<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Abosolute Versus The Relative</title>
	<atom:link href="http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/</link>
	<description>An Irreverent Look at the Glocalized World</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 12:30:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ISOU</title>
		<link>http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/comment-page-1/#comment-2968</link>
		<dc:creator>ISOU</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/#comment-2968</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;The PBA today&lt;/strong&gt;
Looks like Aldon had quite a day yesterday. Goose makes a good point about hypocrisy. Ray has a report on yesterday&#039;s Clinton Library opening. Pesky Apostrophe is seeking comments. Want a comprehensive update of the election fraud theories, go here....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
<strong>The PBA today</strong><br />
Looks like Aldon had quite a day yesterday. Goose makes a good point about hypocrisy. Ray has a report on yesterday&#8217;s Clinton Library opening. Pesky Apostrophe is seeking comments. Want a comprehensive update of the election fraud theories, go here&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oso</title>
		<link>http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/comment-page-1/#comment-2966</link>
		<dc:creator>Oso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:09:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/#comment-2966</guid>
		<description>Something occurred to me this afternoon which felt like a major breakthrough in my understanding of the world. For the first time, I understood the difference between ethics and morals. I&#039;m not saying this is agreed upon by everybody or anybody but here&#039;s the difference to me:

Morals are innate and learned emotional responses to events, situations, and ideas. We often call it moral revulsion. As in, we are uneasy when we see a man beating his wife, a worker kicking a chicken, or when we see an entire population killed in genocide. Morals obviously exist. They exist for everybody, but they are not the same for everyone. As HP &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/#comment-2961&quot;&gt;perceived&lt;/a&gt;, I do not believe in moral absolutism.

Ethics on the other hand are what &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.globalethics.org/pub/toughchoices.html&quot;&gt;Rushworth Kidder called&lt;/a&gt; the balances between &quot;right versus right.&quot; In other words, ethics are not behavioral, they are not theological, they are not cultural, but they are all these things. They are the balance between competing moral systems.

Wikipedia has a very good article entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_view_of_ethics_and_morals&quot;&gt;Simple View of Ethics and Morals&lt;/a&gt;.

Maybe the distinction is obvious to you guys, but for me it was revolutionary. &lt;a href=&quot;http://culturejam.typepad.com/cjam/2004/11/the_conservativ.html&quot;&gt;Culture Jam&lt;/a&gt; gave me a lot to think about concerning rationality and morality. His posts convinced me that rationality and morality are both necessary when making policy. That without morality guys like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler&quot;&gt;Adolf&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini&quot;&gt;Benito&lt;/a&gt; can make appealing rational arguments for genocide.

Do I want genocide? I do not want genocide.

I think it&#039;s fair to call World War II a moral war. We fought it because we were morally revulsed at the mass killing of the Jews and the prospect of what would follow.

And so I figured in my simple little brain that morality is just as necessary as rationality in setting policy.

But today I realize that Fascism is not morally &lt;em&gt;wrong&lt;/em&gt;. It obviously wasn&#039;t for the morals of all those who fought under Hitler and Mussolini. But it was ethically wrong because it did not accomodate human behavior, theological tradition, and cultural values.

So this is a very important distinction to me because I no longer believe that policy must take into consideration both rationality and morality, but rather rationality and ethics.

