ISIS' behaviour does represent what their version of Islam commands. It does not represent the version of Islam that the majority of Muslims adhere to. That's an important difference that bears itself out in the discordant ethical messages they produce. ISIS may be of the view that innocents should not be killed, but they obviously differ radically on who they consider "innocent" and what "crimes" are worthy of death.
[FONT="]Just like the IRA. They twist meanings with hatred and bigotry and claim it in the name of God. There is no moral value here. There is only a hated and criminal value. Hitler justified his actions; Charles Mason justified his beliefs and action and even convinced others that he was a prophet and got them to kill in his name on behalf of God. Many killers think they are justified and have reasons they think are right in why they kill. All this doesn't mean its moral. Morals are something that represent a good and decent behavior and can be determined by the actions they produce.
With the way of thinking you are using for [/FONT][FONT="]ISIS[/FONT][FONT="] you could just about justify anything and turn it into a moral. I think you have to take a step back and see the difference in their behavior. The type of justification and compromise that some use against the moral isn't one to promote evil or bad things. They are allowing a woman to have an abortion because her life may be at risk. This is a good compromise against a good moral which is all about making life precious and valuable against the act of killing. What [/FONT][FONT="]ISIS[/FONT][FONT="] done can be seen just as clearly as Charlie Masons actions as being callous, cruel and evil even if they say its in the name of religion. It doesn't preserve life as precious and valuable it treats life as nothing so it is not a justification against the moral value that life is precious and valuable.
[/FONT]
That's not evidence. That's an appeal to the majority, a fallacy.
The second piece of evidence is no different to the first. It's an appeal to the majority.
[FONT="]No its more than the majority. We have a type of behavior that can also tell us what they are like. One talks about volume the other talks about quality. Two different things. How do they judge a politician to be voted by a majority into government? By the way they act and even the things they say. But how do they begin to dislike them when they lose popularity. When they dont do what they say. So actions are one of the best ways we can tell whats really going on. Not by what they say but by what they do. As they say actions speak louder than words. Sooner of later you have to acknowledge that the majoritys actions are in tune with what is right.
[/FONT]
You've appealed to what the majority believe and how the majority act as evidence that the majority view is correct. Both appeals are
fallacious.
[FONT="]So how else do with judge things. If most people do it that alone doesn't prove it. But if the most people who are doing it are also showing that they are living a better life that the small groups who are not which group would you want to be aligned to or trust. I agree with the idea that just because the majority of people do it doesn't mean its the right thing. But when we are talking about a type of behavior cant we also judge the type of behavior and see which one seems to be closest to way we are trying to assess which is the moral that life is valuable and precious.[/FONT]
For the purposes of this discussion I'm not making a distinction between 'morals' and 'ethics.' The only distinction I make here is between 'values' and 'morals' or 'ethics.' 'Values' express the view that a certain feature of the world is valuable (e.g., justice). However, values do not, on their own, provide us with an immediate and clear answer to ethically charged questions, such as those surrounding abortion or capital punishment. People on either side of those issues will claim to value life, while still disagreeing over the ethics. I could go into further detail here (I once wrote an essay on the topic), but I don't think it's necessary for present purposes.
Ok I have got a definition of the difference between ethics and morals.
The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a persons moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.
What is the Difference Between Ethics and Morals?
So though they are closely related there a slight differences. Ethics are related to the system that each of us are subject to and we may not always agree with that system morally. So if we are working for a care service organization and a person comes fro help who is someone who has done something like abused his kids we still have to help him even though our personal morals may find that person to be immoral and horrible. So the ethical standards the organization has about equal access no matter what and who a person is over ride my personal morals. As I work in the care services industry I come across this all the time. I may morally disagree with many people who walk in through the front doors but I still have to give them the same amount of quality care as anyone else and put aside my personal moral beliefs. But this is not about morals its about standards that are set in a society or organization and wont go into personal beliefs.
* Values are our fundamental beliefs.
