|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 7, 2021 17:25:50 GMT
Page 1
Ethics is a branch of Philosophy [inquiry etc.], which is quintessentially Greek, but as the Roman Marcus Tullius Cicero put it, whereas the Greeks have ethics (philosophy), we have jurisprudence [a field of inquiry into analogous matters, etc.) To make a simple introduction: Ethics is concerned with good and bad human actions or behaviours, wherefore the philosopher aims at understanding and distinguishing Goodness and Badness, since actions shape a man's personality or character.... Jurisprudence is concerned with right and wrong human actions in a given society/state. Ethics deal with morality and immorality; jurisprudence deals with legality and criminality or, more specifically, with what must be done and what must not be done: the philosopher seeks the knowledge of what must be and must not be done [duties, which, unlike personal morals/virtues, are socially enforceable].
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 8, 2021 16:04:21 GMT
Page 1Ethics is a branch of Philosophy [inquiry etc.], which is quintessentially Greek, but as the Roman Marcus Tullius Cicero put it, whereas the Greeks have ethics (philosophy), we have jurisprudence [a field of inquiry into analogous matters, etc.) To make a simple introduction: Ethics is concerned with good and bad human actions or behaviours, wherefore the philosopher aims at understanding and distinguishing Goodness and Badness, since actions shape a man's personality or character.... Jurisprudence is concerned with right and wrong human actions in a given society/state. Ethics deal with morality and immorality; jurisprudence deals with legality and criminality or, more specifically, with what must be done and what must not be done: the philosopher seeks the knowledge of what must be and must not be done [ duties, which, unlike personal morals/virtues, are socially enforceable]. The law is full of misleading phrases. For example, "Innocent until proven guilty." Innocence is a judgment; therefore it cannot be assumed, as the phrase implies and is used by the duped public. It should be "alleged innocent." Second, "proven" should be changed to "as determined by a jury." Even then, the accused is not innocent; he is in a neutral area of "not proven guilty." So a truth phrase would be "not punishable until determined guilty by a jury. Second, "First Offense" is a lie. It is merely the first time the accused has been caught. |
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jul 8, 2021 22:53:43 GMT
It sounds like jurisprudence is just applied ethics.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 9, 2021 19:25:02 GMT
It sounds like jurisprudence is just applied ethics. I use the term in its original sense (expressed in Justinian's Code of Roman Law): jurisprudentia scientia faciendi et nec faciendi, that is, jurisprudence is the wisdom [true knowledge] of what must and what must not be done. This knowledge was propounded by jurisprudents/philosophers who were operating in courts of law. Later on I shall explain what I consider their method to obtain such a knowledge -- No, not appealing to customs [mores] or previously established laws or some adopted philosophical system of ethics. I also don't use the term according to its current usage, namely "theory of Law (or Legislature)". // By implication, a home jurisprudent is the same as a philosopher who is discussing/investigating moral obligations/duties, the common focus being on what must or must not be done. Thus, an excursion in jurisprudence can coincide with an excursion in what Bantham called Deontology. [ continued in my next page]. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 9, 2021 20:42:38 GMT
Page 2
ETHICS and JURISPRUDENCE are two vast historical fields of doctrines/theories and (philosophical) inquiries about propriety and impropriety of specific human actions in a given society , tribe, or nation, or any society at all, wherefore we are in the realm of Ethics; or about what is optional or obligatory [what must be done] in a given society, wherefore we are in the realm of jurisprudence. Hence two types of propriety and impropriety. For example, if I borrow $ 10 from you, I oblige myself (I have the duty) to return that amount of money (and you have the right to demand or to take it -- aside from the issue whether I owe you more than returning it, or how we stipulated in a contract). Anyway, my duty was assumed voluntarily. On the other hand, if you did me a favor without my entering into a contract, I may feel gratitude and feel that I owe you something, even though you may have no expectations. In this case I have a moral (not legal) obligation, and I am not being unjust by not rendering unto you what I do not owe you to begin with. // Bentham coined the term "deontology" to refer to moral duties or an ethics of moral (not legal) duties or obligations, by using the Greek "To Deon/Deontos", which refers generally to what is proper or fitting or due. [more in a moment]
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 10, 2021 17:17:42 GMT
Page 3 or a page in my Logology Thread
Deontology (neither an ontology nor a tooth science) is used today to mean "Duty Ethics", especially "professional ethics" (like "Medical Ethics").
Deontology is a verbal noun< [from]Greek To Deon/Deontos + Logia.
