But I can see no relation other than through morality that they could be linked. — Sir2u

Of course through morality; or rather, through moral judgement. Emotions are essential, and diminished emotional processing or reactivity, as in, for example, psychopaths, has been shown to have an adverse - or anomalous, at least - effect on moral judgement.

Of course through morality; or rather, through moral judgement. Emotions are essential, and diminished emotional processing or reactivity, as in, for example, psychopaths, has been shown to have an adverse effect on moral judgement. — Sapientia

The key words here are emotions and morality. I still don't understand how ethics comes into the deal.
would it be to much to ask for an example? Thank you in advance.

Maybe that's because of your preconceptions about what morality and ethics are. But I don't know. I'm not a mind reader.

Ethics deals with morality and moral judgement, yes? If we can agree on that, then what's your problem, exactly? Or do you go by a different conception?

You want an example? Pick any moral dilemma featuring ‘personal’ (i.e. involving direct physical harm) or ‘impersonal’ (i.e. involving indirect or remote harm) actions.

I don't know why I'm even humouring you. The role of emotions ought to be obvious to anyone who has given it the slightest thought. Empathy? Guilt? Shame? Approval? Disapproval? Outrage? The feeling of justice or injustice? These don't strike you as relevant?

Ethics deals with morality and moral judgement, yes? — Sapientia

No, ethics is the philosophical study of morality and moral judgement. Tiny difference but not the same as dealing with.

You want an example? Pick any moral dilemma featuring ‘personal’ (i.e. involving direct physical harm) or ‘impersonal’ (i.e. involving indirect or remote harm) actions. — Sapientia

OK. My dog cannot move to my new house with me. I have only 2 options.
Leave it with the guy next door who just lost his dog to starvation or have it put down because there is no pet sanctuary to leave him in.

How does ethics come into the situation?

I don't know why I'm even humouring you. — Sapientia

Oh dear, have I done something to upset you. My most sincere apologizes.

The role of emotions ought to be obvious to anyone who has given it the slightest thought. Empathy? Guilt? Shame? Approval? Disapproval? Outrage? The feeling of justice or injustice?

These don't strike you as relevant? — Sapientia

No. In ethics it would be useless.

No, ethics is the philosophical study of morality and moral judgement. Tiny difference but not the same as dealing with. — Sir2u

:roll:

OK. My dog cannot move to my new house with me. I have only 2 options.
Leave it with the guy next door who just lost his dog to starvation or have it put down because there is no pet sanctuary to leave him in.

How does ethics come into the situation? — Sir2u

Any moral dilemma comes under the umbrella of ethics. Your question doesn't really make sense, or the answer is obvious, or you're making some pedantic point based on wording which I'm not interested in pursuing. Not entirely sure which it is, but I don't really care, as none of those options seem productive.

No. In ethics it would be useless. — Sir2u

And we're back to square one: absurdity and denial. The very foundation of moral judgement is useless now, is it? Okie dokie.

How do you define ethics?

Any moral dilemma comes under the umbrella of ethics. — Sapientia

I asked a simple question, how does ethics come into the situation.

I am not being pedantic, I am truly interested in what you think.

How do you define ethics? — Sir2u

Like you do, only my definition is more broad. We've literally just been over this. I think a more encompassing definition works better than one such as yours which only takes into consideration academic study. Ethics is more than that. It deals with matters relating to ethics: morality, moral judgement, moral agency, moral dilemmas, right, wrong, actions, intentions, consequences, and all the rest.

I asked a simple question, how does ethics come into the situation. — Sir2u

Too simple. I addressed your question, as worded. Repeating it isn't very helpful. Clarify your meaning, instead. What exactly are you asking me? Are you asking me something silly, like, at what point does a student enter the scenario and begin to take notes? It's an ethical situation to begin with - all moral dilemmas are. So I don't understand your question. How does ethics come into an ethical situation??? :confused:

Like you do, only my definition is more broad. We've literally just been over this. I think a more encompassing definition works better than one such as yours which only takes into consideration academic study. Ethics is more than that. It deals with matters relating to ethics: morality, moral judgement, moral agency, moral dilemmas, right, wrong, actions, intentions, consequences, and all the rest. — Sapientia

I think I see the problem here.

The Chambers English Dictionary (1998 edition) highlights important distinctions between ethics and morals:
Ethics
The science of morals, that branch of philosophy which is concerned with human character and conduct: a system of morals, rules of behaviour: a treatise on morals.

Moral
Of or relating to character or conduct considered as good or evil: ethical: conformed to or directed towards right, virtuous: esp. virtuous in matters of sex: capable of knowing right and wrong: subject to the moral law.

Morality
Quality of being moral: that which renders an action right or wrong: the practice of moral duties apart from religion: virtue: the doctrine of actions as right or wrong.

Ethics can also be counted in everyday use as a guiding principle as to decide what is good or bad. They are the standards which govern the life of a person such as a doctor or lawyer.

It's an ethical situation to begin with - all moral dilemmas are. — Sapientia

The situation I described is a moral dilemma, not an ethical situation.

The situation I described is a moral dilemma, not an ethical situation. — Sir2u

A moral dilemma is an ethical situation. At least in accordance with my use of those terms. And I doubt that I'm alone in using them that way. In fact, as I've just verified, googling "ethical" brings up definitions in line with my interpretation, so I know that I'm not just being idiosyncratic here. Language is more flexible than the dictates of your Chambers English Dictionary (1998 edition).

