Reply #128: they are not synonyms and that is the problem [View All]

[nadinbrzezinski]

why laws are ethics based not morality based

The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"

Moral phisolophy is not morality, that is why it is so sticky.. and why it is easy to confuse

As I said, I am being very technical

But all laws, of land warfare are ethics based.

In the end, their result may be moral, but the laws themselves are not based on morality

I am sorry, but at least to me, even wihen they may be close cousins, I am a stickler for these definitions

By the way, both of these are from online dictionaries of philosophy.

Oh and I will give you an example that perhaps will make it even more confusing... and sorry for that confusion.

Society cannot under morality enforce that cousin don't marry... most societies forbid it (well except Egypt in Pharanoiuc times, and that was overlooked among royal families in Europe until the 20th century, and many close cousins did marry), but most moral codes say you can't do that. But it is not morality that is enforced when you pass those laws. Those laws are ethics based. They are endorsable at that point. (which have a good genetic basis for it)

The result is close... confusing because it looks the same and you may say I am splitting hairs, and most folks working on this do split hairs to a point. But it is ethics driving the law, not morality. And whenever we have laws based on morality we get in trouble, see race mixing laws.

The same goes with allowing refugees through a zone you control as a military commander. The UCMJ is not a moral code when it comes to that, but based on ethics and what you are expected to do... but not due to morality or humanity even. But because these laws are part of the code of conduct that you are expected to follow as a service member.

The moral rules in the UCMJ relate to your conduct while in uniform regarding your presence among civilians, especially your side... things like not engaging in sex outside marriage, things like that. But the rules regarding combat and your behavior while under fire are not moral, but ethics based. (By the way the Geneva Convention is part of the UCMJ since it became US Law after it was ratified)

There is another reason why you don't use morality, one that may seem strange to you. Our code of conduct (moral code) in the West is different from that of some people we have fought in the past. For example compare the Samurai Code of the Warrior with the code of conduct of US Troops during WW II... in some respects they were 180 from each other. Some of the abuses of POWs by the Japanese came from the very simple fact that under the Samurai code you do not surrender... so if we left this to a moral code I am betting on more horrors than we actually had on our side... but the ethical code of conduct required POWs to be treated humanely, which we have forgotten in this war on terror by the by... and that is another concrete example of why there is a difference.

Now at this point I don't expect you to see this... and as far as you are concerned there is morality in war... and that's it