.

Who says you are a good person? I don't know you from Adam?! Surely ethics and morality depends on interaction within a social group: so you accept being judged by the commonly held views of morality and ethics.

I'm playing devil's advocate, but perhaps that illustrates how ethics and morality are innate - even monkeys feel guilt and have a sense of right and wrong.

Biologists might explain it by saying that, within a social group, status and respect is earned by a peculiar interaction between moral behaviour ( not stealing ) and being a stereotypical alpha-male who, on the face of it, acts without impunity or morals and makes himself the biggest bully in the playground. I'll think about this over supper

 

[fire_breeze]

There is an old saying...

Morality shouldn't be legislated.

Of course there are exception as there always is.

Killing a person while immoral, is also against the law...there are exceptions to this also. (see, there are always exceptions, even to the exceptions)

Having sex with your brother is not only immoral, but in most case against the laws of nature as in most cases it produces nothing but monsters. But, (exception coming) it is not against the law in a lot of places, just frowned upon.

Theft, (this includes all forms of theft...fraud, stealing, etc.) is not only against the law, but is immoral and unethical. Except, when the theft is necessary to preserve ones life. (in most states in the US)

Cheating spouse. While this is in most peoples eyes immoral and unethical, it is no means against the any official government law. Should there be one? I vote no. It's none of the governments business who a spouse sleeps with.

There are many other moral and ethical situations that aren't against the law. Should they be? Again, that depends on who, what, where, when, and how. But broad brush...it's probably none of the governments business, so they should but out.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here.

What about in cases of self defence? In cases of protecting one's family?

We see, have seen recently, where someone who has killed someone else was let off because of perception, which was highly questioned. Look at the case of the death of Martin at the hands of Zimmerman.

If the government butts out of morality, what about cases of hate speech, hate crimes, violence targeted towards a minority? Against women? Non-violent domestic abuse, for example?

We also cannot argue laws of the past and compare them to the present, as it was the case with incest. It has such a complicated history, and it was only permissible for a select few. In fact, in most places, there are serious consanguinity rules governing marriages.

Absolutely.
The law is also 'interprited' through the courts. There is no way on this planet we would get a consensus of ideals from lawmakers in the same REGION... Let alone countrywide!



Ok... I see where you are going with that... But I have to respectfully desagree with you on the Religion front. As an atheist and anti-theist I almost have to!

but my reasoning is this.
Religion has a set of morality that is VERY MUCH skewed to a desert dwelling, stone age principals. On the other hand is DOES have a lot of good laws and rules... But Religion didn't come up with them! they stole a lot of them from earlier principals.
(CLICK ME FOR INFO!)

I really hope that you will take this as clarifying a few points in your completely intriguing arguments and not that I'm attacking you or anything :

No offence, but there are 8000 recognised religions in the world today - most of them are not Abrahamic. Therefore, despite what Richard Dawkins may seemed to have implied, religion does NOT equal Abrahamic or even theistic. Frederick Streng's definition of religion is what most anthropologists, archaeologists, religion scholars, historians and a number of other 'ists' uses (religion is a worldview that explains the problematic of the human condition).

The Hammurabi Laws were actually originally based on Mesopotamian religions (so technically, the lawmakers 'stole' from religion, and further 'religion' cannot 'steal'. It's not a person or persons. It's like saying 'economy' stole from politics). Secularism and humanism as we know it today did not exist then. At all. (and by the way, it's Middle Bronze Age, not Stone Age. Just to be a bitch )

Religions did not 'steal' anything - even if it could - because that's not the way societies worked at the time. I can say the very same thing about Atheism, Secularism or even Humanism and how they 'stole' from various cultures and religions . Influenced? Absolutely. But influence is a two-way street.

Religions in the past was not the same as the religions today. At all. They did not exist separately from societies in the past (until maybe about 17th CE). They mutually influenced each other, and informed each other. In fact, in most cases, kings and queens were the high priest/ess of the local religion. To compare the two is like comparing cows to oranges because they both are organic.

And a separate note on sacred literature of ALL ilk: context baby. One cannot read the Bhagavad Gita or the Pali Canon or the Bible or the Qur'an or any other of the thousands sacred literature without context. Yes, there are contradictions. Just like laws have contradictions, or even the Declaration of Independence have contradictions. They are not gospel, despite what many people today think; they were meant to inform us and themselves of their worldview.

