I haven’t grossly stretched or distorted the everyday usage of these words, so I’m not sure why I deserve to have their dictionary definitions shoved at me (especially since ethics #2 agrees with my usage). In fact I provided examples wherein the use of these words actually differs in common speech. I’ve tried to convey why I think this subtle difference is interesting. I wouldn’t say that I was arguing with the dictionary (although there is a time to do so).
As one might expect this issue of the distinction between ethics and morality routinely comes up in undergraduate philosophy courses. I have yet to hear a professor of philosophy endorse any distinction between morality and ethics and they often are perplexed that the general public seems to think there is one. Professional usage, not common usage, is what matters when we’re thinking about issues in an academic field.
Regardless of the terms’ usages in academia, there is often a distinction in common speech. I disagree that this distinction is irrelevant. Also, having gotten to know several professional philosophers before leaving the field for mathematics, I know that they are not as confused by this distinction (or the public’s employment of it) as you suggest, even if they choose not to draw it themselves.
But it’s all moot, as
Professional usage, not common usage, is what matters when we’re thinking about issues in an academic field.
implies that any usage of ethics in opposition to the study of Aristotle’s eudaimonia was at one time as irrelevant/improper as the common usage is now. I think, while that statement might be correct for a technical field’s vocabulary, it is not alright to restrict a layman’s usage of certain philosophical terms, like ethics, in the same manner.
implies that any usage of ethics in opposition to the study of Aristotle’s eudaimonia was at one time as irrelevant/improper as the common usage is now.
Uh… ethics is the study of the good. Aristotle has arguments which conclude that eudaimonia is the highest good. But that doesn’t preclude other investigations into the good life. In any case, I have no problem at all with introducing new questions or inventing distinctions. I have a problem with amateurs working in a field and altering the usage of professionals for no good reason. It is bad form and reflects poorly on us. I really doubt that we need to change our definition of the word ethics to be capable of understanding the distinction you are trying to make.
I think, while that statement might be correct for a technical field’s vocabulary, it is not alright to restrict a layman’s usage of certain philosophical terms, like ethics, in the same manner.
A layman can use whatever words he or she likes. But if you want to study a field use the terms as others in that field use them, unless there is actually a problem with that terminology.
I’m reminded of why I left the discipline—it’s a historico-linguistic claptrap.
All I advocated for was the term’s speciation—which, I’ll add again, is already present in the dictionary as well as in common usage. I reject the notion that, in order to suggest this, I first need to be a philosopher by trade.
Axiology is the study of the good. It’s just confusing to name it “ethics” when there’s a perfectly good, more specific word to apply. I may write an entire post on this and similar vocabulary failures soon.
That’s the standard conceptual hierarchy. In any case, I was talking about Aristotle. If your point is “you should have been more clear”, fair enough. Otherwise I don’t really know what we’re talking about or why I’m getting voted down.
The dictionary simply doesn’t distinguish between these terms on the basis of who they benefit. In fact it defines ethics in terms of morality in most cases.
It seems like pointlessly arguing with the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality
I haven’t grossly stretched or distorted the everyday usage of these words, so I’m not sure why I deserve to have their dictionary definitions shoved at me (especially since ethics #2 agrees with my usage). In fact I provided examples wherein the use of these words actually differs in common speech. I’ve tried to convey why I think this subtle difference is interesting. I wouldn’t say that I was arguing with the dictionary (although there is a time to do so).
As one might expect this issue of the distinction between ethics and morality routinely comes up in undergraduate philosophy courses. I have yet to hear a professor of philosophy endorse any distinction between morality and ethics and they often are perplexed that the general public seems to think there is one. Professional usage, not common usage, is what matters when we’re thinking about issues in an academic field.
Regardless of the terms’ usages in academia, there is often a distinction in common speech. I disagree that this distinction is irrelevant. Also, having gotten to know several professional philosophers before leaving the field for mathematics, I know that they are not as confused by this distinction (or the public’s employment of it) as you suggest, even if they choose not to draw it themselves.
But it’s all moot, as
implies that any usage of ethics in opposition to the study of Aristotle’s eudaimonia was at one time as irrelevant/improper as the common usage is now. I think, while that statement might be correct for a technical field’s vocabulary, it is not alright to restrict a layman’s usage of certain philosophical terms, like ethics, in the same manner.
Uh… ethics is the study of the good. Aristotle has arguments which conclude that eudaimonia is the highest good. But that doesn’t preclude other investigations into the good life. In any case, I have no problem at all with introducing new questions or inventing distinctions. I have a problem with amateurs working in a field and altering the usage of professionals for no good reason. It is bad form and reflects poorly on us. I really doubt that we need to change our definition of the word ethics to be capable of understanding the distinction you are trying to make.
A layman can use whatever words he or she likes. But if you want to study a field use the terms as others in that field use them, unless there is actually a problem with that terminology.
I’m reminded of why I left the discipline—it’s a historico-linguistic claptrap.
All I advocated for was the term’s speciation—which, I’ll add again, is already present in the dictionary as well as in common usage. I reject the notion that, in order to suggest this, I first need to be a philosopher by trade.
Axiology is the study of the good. It’s just confusing to name it “ethics” when there’s a perfectly good, more specific word to apply. I may write an entire post on this and similar vocabulary failures soon.
Ethics is a subfield of axiology, the study of the good life instead of the good state or something else.
That’s how Aristotle approached it; not all ethicists do.
That’s the standard conceptual hierarchy. In any case, I was talking about Aristotle. If your point is “you should have been more clear”, fair enough. Otherwise I don’t really know what we’re talking about or why I’m getting voted down.
I thought that the standard answer was “one is latin and the other is greek”.
The dictionary simply doesn’t distinguish between these terms on the basis of who they benefit. In fact it defines ethics in terms of morality in most cases.