That makes an important foundation for my life-thesis: aruing for a transnational system of governance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
Something occurred to me this afternoon which felt like a major breakthrough in my understanding of the world. For the first time, I understood the difference between ethics and morals. I&#8217;m not saying this is agreed upon by everybody or anybody but here&#8217;s the difference to me:</p>
<p>Morals are innate and learned emotional responses to events, situations, and ideas. We often call it moral revulsion. As in, we are uneasy when we see a man beating his wife, a worker kicking a chicken, or when we see an entire population killed in genocide. Morals obviously exist. They exist for everybody, but they are not the same for everyone. As HP <a href="http://www.el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/#comment-2961">perceived</a>, I do not believe in moral absolutism.</p>
<p>Ethics on the other hand are what <a href="http://www.globalethics.org/pub/toughchoices.html">Rushworth Kidder called</a> the balances between &#8220;right versus right.&#8221; In other words, ethics are not behavioral, they are not theological, they are not cultural, but they are all these things. They are the balance between competing moral systems.</p>
<p>Wikipedia has a very good article entitled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_view_of_ethics_and_morals">Simple View of Ethics and Morals</a>.</p>
<p>Maybe the distinction is obvious to you guys, but for me it was revolutionary. <a href="http://culturejam.typepad.com/cjam/2004/11/the_conservativ.html">Culture Jam</a> gave me a lot to think about concerning rationality and morality. His posts convinced me that rationality and morality are both necessary when making policy. That without morality guys like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler">Adolf</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini">Benito</a> can make appealing rational arguments for genocide.</p>
<p>Do I want genocide? I do not want genocide.</p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s fair to call World War II a moral war. We fought it because we were morally revulsed at the mass killing of the Jews and the prospect of what would follow.</p>
<p>And so I figured in my simple little brain that morality is just as necessary as rationality in setting policy.</p>
<p>But today I realize that Fascism is not morally <em>wrong</em>. It obviously wasn&#8217;t for the morals of all those who fought under Hitler and Mussolini. But it was ethically wrong because it did not accomodate human behavior, theological tradition, and cultural values.</p>
<p>So this is a very important distinction to me because I no longer believe that policy must take into consideration both rationality and morality, but rather rationality and ethics.</p>
<p>That makes an important foundation for my life-thesis: aruing for a transnational system of governance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LatinoPundit</title>
		<link>http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/comment-page-1/#comment-2962</link>
		<dc:creator>LatinoPundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 03:08:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/#comment-2962</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Morality Vs. Values&lt;/strong&gt;
There is a discussion over at El Oso, El Moreno, and El Abogado, about morality and it&#039;s place in politics....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
<strong>Morality Vs. Values</strong><br />
There is a discussion over at El Oso, El Moreno, and El Abogado, about morality and it&#8217;s place in politics&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HispanicPundit</title>
		<link>http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/comment-page-1/#comment-2961</link>
		<dc:creator>HispanicPundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/#comment-2961</guid>
		<description>Great perception. It fundamentally is a war of axioms. At that level nothing can truly be proven in the strict sense &lt;em&gt;on either side&lt;/em&gt;. It truly is a war of presuppositions. 

&quot;The greatest question of our time is not communism versus individualism; not Europe versus America; not even the East versus West. It is whether men can live without God.&quot; --Will Durant

PS: Your biases toward the relative side show through clearly since you seem to have a hard time spelling ab&lt;strong&gt;so&lt;/strong&gt;lute ;) (joking, of course).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
Great perception. It fundamentally is a war of axioms. At that level nothing can truly be proven in the strict sense <em>on either side</em>. It truly is a war of presuppositions. </p>
<p>&#8220;The greatest question of our time is not communism versus individualism; not Europe versus America; not even the East versus West. It is whether men can live without God.&#8221; &#8211;Will Durant</p>
<p>PS: Your biases toward the relative side show through clearly since you seem to have a hard time spelling ab<strong>so</strong>lute <img src='http://el-oso.net/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />  (joking, of course).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abogado</title>
		<link>http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/comment-page-1/#comment-2958</link>
		<dc:creator>Abogado</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:11:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2004/11/18/morals-morals-morals/#comment-2958</guid>
		<description>Kant vs. Rawls; Nietzche vs. just about anyone else. Yes, I think, as should be obvious by most of my posts, that nearly everything boils down to a series of basic premises we hold. liberty vs. equality (Dworkin vs. Nozak), public vs. private (Marx vs. Smith) etc. Nearly everything can be analyzed out from a few basic premises; even if you have no basic premises (relativism) that equates to a premise of sorts, and probably leads to pragmatism. I&#039;ve always been interested on the theoretical because I think it is the only way to really understand the practical. Funny how we always end up back here. I want to develop this more, but alas, law school memo is calling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
Kant vs. Rawls; Nietzche vs. just about anyone else. Yes, I think, as should be obvious by most of my posts, that nearly everything boils down to a series of basic premises we hold. liberty vs. equality (Dworkin vs. Nozak), public vs. private (Marx vs. Smith) etc. Nearly everything can be analyzed out from a few basic premises; even if you have no basic premises (relativism) that equates to a premise of sorts, and probably leads to pragmatism. I&#8217;ve always been interested on the theoretical because I think it is the only way to really understand the practical. Funny how we always end up back here. I want to develop this more, but alas, law school memo is calling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