Truth is, the relationship between religions and societies and cultures in the past was considerably more complex than it is today. Today, it's much much simpler, and some would argue, this reflects in today's rather simplistic code of ethics. In the past, it was so incredibly nuanced, which was then reflected in the laws. As much as I appreciate many Secularists' and Humanists writings, they did a piss poor job in explaining the past. They should stick to the present.

I don't mean to put the spotlight on you, but this is kind of my professional pet peeve .

And yes, I'm realising I'm showing off, and I just hijacked SweetErika's wonderful thread so I'm just going to retreat to the shadows.

/bows out.

 

[Kalamain]

Oooo - ya gonna burn in hell for that! Religion stole? Good point though, plus the Bible is brim full of contradiction.

Not only that... But as a set of moral rules and actions there is nothing more horrifying than the Bible.

Who says you are a good person? I don't know you from Adam?! Surely ethics and morality depends on interaction within a social group: so you accept being judged by the commonly held views of morality and ethics.

I'm playing devil's advocate, but perhaps that illustrates how ethics and morality are innate - even monkeys feel guilt and have a sense of right and wrong.

Biologists might explain it by saying that, within a social group, status and respect is earned by a peculiar interaction between moral behaviour ( not stealing ) and being a stereotypical alpha-male who, on the face of it, acts without impunity or morals and makes himself the biggest bully in the playground. I'll think about this over supper

A strong set of ethics states that you 'should' see me, as a new person to you, in a state of 'probation. I have done nothing obviously bad to you but also nothing good. I'm also not a threat.
From here on in you use experience to form an opinion.

As to being the alpha. In my eyes that would see you as an ass and not one to be trusted. You are not out for the group... You are out for yourself. This will not help the group and would be bad for the group.
Humans may well be apes... But we are thinking apes and now need to follow a higher form of action.

Our societal rules need to be different from the animal kingdom. This is why we can empathise for other animals. We care for nature and we care for our pets not because they are tools to help us catch food, but they become our family.

Empathy plays a HUGE role in ethics and morality. I would have no problem smashing a rock (Its a tool) but I would have real problems killing my dog. To Caveman Ug, not only is that dog a tool but its also a meal when I am cold and hungry and yet I wouldn't do it.

Its now 11pm and I am having an issue formulating my thoughts.
I'll try again in the morning.

 

[Kalamain]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here.

What about in cases of self defence? In cases of protecting one's family?

We see, have seen recently, where someone who has killed someone else was let off because of perception, which was highly questioned. Look at the case of the death of Martin at the hands of Zimmerman.

If the government butts out of morality, what about cases of hate speech, hate crimes, violence targeted towards a minority? Against women? Non-violent domestic abuse, for example?

We also cannot argue laws of the past and compare them to the present, as it was the case with incest. It has such a complicated history, and it was only permissible for a select few. In fact, in most places, there are serious consanguinity rules governing marriages.

As someone who has gotten into a fight to save someone else and, well... Lets just say he won't do it again... I faced the law and they didn't do anything as I was protecting another.
Sometimes you CAN do bad things for good reasons.

This is why I said, further up the thread, that I WILL do bad things... But I must justify them. I can't beat the living shit out of someone for dropping litter or anything like that (Although I would love to!) But I will kill someone if I have to, to save another.

I really hope that you will take this as clarifying a few points in your completely intriguing arguments and not that I'm attacking you or anything :

Absolutely no problems what-so-ever. I love a good argument!

However... I don't feel this is the place for a talk on religion in general.
If you would like I could reply to you in PMs? I'm not sure if you said this to start a conversation... So rather than simply PM you with my retort I will wait for an invitation.

One thing that I will state is that we were talking about western (America I guess?) and the pushing of religion into its laws... That can only be the Abrahamic ones.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here.

What about in cases of self defence? In cases of protecting one's family?

We see, have seen recently, where someone who has killed someone else was let off because of perception, which was highly questioned. Look at the case of the death of Martin at the hands of Zimmerman.

If the government butts out of morality, what about cases of hate speech, hate crimes, violence targeted towards a minority? Against women? Non-violent domestic abuse, for example?

