Optional Decisions are Moral Decisions (Creator, choice, America, Zen)

[coberst]

Optional Decisions are Moral Decisions

I cannot remember where I read it but is resonates for me; ‘all decisions, wherein there is a choice, are moral decisions’. One may find quibbles to get around this message but the essence of the matter is that for a person seeking to be moral, all judgments from which decisions are derived warrant careful consideration.

In an attempt to comprehend the nature of ethics/morality one will find a forest of writings but essentially each person must build his or her own model of what ethics/morality means. Somewhere along the way toward becoming an enlightened person regarding this matter we all must settle on that which makes sense for us. That does not mean that we remain static about the matter but it means that we settle on some model that is our personal guide until we decide to change it.

Our community and our family mold our moral sense as we grow up. But at some point we must remold that model to fit our adult self. I am an American and my sense of ethics/morality was codified by the Declaration and the Constitution as I grew up and it is what determines, to a large extent, my adult sense in this matter.

The Declaration declares ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights’. The Constitution sets forth a listing of the rights of all citizens that are to be protected by law. These declarations are part of my heritage and are what I accept as the foundation of my sense of morality.

It appears that the two concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’ form the foundation of any moral system. The ‘good’ is ‘rational desire’ and the ‘right’ has varying meanings. The status of the right seems to be the important variable that determines what one’s ethical/moral model becomes.

I call my model of morality as being a closed system as opposed to an open system. I call my system a closed system because ‘right’ is clearly defined in the Declaration and the Constitution as being prior to the good. That which is right has a fence around it with a big “No Trespassing” sign and is closed to usurpation by the good. A different system could be called an open system when there is no closed area representing rights but that the right is considered as being that which maximizes the good.

Where do these two concepts fit into your model of morality and or ethics? I use the term ethics/morality to mean that the two terms are the same for me.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by coberst

I cannot remember where I read it but is resonates for me; ‘all decisions, wherein there is a choice, are moral decisions’. One may find quibbles to get around this message but the essence of the matter is that for a person seeking to be moral, all judgments from which decisions are derived warrant careful consideration.

Corollary #1: Even when desires directly conflict with what one knows to be moral, it is a simple matter to create moral "options" where none actually exist.

Corollary #2: Corollary #1 can be accomplished in such a way that the person doing it is not subjectively aware they are doing it.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Corollary #1: Even when desires directly conflict with what one knows to be moral, it is a simple matter to create moral "options" where none actually exist.

Corollary #2: Corollary #1 can be accomplished in such a way that the person doing it is not subjectively aware they are doing it.

You lost me on that turn.

[Random]

Originally Posted by coberst

I use the term ethics/morality to mean that the two terms are the same for me.

Ah, not always IMO: ethics cover professional codes of conduct, dealing with the systems of behaviour of individuals within a particular system. It is about response and responsibility. That's why the U.S. Consitiution upholds it: governments must behave ethically, but Politicians can be and frequently are immoral @ the same time.

Morality concerns itself Truth and/or Consequences. It truly has no framework or comparison because it relates only to the actions and modalities of choice: where too much choice is no choice @ all, a little morality defines parameters for right action, speech, thought and livelihood.

For example: I work for a major international Corporate bank. The Bank has a culture and code or Tao, a Way in which it envisions its employees behaving in circumstances particular to the banking business.

BUT that doesn't mean I can't be a greedy employee, a corporate-climber who will immorally rise in status @ the expense of my fellow employees, using immoral methods to succeed once I don't get caught. You see, the Corporate code or Tao doesn't cover this: I can succeed this way without recourse or repudiation. This corporate Way is not a matter of choice: I can't choose NOT to behave as the company requires me too, unless I do and then lose my job: which then makes the ethical issue a moral one, because of consequence.

Where ethics and morality meet is where the individual concurs with his or her own personal code which is not in conflict with the systemic Tao. Then, one is both ethical and moral @ the same time.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Godlike

Ah, not always IMO: ethics cover professional codes of conduct, dealing with the systems of behaviour of individuals within a particular system. It is about response and responsibility. That's why the U.S. Consitiution upholds it: governments must behave ethically, but Politicians can be and frequently are immoral @ the same time.

Morality concerns itself Truth and/or Consequences. It truly has no framework or comparison because it relates only to the actions and modalities of choice: where too much choice is no choice @ all, a little morality defines parameters for right action, speech, thought and livelihood.

For example: I work for a major international Corporate bank. The Bank has a culture and code or Tao, a Way in which it envisions its employees behaving in circumstances particular to the banking business.

BUT that doesn't mean I can't be a greedy employee, a corporate-climber who will immorally rise in status @ the expense of my fellow employees, using immoral methods to succeed once I don't get caught. You see, the Corporate code or Tao doesn't cover this: I can succeed this way without recourse or repudiation. This corporate Way is not a matter of choice: I can't choose NOT to behave as the company requires me too, unless I do and then lose my job: which then makes the ethical issue a moral one, because of consequence.

Where ethics and morality meet is where the individual concurs with his or her own personal code which is not in conflict with the systemic Tao. Then, one is both ethical and moral @ the same time.

I would refer to the dictionary for my authority.

These following definitions indicate to me that ethics and morality are synonyms. Your examples are instances of a distinction without a difference.

Moral—of or relating to principles of right or wrong

Difference—differing in nature, form, or quality

Distinction—distinguishable to the eye or mind