On May 30, 2:35 am, "
[email protected]" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 29, 12:43 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > A few years ago my wife was asked to review a new book that had just
> > been published on a topic related to her field. Part way through the
> > first chapter, she read a sentence that sounded familiar. The next
> > sentence, too. She went to her file cabinet, pulled out an article
> > she'd written a few years before and started comparing sentence after
> > sentence, paragraph after paragraph, page after page. The guy who was
> > the nominal author of that chapter was shocked, shocked to discover
> > this and said he, too, was a victim. He'd trusted that the stuff he'd
> > taken from his research assistant was original.
>
> Once at a research conference I had a lively BS session
> (while studying the procedures of LIVEDRUNK)
> with some of my friends...
Okay, well that explains it.
> ... about the difference between
> "ethical" and "moral." You can likely figure it out;
> loosely, one idea is that ethics are a set of accepted
> practices (possibly in a specific field) while morals
> are guiding principles, Ten Commandments-type stuff.
That's okay, I suppose -- especially if someone knows your
distinctions when speaking to you. I reckon many people won't if you
don't tell them. The definitions I've seen published make the two
essentially synonymous. I've had my own *weak* distinction, but it is
nothing like your's.
> Is doping in bike racing unethical or amoral? Who the
> hell knows?
Prima facie, it is unethical to dope under the current rules. If you
agree in participating that you will not break the rules against
doping, then you should not break the rules.
There are situations when lying is acceptable: telling a robber you
don't have any more money when you do not is not immoral/unethical.
There is no duty to tell the barbarian inside the gates the truth, or
to aid them in any way.