We also cannot argue laws of the past and compare them to the present, as it was the case with incest. It has such a complicated history, and it was only permissible for a select few. In fact, in most places, there are serious consanguinity rules governing marriages.

...
/bows out.

There are always exceptions, which I said for each and every moral/ethical item that has been legislated. Did I really need to expound on each and every exception?

Are those exceptions used to let someone commit murder and get away with it? Of course, and therein lies the dilemma, something that seems morally correct, is not necessarily right.

While mistakes are made, just note in the age of DNA how many found guilty have been released, while those found innocent can not be retried under the law (in the United States this is true, other countries...I don't know).

As for hate speech...my views are probably not what you would want to hear...I take the view, sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. You can call me any name in the book, I'll just laugh at you. If words hurt you, you better go home and become a shut in, because you are too sensitive to be out in the real world.

As for physical violence...there are laws covering that already, just because I say I hate you before I punch you or hit you with a stick or shoot you with gun, should make a difference? Violence is violence whether I hate you or not. The use of the hate speech legislation is the governments way of stepping on your freedoms whether you know it or not. Freedoms I fought for, for myself and for you.

Hate speech/crime is a liberal con. Just because I call you a name you think I should go to jail? Guess what, that's wrong. If I hit you, that's a crime. If I hit you while calling you names shouldn't make the crime any worse.

The world is becoming a mass of pussies.

 

[stickygirl]

You can call me any name in the book, I'll just laugh at you. If words hurt you, you better go home and become a shut in, because you are too sensitive to be out in the real world.

Of course abuse words hurt. If they didn't hurt why would you bother to use them?

As for physical violence...there are laws covering that already, just because I say I hate you before I punch you or hit you with a stick or shoot you with gun, should make a difference? Violence is violence whether I hate you or not. The use of the hate speech legislation is the governments way of stepping on your freedoms whether you know it or not.

Hate speech laws are quite specific in their application, so as not to infringe on your 1st Amendment.

Hate speech/crime is a liberal con. Just because I call you a name you think I should go to jail? Guess what, that's wrong.

You see - you knew it all along. No, you don't go to jail for calling people names. Have you done the Google yet?

If I hit you, that's a crime. If I hit you while calling you names shouldn't make the crime any worse.

Hate speech is when an abuse of free speech is likely to incite violence.
And you've muddled yourself by saying "Hate speech/crime is a liberal con" because you've lumped speech and crime into the same dismissal. You go on to accept that hitting someone is a crime so… hate crime isn't a liberal con then? I think we know what you meant - it was just a figure of speech - free speech at that. But your free speech allows me to judge what type of person you are and for that, I am grateful you fought to defend it.

The world is becoming a mass of pussies.

You wish

 

[Zeb_Carter]

blah, blah, blah...


You wish

And you mistook my use of the word pussies.

 

[Kalamain]

And you mistook my use of the word pussies.

*whispers*I think she was being sarcastic!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

*whispers*I think she was being sarcastic!

*whispers back* I don't care.

 

[desertslave]

But isn't the law based on morals, values and ethics? I think the only difference is that law is generally created by committee (of one sort or another) and often diluted so that it's not overly oppressive or inflexible. (Good laws, anyway)

IMO, morals are created by outside sources (religious, community, etc), ethics are internal guidelines and values are the framework for behavioral aspirations. With that said, I try very hard to let my ethics guide me. I've found that as I grow older they've become more plastic. I've learned that the world-view of my 20s really isn't that black & white after all, and I've become more tolerant of other people's personal ethics and accepting that they don't have to match my own.

I have little use for morals, because they tend to smack of religion to me, and that may be the one social construct that I've found to be virtually useless. That doesn't mean I'm a wild renegade...I have very strong ethics and a deep sense of compassion. Sometimes it annoys the shit outta me....I can entertain evil revenges for things in my head, but I could never, ever do it because those darned ethics WILL smack me in the face, and I despise hypocrisy, especially by my ownself.