So it seems values the principles we use to define what is right, good and just. Values provide guidance as we determine the right versus the wrong, the good versus the bad. They are our standards. Consider the word evaluate. When we evaluate something we compare it to a standard. We determine whether it meets that standard or falls short, comes close or far exceeds. To evaluate is to determine the merit of a thing or an action as compared to a standard. Typical values include honesty, integrity, compassion, courage, honor, responsibility, patriotism, respect and fairness.
* Morals are values which we attribute to a system of beliefs
By that definition one could categorize the values listed above (honesty, integrity, compassion
) as moral values - values derived from a higher authority. That is a convenient way to differentiate them from what are often called utilitarian or business values, such as excellence, quality, safety, service, which define some elements of right and good in a business context.
* Ethics is about our actions and decisions.
Actually, steve, there are pro-choice Christians:
Yes and do you know what pro choice means. It doesn't mean they have abandoned the moral standard that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill. They have simply well not really simply. But they have maintained the moral value that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill but have also allowed people to make up their own minds about it. This position doesnt make any statemnets about what is right or wrong morally. Its just recognizing the rights of a person to make the choice about their own situation. So they are leaving it up to the individuals own conscience.
About | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice
http://rcrc.org/homepage/about/
[FONT="]But the ethical standards wont be what they moral standards are. Ethics can allow things that may be immoral to some within a system or organizations ethics.
[/FONT]
But it's a different stand on abortion. In one case, it is claimed that abortion is wrong, no matter what the circumstances. In the other, the position on abortion is much more nuanced, permitting it under certain circumstances. That's the point, steve - they are different positions.
[FONT="]Yes But even the ones that are allowing abortion are not standing on any moral ground to do so. That is not their moral position. Thats because they dont regard abortion as taking a life in the first place. So there's no moral standard to answer to. Now they may be in denial about what the truth is about abortion and whether it is taking a life. But if they allow abortion in any situation and that includes after the time when most thing that an embryo becomes life then they must thing that an embryo is never life. If they did think it was life then they are ending a life. So they are not changing the basic moral here that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill it because they have never thought it was life in the first place.
So in fact they still also believe in the moral standard that life is valuable. But then its another debate to determine if they are correct or not because their belief may be in correct. But even pro choice doesnt change the moral value. They still believe life is valuable as the moral standard but will leave it up to the individual to decide. They still have certain moral beliefs about whether abortion is right or wrong but they are allowing people to make up their own minds on the matter because they also think the right to choose is important. Now whether the right to choose is something that should override the morals of a situation is another matter. Some say it shouldn't be a choice for the mother because we are dealing with protecting another life that has a right and thats the embryo. Thats because they believe that the embryo is still life.
So as you can see it can get complicated. But all this still doesnt change the basic moral standard that life is valuable and people shouldnt take a life. These are all differences, reasons and value judgments within that moral standard that can be different for people and organizations to decide. But none of them are ever changing the moral standard that life is valuable. I think thats where people get mixed up. They think because of all these differences in the reasons and differences with what allows someone to do something as an exception or compromise that they are actually changing their morals as well. But they are not.
[/FONT]
But it is a different stance, steve. You have all but admitted that.
[FONT="]No I havent. Its not a different stance as far as their moral standard is concerned. They all still believe in the moral standard that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill or take a life unless there is a very good reason or exception. But that reason or exception doesn't change their stance. It only makes exceptions within their stance. It only allows a small number to do it for very good reasons. But they are not budging on their stance about life being valuable.
[/FONT]
Which again means that they disagree on the ethics of abortion, as I noted in my previous post. They may share the same or similar values, in that they will claim to value life, but they differ on the ethics of abortion. Recall that, as I said earlier, values on their own do not provide us with an immediate and clear answer to ethical questions. People with similar values may nonetheless hold differing ethical views.
Yes and ethics are different to morals. I dont know why you have now changed it to ethics as this is a different meaning altogether. Ethics are not really religious in nature and can be any standard of conduct in industry, at work, in legislation ECT which dont involve morals.