This is gonna be rather off the mark, but...
Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, having the lessening of evil or harm as its goal, and including what are commonly known as the moral rules, moral ideals, and moral virtues.
Ethics is the philosophical study of morality. It is divided into the general study of goodness, the general study of right action, applied ethics, descriptive ethics, metaethics, moral psychology, the metaphysics of moral responsibility, etc.
The former is the latter's subject matter. - Wolfman
I sort of felt compelled to post this definition and distinction.
It might be me, but I can't help but feel that these 'ethical systems or ways of living' are less particulars and more generalization, where the morality involved may or may not reflect the system or way of life on a consistent basis.
Indeed I find that such ethical systems or ways of life are founded upon reasoning, but I do not think that such ethical systems or ways of life are anymore than a set of 'guidelines' for actions and are not really the actions themselves.
With the ethical systems and ways of life being guidelines, this allows degrees of freedom within as variables not covered in the basic concepts present themselves. This allows adaptation and refinement of ethical reasoning, via moral application. Also, it does not 'disinclude' errors or what happen to be seemingly contradiction, as these would play a role in the adaption and refinement of an ethical systems as a guideline.
But isn't this whole approach founded on the assumption that a valuable life is a life in which suffering is minimised and joy is maximised? — Agustino
Well... isn't the assumption of value regarding what is suffering or joy relative to the context in which this vale is being fielded?
A rather trivial example of this would be eating food you like the taste of, in that how much is too much.
Indeed if you like that taste, it is a joy, but if you have to eat 20 times the normal amount then it is suffering. Depending upon if you are more or less hungry the amount of food intact of this tasty food would dictate where the line is between joy and suffering. Oh... and what if you happen to have another value in play... say weight loss? Indeed the food might grant pleasure in it's taste and this being part of the good life, but it is often amazing just how much of the good life can simply stick to your bones; thus not such a good thing in the context of weight loss.
Here's the fun bit when addressing ethical systems and ways of life... what is the context of intention and the specific standard of measure to decide of something if indeed good or bad or better or worse?
Personally I feel most all of these ethical systems and ways of life have a great deal to offer in possible structure to field a value notion, but they are simply the 'blue prints' and not the actual structure being built.
Perhaps these systems and ways of life offer up a logical and reasonable structure, but as unknown variables enter the picture, we are sort of force to 'think on our feet while running'; thus the logic and reasoning being adapted or even possibly ignored at times.
Let me know if any of this makes sense.
I suppose my rant in short form is that ethical systems and ways of life are 'blue print structures' founded upon logic and reasoning and moral action is based upon these systems, but is not always consistent with them as there are just too many unknown variables that alter the best intentions and plans.
I kind of got lost on the way to this point and I'm not too sure that's what I really mean either. Maybe you can fix it for me.
:D
Meow!
GREG