 

[Kalamain]

But isn't the law based on morals, values and ethics? I think the only difference is that law is generally created by committee (of one sort or another) and often diluted so that it's not overly oppressive or inflexible. (Good laws, anyway)

IMO, morals are created by outside sources (religious, community, etc), ethics are internal guidelines and values are the framework for behavioral aspirations. With that said, I try very hard to let my ethics guide me. I've found that as I grow older they've become more plastic. I've learned that the world-view of my 20s really isn't that black & white after all, and I've become more tolerant of other people's personal ethics and accepting that they don't have to match my own.

I have little use for morals, because they tend to smack of religion to me, and that may be the one social construct that I've found to be virtually useless. That doesn't mean I'm a wild renegade...I have very strong ethics and a deep sense of compassion. Sometimes it annoys the shit outta me....I can entertain evil revenges for things in my head, but I could never, ever do it because those darned ethics WILL smack me in the face, and I despise hypocrisy, especially by my ownself.

I don't have much really to say to this other than... Well said...

One thing... Morals (In the general form) can be useful. But can and should be broken when the need arises, if your motives are good.

'Self defense' is one such reason.

 

[monoblanco]

I love these sort of discussions so thanks to Erika for starting this!

First off, I find it interesting that so many seem to have differing definitions of what the terms 'morals' and 'ethics' mean. Not that that's a bad things. We all have a right to define terms as it best suits our needs in our lives.

But before I go on, I want to define what values, morals, and ethics means for me because it seems to be the exact opposite of what some others have stated.

Values are things that I hold to be of high importance to me in my life. Honesty and loyalty, for example.

Morals relates to my personal code of conduct. It governs how I act based on my values. E.g., because of my morals, I try to be as honest and as loyal as I can to the people I love.

Ethics are the group or societal code that governs behavior. The ethics of the society I live in dictate that it would be wrong for me to steal money from my employer for example.

I think that many of us equate morals with religion because (sorry if there are any Christian fundamentalists out there...) we live in a predominantly Judeo-Christian society and Christian fundamentalists in this country have done an exceptional job of screaming bloody murder about the decline of (Christian) morals, blah, blah, blah.

Anyway...

To get at the questions in the OP, I try to live my life in a way that is true to my personal, philosophical, moral principles. My own moral code. I try to do right by those closest to me, etc.

I also try to live in a way that is in line with most (but not all) of the ethical principals of our society.

But, for me, the first is by far the more important.

If I walk out of the grocery store and realize I wasn't charged for something, I don't loose any sleep over it. I figure I was probably over charged at some point and this just balances things out.

But if I do something unintentional that hurts someone close to me, violates their trust for example, then I do go out of my way to try and make amends as soon as I can.

Because really, my relationship with my friend is far more important to me that whether or not I shorted the supermarket $4. So again, for me, morals are a much more important driver of my behavior than ethics.

When it comes to other people's views on things, I like to surround myself with a diversity of opinions and viewpoints. Hopefully, of equally tolerant, open-minded people who can disagree without being disagreeable. I like to talk with people close to me about why they believe what they believe, challenge them on occasion and have them challenge me too. That way we both have a chance to learn something new and possibly see the world from a different perspective.

I can't think of a time when I've ever 'jettisoned' someone from my life based on what they believe or what their moral position on something was.

Though I have ended friendships and relationships based on the actions people have taken. And those actions may have been driven by their morals or values or ethics...

 

[silverwhisper]

i'm rather curious to see erika's own answers. :>

ed

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its all very simple to me.

Morals are cultural prescriptions that are a good foundation for harmonious society: don't murder, don't steal, be honest, etc. You cant go wrong with any of the prescriptions.

Ethics are rules to manage morals, like rules exist to manage laws. If its immoral to lie and illegal to submit false reports it isn't unethical to submit your work timesheet on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving if the normal report date is Thursday. Laws require intent to harm. Morals/ethics require intent to harm. But it can get crazy. I once knew a therapist who was fired because her dad took a stop smoking program at our mental health center; the rule was NO SOCIAL INTERCOURSE WITH CENTER CLIENTS. She lived with her dad to help care for her terminal mom. Our clinical director was so anal you couldn't hammer an ice pick up her ass. Folks always ignore the intent mitigation. In 1820 my ancestor was tried in an ecclesiastical court for buying a slave. He emancipated her after the sale but he did in fact buy a slave. The Methodist Church Court acquitted him. He did no harm and intended no harm was his defense.

