[lit-ideas] The Ethos and the Mos
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:27:18 EST
In a message dated 2/16/2005 7:45:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> In the meantime the "Five Types of Ethical Theory" line reminds me that I
have
been trying for a few weeks to figure out how to make the distinction
between
"ethics" and "morality", or "ethical" and "moral" clear to my 13 yr
old....it's not as easy as it first feels. Any ideas?<
There's no clear distinction, really.
-----
Exactly. Only perhaps that the Greeks could conceive of one 'use' (I like
the idea of an ethos as a 'social use' -- It. uso soziale --) at a time. While
the Romans mainly regarded the thing collectively (_mores_).
But of course, ethos and mos would have gone unnoticed unless made the
qualification of a branch of philosophy: 'ethike philosophia', 'philosophia
moralis'. The latter particularly relevant in the Western World, where in
Oxford,
for example, it becomes the White Chair of Moral Philosophy (held by J. L.
Austin, R. M. Hare, among others).
I'm unaware if other prestigious universities held posts or 'chairs' in
_Ethics_ (rather than 'moral philosophy'). Mind, Oxford may even have a
"university lecturer in _ethics_" (as opposed to 'moral philosophy'), too.
One advantage of 'ethic' is that it allows you to speak of 'meta-ethic',
whereas 'meta-moral' sounds artificial and verbose.
Cheers,
JL
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] The Ethos and the Mos
