Difference between morals and ethics

[Ddavid from NC]

What im picking up from most if not all of these responses is that for Christians morality cannot be separated from religious affiliation. I disagree. I think that reguardless of what, if any, diety one believes in, one can still have both morals and ethics.

I am not isisting I am right... but would like to offer a suggestion. Morals or morality is determined by an objective Divine standard. Ethics are relative to culture or environment. Example: Living together before marriage is immoral but society has made it ethical as long as you are monogamous. What do u think?

I think that this example presupposes that living together before or outside of marriage is immoral. I disagree with that statement. Therefore this example of morality would only work or make sense to others who shared your same belief on the subject. Yet, I would regard myself as a moral man. I don't see any problem with cohabitation outside of marriage, but I am a moral, and while we're at it: ethical, man. Does this make one of us wrong?

Not at all. Morality, i believe, is defined in the individual, and isnt... well... should not be defined by one's religious affiliation. All to often, Christians place morality inside the Christian bubble and claim it as their own, thus saying that without Christianity, you cannot have morals.

I think that is blatant hijacking of an ideal. Morality can be attained without diety, any diety, including ours. But Christians have a way of displacing responsibility. Therefore, it is not their responsibility to try and create their own understanding of morality, but rather to cling to an essence of morality which has been built for them by Post Modernism. This way, in a moral light, they can never be wrong. Their morality is defined through their religious beliefs, and thus shared by millions. Although its complete displacment of any responsiblity to create their own definition of morality, its safe and comfortable.

I will say it isnt easy to live up to religious context of morality. Most religions, including Christianity, set a near impossible standard of morality. This, in turn, will inevitably create a ripple effect throughout Post Modern Christains of guilt coupled with judgement. Guilty for every situation in which they didn't quite live up to the standards, and Judgement, either silent or vocal, toward other people who couldnt quite live up to the standards of morality. These two things, Guilt and Judgement, create a hostile emotion which ties into Morality. Therefore Morality is no longer "Morality for the sake of humanity", but "Morality for the sake of survival". Without religious-induced morality, most Christians would certainly face a real possibility of eternal punishment. Lets face it, most Christians would look down upon things like excessive drinking, certain types of music (i.e. Marilyn Manson), certain political views, things like cohabitation outside of marriage or premarital sex

But what makes these things immoral? The two things I want to focus on are premarital cohabitation and premarital sex. Christians will preach that these two things are biblical sin. Well, look at it logically. In Biblical times, marriage was sex, and took place upon the act of sex. Sex was seen as the ultimate tangible covenant between two people. There were no marriage licenses involved. So if there was no license, what, then, gave them the "green light" to have sex? Simple, commitment and covenant. So the definition of "premarital sex" then becomes, "sex without commitment, without covenant."

So lets say two people are completely committed to each other. They've been in a monogamous relationship for a while, 4+ years lets say. They've made the decision, both between them and to others, that they are comitted. But they dont want to get married. They dont want a marriage lisence. By Post Modern Christian Morality, it would be immoral to move in together, or to have sex. But why? They've made the same commitment to each other as those in Biblical days.

Interesting....

Long winded, i know, but my point is this. Morality should not be defined by religious affiliation, it should be defined for the good of humanity. I wouldn't kill someone because I would be taking a life I had no right to take, I'd be hurting those who loved the person i killed and those who love me. Even athiests would agree with that stand point. Morality for the sake of humanity.

What you describing with your diatribe is relativism, which makes you the center of your own "morality". I believe it is fair to say morality is a standard outside of your thinking to which you submit.

[patricia1]

i hope no one minds if I put a little more than my two cents in.(i can never stop at just two cents..Lol )

If the question at hand refers to generalities the word MORALS to me has to do with defining personal character.

The word ETHICS has to do with standards and codes of behavior.

Example: Abortion is legal and medically ethical but immoral to me.

But to some it is not immoral.

In law Ethics must override personal morals for upholding legal justice system.

In CHRISTIANITY one hopefully has a higher standard of both ETHICS & MORALS.

JESUS holds us to a higher set of standards, we represent Him and that is what should be seperating us from the world. Patricia1

[Guest LadyC]

thoughtful....

true there were no marriage licenses. but there was a protocol for establishing marriage. there was arrangement made between the parents of the betrothed. there was the dowery. there was the wedding feast and celebration. and THEN there was consummation. that consummation was a covenant that was not taken lightly. it was one made not only between the bride and her bridegroom, but between the couple and God.

SEX did not make them married. if it did, God would not have devoted so much time in His word to the subject of sexual immorality. and in fact, scripture even indicates that if a couple engage in sex, or if a virgin is raped by a man, that the man must THEN marry her.

so your position on this issue is not standing up to biblical scrutiny. perhaps you should study it a little more.

[MeCajunboy]

What im picking up from most if not all of these responses is that for Christians morality cannot be separated from religious affiliation. I disagree. I think that reguardless of what, if any, diety one believes in, one can still have both morals and ethics.