Values are simply your druthers. I catch more grief for a garden that's neither immoral, illegal, or unethical. Some folks don't like it that my yard has peach trees, and pear trees and guava trees rather than dwarf junipers and palm trees. Peaches are actually roses, and an okra bush is a hibiscus.

 

[SweetErika]

i'm rather curious to see erika's own answers. :>

ed

Heh. We've been busy researching and buying a new mattress. I'm so quality sleep deprived due to our broken down memory foam mattress at this point that I haven't had the energy to contribute coherent thoughts to my own thread. BTW, I've been very unhappy rediscover the shitty ethics of many manufacturers and salespeople in the mattress industry! Hopefully the new latex mattress that'll arrive by Friday will prove to be a great long-term investment, and we won't have revisit Mattress Shopping Hell for a couple of decades.

How often do you find yourself facing a moral or ethical dilemma?

Quite a bit, but I probably have unusually high standards for myself and potential feelings of guilt is a huge deterrent for me. I definitely think about my beliefs and conduct more since I've become a mom; in addition to trying to follow the golden rule, I frequently think about what I'd want our son to learn from my behavior in any given situation/dilemma.

How much do you value morals and ethics, both pertaining to yourself and others? Do you have a stricter code for yourself, or are you more flexible? Do you choose friends/partners who place a similar amount of value on honesty, morals and ethics, or do you prefer diversity in this area? Jettison people in your life if you learn your values/morals/ethics are vastly different?

I value them A LOT and have a stricter code for myself than I do for others. I'm more flexible if there are extenuating circumstances, but I pretty much stick by my code if those exceptions aren't really clear.

I tend to choose/keep friends who place a similar amount of value on things like honesty and ethical conduct. When I see someone in my life lying or acting unethically without extenuating circumstances, I'll move away for fear of being subject to similar behavior. I fully admit I have some major trust issues, particularly with people I let into my heart, because I've been hurt very badly several times by loved ones.

If you accidentally violate your own code (e.g. finding an item in your shopping cart after you've already walked out of the store, or realizing the cashier didn't charge you for something you should have paid [extra] for), how do you feel and act? Do you try to correct the mistake ASAP? Brush it off as a simple accident? Does/would it keep you up at night if you couldn't correct it?

I'll make every reasonable effort to make it right. Before the Nutribullet situation, the last time this happened was about a year ago when I returned to my car in the crazy Costco parking lot on a busy, rainy day, and discovered a $9 block of cheese under our coats in the front of the cart as I was loading everything, including my screaming toddler, into the car. I didn't go back on that one because I just couldn't under the circumstances. I still feel a pang of guilt when I think about it and have always checked the cart thoroughly from that point on. We spend thousands each year at Costco and our families have had memberships since the first store opened in the 80's, so I like to think they'd forgive my $9 accident (and efforts since to not repeat it), given the circumstances.

Right now I'm losing some sleep over recently learning that someone at my husband's company has been embezzling at least $30k/month, when that same person is very stingy with employees. Starting annual salaries are around $25k/year in a high cost of living area, with crappy benefits, lots of overtime and stress. I had to research the ethics of reporting embezzlement to feel a little bit better about not reporting it (apparently, it's up to the owner of the company to take action or deal with the potential consequences of not taking action). I still feel an obligation to report it, but I understand that it's not my place, and doing so could have some very dire consequences for a bunch of people/families, including my own.

Yes, Ed, he's still in the same job, unfortunately. At least it's starting to hit home that he needs to move on sooner rather than later, 'cuz that ship--and our marriage--may be starting to sink!

I'm sure it's accurate to say that we all lie, even if we limit ourselves to white lies. Where do you draw the line for yourself? Do you tend to 'fess up if you tell a lie that you don't believe will harm anyone at the time, then later find out it WAS harmful/problematic, or do you usually let it go and hope for the best?

In reality, I'm a terrible liar when it comes to anything but simple white lies, so that's kind of my personal line. I won't tell non-white-lies to my husband, period, because I think that can be a slippery slope in a marriage, particularly one that is open at times. Even when honesty is the toughest path, I figure out how to be truthful in what I hope is the least potentially hurtful way. I don't typically lie at all when asked a direct question, but I may limit the information I share.

