Do you appeal to ethics or morals more?

It's another of these political discussions, but this time, it asks on whether you base your opinions on ethics more frequently or morals more frequently. Some political issues, ethics and morals agree. Others, they disagree. The thread isn't necessarily on a debate on a certain issue, but it's more about what you appeal to more. You may share w political opinion as an example to back up your point.

---My opinion---

I see the importance in both ethics and morals, but I appeal more to morals than to ethics on some of the political issues. With the exception of extreme cases, I usually pick the side that is more moral (especially if the immoral side is unethical). No matter how severe the situation is, I am not okay with what is wrong to do. For instance, immigration. I can understand how rough society in developing nations can get, but I'm in favor of legal immigration only. I don't think it's right to let non-citizens use the same public-funded services citizens use (such as financial aid). Another example is on healthcare. I believe that nobody should be denied healthcare based on any quality in general, but healthcare costs money, and when something costs money, they have to pay for it no matter how necessary it is. There is no free lunch. I also believe that higher quality services (such as high quality healthcare) is only granted to those who pay more.

how are you defining the terms ethics and morals?

many people would say they mean the same thing.

I think ethics refer to the goodwill of life (like if you oppose animal abuse) as morals refer to human behavior (like if you think it's wrong to use profanity or racial slurs). Like said in the OP, morals can blend with ethics (i.e. corporate greed) or contradict them (i.e. abortion). Usually, they contradict each other.

Aristotle's view of Ethics appeals to me. The relativity of something I think is extremely relevant to how we should conduct ourselves. Like a person might be good in one situation, but that does not make him a good person. Which is not a problem imo. he considers the base of all things ethics to be courage and temperance. I lean more towards a grey are rather than black and white. On a national scale though, as you mentioned, I think it is better to enforce the same rules consistently, though. Otherwise that would just be a mess

I'm in between. If it's morally right and it's ethical, I'm all for it.

It is never ethically or morally right to allow someone to die because they don't have the means to get medical aid.

Aneurin Bevan said:

No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.

Click to expand...

I don't really see the difference.

I just try to do right by people when I can. My core beliefs are based on the idea that a person's rights end where another's begin, but as long as you aren't hurting others it's none of my business what you do.

Alolan_Apples said:

I think ethics refer to the goodwill of life (like if you oppose animal abuse) as morals refer to human behavior (like if you think it's wrong to use profanity or racial slurs). Like said in the OP, morals can blend with ethics (i.e. corporate greed) or contradict them (i.e. abortion). Usually, they contradict each other.

Click to expand...

Problem with the thread is you're not operating off of set definitions, and your own definitions are entirely self defined. So its just a collection of parallel conversations.

I really don't understand the difference...



... helpful. But anyway, it's important to be good and plant kindness to harvest kindness and all. Don't be a dick to people who didn't do anything wrong and don't be a dick to animals for being animals. It's morally wrong to dictate people even if it goes against your ethics. Your opinion isn't important to someone else('s body).