Hi Ketil, and hi everybody,

Offhand, I've always felt that morality was the broader of the two
concepts, ethics somewhat narrower.  Perhaps this is what Deleuze is
saying.  Ethics is also commonly thought of as an almost casuistical
enterprise of determining right from wrong, whereas again morality seems
broader--not necessarily a rational or deliberative process per se.  Maybe
this is what you sense between the edifying and systematic distinction . .
.  Interestingly, I think that Rorty's discussion could be related to
Vanessa's post on ecofeminism--much of Plumwood's work, for example, is
"anti-rationalist," which is to say (in Rortyean terms) anti-systematic or
anti-normal (?).  Mason's book here is helpful  as well for its discussion
of myth, metaphor, and poetry as legitimate philosophical tools of indirect
communication--standard stuff in some forms of feminist epistemology.
Mason also has a very interesting section on Spinoza you might be
interested in--you're right about the "systematic" comment--Mason refers to
him as an ascetic Aristotle.  :-)  Anyway, very glad to see you on the
list, and Vanessa as well.  Look forward to reading your posts in the
future,
Jim

>Bryan wrote:
>
>>    However, I think that politics and morality are not so different.
>Morality
>>(though not ethics) is the popular code or belief system that a society
>agrees
>>to and dictates what is to be discouraged and encouraged. Ethics is a
>different
>>matter, though many often confuse the two.
>
>
>I find this interesting....Exactly how is ethics "a different matter" from
>morality?  There is an area of philosophy called 'moral philosophy' and
>there is also this thing called 'ethics'.  We do 'Environmental Ethics', but
>why not 'Environmental Moral Philosophy'?
>
>One thought on this difference comes from Gilles Deleuze.  In SPINOZA:
>PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY, he writes:
>
>"In this way, Ethics, which is to say, a typology of immanent modes of
>existence, replaces Morality, which always refers existence to transcendent
>values....The opposition of values (Good-Evil) is supplanted by the
>qualitative difference of modes of existence (good-bad).
>"It is easy, however, to separate the two domains--that of the eternal
>truths of Nature and that of the moral laws of institutions....
>"There is, then, a philosophy of 'life' in Spinoza; it consists precisely in
>denouncing all that separates us from life....Life is poisoned by the
>categories of Good and Evil...."
>(pp. 23, 24, 26).
>
>Sounds very Nietzschian, doesn't it?  In short, what he is saying is that
>ethics is immanent/part of nature (that is, in the world)--it refers to the
>interaction of things/bodies/organisms (what he calls 'modes oof existence),
>while morality is something transcendent (that is, 'above' this world),
>something that separates us from life (separates us from nature, maybe??).
>He seems to think of morality as a kind of instiution.  This is interesting
>in light of Bryan's comment that politics and morality are "not so
>different".
>
>>    Politics, in a sense, seems related to morality and morality seems
>related
>>to politics. Both involve popular agreement. While politics focuses on the
>>relationships between social units, morality seeks to guide those units
>based on
>>past agreement (perhaps past political agreement).
>
>
>The view that morality involves popular agreement is not uncontroversial.
>Though I tend to agree, many 'systematic philosophers' would not.  Kant, for
>example, would probably say that a moral law  is a moral law regardless of
>popular opinion.  I wonder if the discussion of the difference between
>ethics and morality is somehow related to Jim T.'s discussion of 'edifying'
>and 'systematic' philosophy.  (Interestingly, Spinoza is perhaps the most
>systematic philosopher ever.  However, Deleuze is not).   Again, why is EE
>an ethics and not a morality?  Does it have anything to do with its
>"boundary status"?  Or is it because our subject matter is "nature", and in
>nature there is only ethics and no morals?  Any thoughts on this would be
>greatly appreciated.
>
>Ketil Rogn



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%