If I find a lie I've told with good intentions turns out to be problematic, I will apologize, move forward with honesty and/or try to make it right somehow. I usually try to find some way to be truthful and/or really diplomatic, so it hasn't happened to me very often.

 

[midwestyankee]

I'm late to the party so I hope the wine hasn't run out. My thoughts:

How often do you find yourself facing a moral or ethical dilemma?

It doesn't feel as if I face all that many true dilemmas very often. Or maybe I do but my responses are so automatic that I don't see them as dilemmas?

How much do you value morals and ethics, both pertaining to yourself and others? Do you have a stricter code for yourself, or are you more flexible? Do you choose friends/partners who place a similar amount of value on honesty, morals and ethics, or do you prefer diversity in this area? Jettison people in your life if you learn your values/morals/ethics are vastly different?

Do you have a different standard for others than yourself? For instance, if someone else doesn't leave a great server a tip or cheats on a test, are you able to gloss over/justify their behavior more than if you had done the same thing, or vice versa?

I probably have a stronger code for myself than I apply to my friends and acquaintances. I rarely run into anyone whose conduct is so reprehensible that I won't associate with them any longer, though it has happened. Not sure I consider leaving a weak tip to be an immoral act - though it is definitely a sign of poor character in my view.

If you accidentally violate your own code (e.g. finding an item in your shopping cart after you've already walked out of the store, or realizing the cashier didn't charge you for something you should have paid [extra] for), how do you feel and act? Do you try to correct the mistake ASAP? Brush it off as a simple accident? Does/would it keep you up at night if you couldn't correct it?

A month or two ago I had some work done on my car. The day after I picked it up from the mechanic, I noticed an error on the charge slip. The young fellow who had taken my payment entered the wrong number in the credit transaction, in my favor. I wrote a check for the balance - $7 - and drove it over to the shop that day. I have no idea if the owner, who has been a reliable guy for the twenty years I've taken my cars to him, would ever have caught the error in reconciling his accounts. Still, I would not have been comfortable ignoring their error.

I'm sure it's accurate to say that we all lie, even if we limit ourselves to white lies. Where do you draw the line for yourself? Do you tend to 'fess up if you tell a lie that you don't believe will harm anyone at the time, then later find out it WAS harmful/problematic, or do you usually let it go and hope for the best?

I really, really try to tell the truth. I haven't always been so scrupulous and it has cost me.

 

[Ubernaught]

I've been following this thread with interest, as I love a good thought-provoking subject.

It came to me that when someone comments on the morality of something, my first thought is "Whose morality are they using to judge that?" whereas ethics just...is. An ingrained set of rules/behaviors to live by.

I find society to be too forgiving in the broad sense. Lack of personal responsibility isn't a good thing. My opinion of course.

 

[subwannabe]

You're right. Everyone has their own morality. It's like, "I can do this" but you "can't do that".

 

[bailadora]

If you accidentally violate your own code (e.g. finding an item in your shopping cart after you've already walked out of the store, or realizing the cashier didn't charge you for something you should have paid [extra] for), how do you feel and act? Do you try to correct the mistake ASAP? Brush it off as a simple accident? Does/would it keep you up at night if you couldn't correct it?

A month or two ago I had some work done on my car. The day after I picked it up from the mechanic, I noticed an error on the charge slip. The young fellow who had taken my payment entered the wrong number in the credit transaction, in my favor. I wrote a check for the balance - $7 - and drove it over to the shop that day. I have no idea if the owner, who has been a reliable guy for the twenty years I've taken my cars to him, would ever have caught the error in reconciling his accounts. Still, I would not have been comfortable ignoring their error.

When you point out errors such as these and offer to correct them, do you find you're met with surprise? I get that, a lot. It's like this sort of behavior is an anomaly. I find it a sad commentary on our society.

 

[silverwhisper]

bail quoth:
it's like this sort of behavior is an anomaly. i find it a sad commentary on our society.

it is an anomaly. most people don't return the bank error in your favor, mainly because most people don't realize things like the fact that the cashier can get docked for a short drawer.

and the worst part is that people don't even take the time to think about that stuff. if they spent only half a second thinking about it, they'd realize the ramifications. but they just don't want to be bothered, it seems.

and it's that mental laziness that offends me.

ed