Language is more flexible than the dictates of your Chambers English Dictionary (1998 edition). — Sapientia

In everyday use, I would quite agree with you. But on a philosophy forum, I don't. And it is not my dictionary by the way, I have no idea who owns it either.

The study of ethics is about what is good and what is evil, it is a rational not an emotional activity.

People react to moral situations emotional most of the time.
People react to ethical dilemmas by analyzing it in the light of good or bad.

Not the same thing.

The study of ethics is about what is good and what is evil, it is a rational not an emotional activity. — Sir2u

No, it's both. You can't truly understand or learn about what is good and what is bad without that vital emotional connection. It would be like trying to learn about taste without ever having experienced it.

People react to moral situations emotional most of the time.
People react to ethical dilemmas by analyzing it in the light of good or bad. — Sir2u

And no proper analysis can exclude emotion. Ethics is not like algebra. Not the same thing.

OK, whatever you say.

Let there be no doubt.Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naïve that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naïve." — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The slippery slope has taken another slide down in regards to the 2nd ammendment right by Deerfield, IL banning assult rifles. It will lay out for all who have suggested the USA simply do what Austrailia has done and witness the utopia that will ensue for our society at large.

No, they won't be taken by force but rather the government will bleed you dry financially instead. So law abiding gun owners, will be mandated to turn in their legally registered firearm by June 13th, 2018 or face a finacnial penalty. Seems fair right?

Maybe I will be proven wrong. Maybe the retired folks of Naperville wil be standing next to the MS13 members, in line at the city court, turning in their unregistered, never to be traced firearms. Time will tell. Time will also show the drastic reduction in the homicide rate in Chicago by confiscating the good guys guns.

First of all, it's only assault weapons, which are a bloody menace and should all be put in a pile and burnt anyway seeing as you are incapable of keeping them in the hands of people who are going to use them responsible. Second of all, it's one town. Kudos to them for standing up for common sense and decency.

First of all, it's only assault weapons, — Baden

I said assault rifles and hey it's only a slight infringement on our 2nd right.

Second of all, it's one town. Kudos to them for standing up for common sense and decency. — Baden

Following that reason then it would be okay for one town to slightly infringe upon our 1st Right to say the word "God" in public.

It's your perverse interpretation of the right that's the issue. You don't have the right to bear any arms you want otherwise you would have the right to bear machine guns and bazookas etc. Are you complaining about not having the right to a machine gun. Is that an infringement on your 2nd amendment right?

I mean, aren't normal rifles and regular guns enough for you? You manage to kill each other already in huge numbers just with those.

All this whining about rights. How about the right to walk down the street without the possibility of some lunatic with an AR15 coming the other way at you? :vomit:

First of all, it's only assault weapons, — Baden

Can you acknowledge that it is an infringement?

No, it's not at all for the reasons I gave above. Now answer my question. Is it an infringement that you cannot own a machine gun or a bazooka? Would you like those in the hands of the general public too?

"The right to bear arms" does not equal "The right to bear every kind of arms" = No infringement whatsoever.

No, it's not at all for the reasons I gave above. — Baden

The firearm was and will continue to be legally registered with private citizens in the state of IL until June 13, 2018. How is possessing the same firearm on June 14th suddenly illegal?

Because there is a change to a law, which is an infringment on the persons rights that existed on June 13th, 2018.

Why is that so hard to acknowledge?

Is it an infringement that you cannot own a machine gun or a bazooka? Would you like those in the hands of the general public too? — Baden

How about the right to walk down the street without the possibility of some lunatic with an AR15 coming the other way at you? — Baden

Is it a diagnosed "lunatic"? Because if it is, then there are laws in place that says they cannot legally own a firearm, though I am not sure what the clinical definition of a "lunatic" is.

Is it an infringement that you cannot own a machine gun or a bazooka? Would you like those in the hands of the general public too? — Baden

What I would "like" and what the reality is are two very different things. If you are legally able to own a machine gun or a bazooka, who am I to make it illegal? I am a registered voter and it would be there that I would have to make my feelings on that known.

American's are pretty logical people as a whole and as citizens, we would rather our Peace Officers be able to meet a "lunatic" with eqaul or overwhelming force in an altercation.

Just answer the question, please. Is it an infringment on your 2nd amendment right that you can't?

(And stop conflating legal and states' rights with constitutional rights. The legal rules change over time and from state to state, obviously. The 2nd amendment hasn't changed since it was introduced and that's what we are talking about.)

The slippery slope has taken another slide down in regards to the 2nd ammendment right by Deerfield, — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Just answer the question, please. Is it an infringment on your 2nd amendment right that you can't? — Baden

How do I answer this? My 2nd amendment right was taken away from me, on a Federal Level, as a private citizen, remember?

Oh common, dude...Is it an infringement of 2nd amendment rights in general?

(That you Americans, not just you personally, cannot legally purchase a machine gun, bazooka etc. You know what I mean, Tiff. It's a simple question.)

Is it an infringement of 2nd amendment rights in general? — Baden

On it's face, no.
But you have to understand that I never saw my 2nd amendment right being taken away the first time.