I am not isisting I am right... but would like to offer a suggestion. Morals or morality is determined by an objective Divine standard. Ethics are relative to culture or environment. Example: Living together before marriage is immoral but society has made it ethical as long as you are monogamous. What do u think?

I think that this example presupposes that living together before or outside of marriage is immoral. I disagree with that statement. Therefore this example of morality would only work or make sense to others who shared your same belief on the subject. Yet, I would regard myself as a moral man. I don't see any problem with cohabitation outside of marriage, but I am a moral, and while we're at it: ethical, man. Does this make one of us wrong?

Not at all. Morality, i believe, is defined in the individual, and isnt... well... should not be defined by one's religious affiliation. All to often, Christians place morality inside the Christian bubble and claim it as their own, thus saying that without Christianity, you cannot have morals.

I think that is blatant hijacking of an ideal. Morality can be attained without diety, any diety, including ours. But Christians have a way of displacing responsibility. Therefore, it is not their responsibility to try and create their own understanding of morality, but rather to cling to an essence of morality which has been built for them by Post Modernism. This way, in a moral light, they can never be wrong. Their morality is defined through their religious beliefs, and thus shared by millions. Although its complete displacment of any responsiblity to create their own definition of morality, its safe and comfortable.

I will say it isnt easy to live up to religious context of morality. Most religions, including Christianity, set a near impossible standard of morality. This, in turn, will inevitably create a ripple effect throughout Post Modern Christains of guilt coupled with judgement. Guilty for every situation in which they didn't quite live up to the standards, and Judgement, either silent or vocal, toward other people who couldnt quite live up to the standards of morality. These two things, Guilt and Judgement, create a hostile emotion which ties into Morality. Therefore Morality is no longer "Morality for the sake of humanity", but "Morality for the sake of survival". Without religious-induced morality, most Christians would certainly face a real possibility of eternal punishment. Lets face it, most Christians would look down upon things like excessive drinking, certain types of music (i.e. Marilyn Manson), certain political views, things like cohabitation outside of marriage or premarital sex

But what makes these things immoral? The two things I want to focus on are premarital cohabitation and premarital sex. Christians will preach that these two things are biblical sin. Well, look at it logically. In Biblical times, marriage was sex, and took place upon the act of sex. Sex was seen as the ultimate tangible covenant between two people. There were no marriage licenses involved. So if there was no license, what, then, gave them the "green light" to have sex? Simple, commitment and covenant. So the definition of "premarital sex" then becomes, "sex without commitment, without covenant."

So lets say two people are completely committed to each other. They've been in a monogamous relationship for a while, 4+ years lets say. They've made the decision, both between them and to others, that they are comitted. But they dont want to get married. They dont want a marriage lisence. By Post Modern Christian Morality, it would be immoral to move in together, or to have sex. But why? They've made the same commitment to each other as those in Biblical days.

Interesting....

Long winded, i know, but my point is this. Morality should not be defined by religious affiliation, it should be defined for the good of humanity. I wouldn't kill someone because I would be taking a life I had no right to take, I'd be hurting those who loved the person i killed and those who love me. Even athiests would agree with that stand point. Morality for the sake of humanity.

Interesting....

Hi Thoughtful, What makes these things that you mentioned "IMMORAL" GOD makes them immoral. God speaks of immorality many, many times all thoughout scripture. It is only man who tries to make them moral as time passes. I bet one day my great grandchilden will be saying, "Look at those two men how beautiful they look together! And to think once, a very long time ago we thought that was immoral! What would God have to say about those people who thought they are being immoral now?

Also, Did you just say that you don't have a problem with "co-habitation" outside of a marriage? I guess in all fairness I have to ask you, "What is your definition of "Co-habitation." My interpretation may vary from yours. If you're speaking of someone who is in love with another of the opposite sex, and they choose to live (co-habitatate) together and enjoin in the bonds of sexual pleasures..........well .......my next thought would be, you'd have to show me where in the Bible does God say HE approves of it. If you're saying that "YOU personally don't have a problem with it" I understand what you're saying! I would still disagree with your thought, but I understand what you're conveying. I would just ask you to be more careful about what we convey here on Worthy as we all know there are many new-comers who are looking for that very avenue to hear someone who supports what they believe and I want everyone to understand that God does not condoan that type of relationship,.......if we're speaking of a relationship that includes sexual activity.....To convey that type of message would be just what Biblicist was conveying when she noted to Eric that Gal 1:6 was speaking of a preacher who strays from the text of a scripture when he gives a sermon merely to appease the crowd or to drum up business. I think we can all affirm that this type of relationship you mentioned is not scriptural based???? Right?

Also, while I'm thinking of it, were you the person last year that brought up the scripture of the "Lake of Fires," and noted that these fires that are spoken of were not meant to be the fires that people who are bound in Hell will suffer for an eternity when they die? Were you the person I was debating , that made those comments, or am I thinking of someone else?