Deon is the past participle of Deo, which, according to the Durell-Scott Greek-English Dictionary primarily means "to bind". The impersonal Dei = it is proper, fi tting, ... or to the Bailly Dictionnaire Grec-Francais: it's necessary (one must). Anyway, the plural "Ta Deonta" is translated as (the)Duties. The Greek Stoic Panaetius of Rhodes, who went to Athens as well as Rome, taught and wrote "About Duties" -- in his Doric dialect, that is, "Peri Kathekonda", which is < Katheko (= to be proper, fit). Later on, his follower, Cicero, wrote, in the same vein, "De Officiis" (About Duties), officium being a Task or Duty. However, in Latin, Jus [Jous] = What is Right, and Justitia takes on the meaning of "what is owed/due". In fact Justice was defined as "rendering unto each what is due to him" [unicuique suum...] So, he could have written "De Justitia", but this term is associated too closely to judicial processes. / I prefer Kathaekondology to Deontology for a general Philosophy of Duties.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 10, 2021 19:41:35 GMT
Page 3 or a page in my Logology ThreadDeontology (neither an ontology nor a tooth science) is used today to mean "Duty Ethics", especially "professional ethics" (like "Medical Ethics"). Deontology is a verbal noun< [from] Greek To Deon/Deontos + Logia. Deon is the past participle of De o, which, according to the Durell-Scott Greek-English Dictionary primarily means "to bind". The impersonal Dei = it is proper, fi tting, ... or to the Bailly Dictionnaire Grec-Francais: it's necessary (one must). Anyway, the plural "Ta Deonta" is translated as (the)Duties. The Greek Stoic Panaetius of Rhodes, who went to Athens as well as Rome, taught and wrote "About Duties" -- in his Doric dialect, that is, "Peri Kath ekonta", which is < Kath eko (= to be proper, fit). Later on, his follower, Cicero, wrote, in the same vein, "De Officiis" (About Duties), officium being a Task or Duty. However, in Latin, Jus [Jous] = What is Right, and Justitia takes on the meaning of "what is owed/due". In fact Justice was defined as "rendering unto each what is due to him" [unicuique suum...] So, he could have written "De Justitia", but this term is associated too closely to judicial processes. / I prefer Kathaekontology to Deontology for a general Philosophy of Duties. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 10, 2021 21:05:39 GMT
Page 4
Whence the English "Duty"? The Online Etymological Dictionary answers: From "duete", which is < French deu (=Due, Owed) < Devoir (= to have to; I must....) < Latin Debere, supposedly a contraction of "de (= away) + Habere (= to have)", which does not make sense, unless perhaps there was a late colloquial Latin "habere de..." (="to have to" as in Spanish and in some Southern Italian dialects ). The illustrious 19th century Tommaseo Dizionario della Lingua Italiana similarly derives "dovere" (= to have to; I must, etc.) < Lat. De+Habere, but fortunately cites also the form "Devere, since the traditional Italian in various parts of the country has both Debbo and Devo (= I have to; I must), with also the meaning "I owe" as in "ti devo $10" = I owe you $10.) ["Dovere" is also the noun that = Duty. Mazzini wrote "I doveri dell'uomo" : the duties of man, while every other republican-minded person was harping on the rights of man: I diritti dell'uomo.] As a linguist I ask, Whence Dovere or Debere? Apparently < Lat. Debere (= to have to) but this is not likely < *De+Habere. By considering the equivalence, in Latin, of B and V, and (in writing) of V and U, I surmise that Dev-[ere] can be a derivative of Greek *DEU-O, if such a word existed at all. It did; it was used by Homer and others, as lexicons attest. [Gr. Deuo = It. Devo.]
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 12, 2021 17:06:42 GMT
Page 5
Preliminary Distinctions
-- Duties may be the counterparts of Rights in contracts. They are freely assumed (hence conceived, to begin with) and are legally binding. They exist only for the persons who assume them (who choose to have them) and are as specific as they are stipulated between two parties. {If a party disputes a contract in an Anglo-American court, a judge will look at only the form of the contract and not at its substance -- whether for example it is just or unjust to have to pay the stipulated debt ("due") of $100 for the delivery home of a purchased table. Form: Was the stipulation made freely by a person with a sound mind? Was the time of the debt payment stipulated? And the like.}
-- A duty (something due) may be simply a feeling or concept that arises spontaneously in one's cosciousness, as when one feels that he should shaw gratitude for a received gift or favour. It is non-contractual and may be called a "conscience duty" or a "moral duty". (As such, it is a "natural" duty, but it does not necessarily occur in all humans.)
-- Some humans prescribe duties for others, regardlessly of the linguistic form of the prescription, as in the case, "It is a human duty not to tell lies" or, conversely, "veracity is a human duty". (Veracity is the opposite or mendacity but is not the same as truth or wisdom.)
-- Governments impose duties by edicts or laws. These may be called Civic Duties (in contradistinction to "Civil Duties", which are the counterparts ofCivil [Citizen] Rights. For instance, as a citizen of a republic I have the right of free speech and at the same the duty to respect (and even to protect) this right of any citizen. My duties toward the Republic or Collection of the citizens are generically Civic/Political as, E.G., the U.S. Constitution implies.[Congress has the right to levy taxes but also the duty to promote (not "to provide for") the general welfare of the States [...as Trump for the first time in history induced Congress to do].
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 12, 2021 20:14:06 GMT
Page 6Deontology (or Deuontology) Unavailable article. sorry; try: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/deontological_ethics"Duty, Kant, and Deontology" , a very good article, most appropriate here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609464/%C2%A0/ Kant was a prominent deontologist, who spoke of (moral) duties as "categorical imperatives" which are also called "moral imperatives [commands]." His theory is contrasted with "consequentialism" (according to which a hu,man act is moral if it is beneficial to the affected person; immoral (and must not be done) if its is harmful to the affected person). For Kant there are intrinsically good or bad actions; they, not their consequences [effects] matter to determine their ethical status. (Actually, as I see it: Man determines his acts as moral or immoral according to the conditions under which he performs them. He lists three conditions under which an act is moral. One of these conditions is: An act is proper/moral if you wish that it would become a universal law/norm of human behaviour. He takes some traditional precepts and evaluates them. To tell a lie is immoral because it would not be good for lying to become a universal law. This begs the question, as logicians an easily see.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 13, 2021 20:47:04 GMT
|
|
