I for whatever reason do not mind philosophical discussion. In fact I make a habit of philosophizing almost anything, I constantly take mundane or trivial matters to a whole new level, I have no idea why I do this!
It seems that it’s a way of thinking, a way of seeing things or angles, a perception, a perception? What is a perception? It is a rather subjective way of understanding a matter or subject, or is that understanding matter or a subject?
Is it possible to argue to for ethics or morality? Or is it rather an argument that one would not exist without the other?
Or maybe both are just perceptions or beliefs that exist intrinsically in people’s heads…. and don’t really manifest themselves in everyday life. >> I think not.
Does an attorney have a moral obligation to inform the court of a case that is to the detriment of his client? Or is this obligation purely ethical? If so, then what is the difference? Do we not need morals in order to exercise ethics? Is it even possible to argue that one can have ethics without possessing morals? An argument in favor of only one existing simultaneously without the other is not possible. How can one exercise ethical behavior without at the same time possessing morals….well you could, for example “just do the right thing” and make the case known to the court. Thus fulfilling your ethical obligation without feeling naught or even caring the consequences for your client.
Therefore, one can argue that ethics or ethical obligations are done in accordance with your profession or extrinsic environment, thus, those relationships outside of your immediate sphere i.e.: attorneys profession, work, courts, or wherever you work. You have ethical obligations to those people and your profession in general. But, how does one separate this from your morality? how does one perceive right and wrong or ethics for that matter if they don’t in themselves poses a certain standard of moral fiber?
What if it doesn’t matter to you that the court wants to see that case (referred to above)? What then? What if you are a psychopath with not moral compass? How then do decide which route to take? Obviously as a psychopath you are going to do what’s in your own best interest, screw the court, and screw your client and everyone else! If however, you have a conscience you may stop to think about what you doing and how you are feeling and then act accordingly.
Its and interesting question, how can a person have ethics without having morals? Because without morals you have no guiding conscience and therefore the ethics actually mean naught to you! But that’s exactly my point! A person can be ethical in the purist sense without at the same time possessing morals, one does not need morals to follow the rules of ethics, and these exist outside your own sphere of conscience. Morality however resides in your being, in your person! You have your own standards, irrespective of the outside world. The funny thing is, is that it’s the outside world that casts judgment upon you on a daily basis….rotfl!! That’s how it is. We all have our inner beliefs, but they are not always in line with society, for example.> Hitler’s own standards or beliefs were for a “pure race”. We do not agree with this, obviously! BUT, does that make his inner beliefs wrong? Who are we to cast judgment? Is it that we have a “social justice” or all encompassing values? I think to a certain degree we can all agree on what is acceptable and what is not, but that doesnt make it correct either does it?
Maybe its a social barometer that sets the standard? Makes the laws and pushes for progression. Or is it the elected? im not sure i beleive in the term “democracy”! Its a rather absurd notion, > “elect me, i will protect your interests” how is it possible to put your confidence in a person you dont know? and further….no wait! thats for another time..
I could extend this question to include morality, ethics and the law? But then I would be here for a long time! I would need to consult some of the more imminent theorists on this. I would also like very much to delve into the socialization of people across time (and not space), their different attitudes to the same problems. But alas!
Tell me what you think….ethics or morality? Is it possible to have one without the other?
I will continue in another post with ethics, morality and the law. Then maybe include socialization later.