Explanations of ethics and morality are unclear for me.
If I understood correctly, the context meaning of ethics and morality seems to be:
- ethics meaning is birth.
- morality meaning is death.
I have the feeling that “ethics” original etymological meaning is “birth” and “morality” original etymological meaning is “death”. Because, who could understand and respect ethics and morality if these concepts are very complicated and sophisticated and if it is needed to be at least Doctor in Philosophy to understand and respect ethics and morality. Ethics meaning is “birth”, morality meaning is “death”, any simple human and even any Doctor in Philosophy pass trough them by doing and no one escape. More than that, no one can cheat birth and death.
I think “ethics” and “morality” does not need to be learn as religion and sciences, where there are a lot of religions and a lot of sciences. Ethics and morality are natural laws meaning “birth” and “death”, that happen then when they happen. No one can cheat “ethics or birth”, no one can cheat “morality or death”, all other rules that are human made can be cheated. Ethics and morality are not human made rules, ethics and morality are natural laws, meaning birth and death. Even animals or birds or fishes or plants can have ethics and morality, meaning birth time and death time.
Otherwise, if “ethics” and “morality” would be human made rules, then between different groups of humans could happen “ethics” and “morality” conflicting rules. But that is not the case, because “ethics” means “birth” and “morality” means “death”. No one escape, poor or rich, child or old, smart or modest, all of them pass by doing “ethics as birth” and “morality as death”. No excuses, no mercy, no negotiations accepted.
What are the original etymology of words ethics and morality?
It’s very clear that the etymology of “ethics” has nothing to do with words about “birth” or with the concept of being born, and the etymology of “morality” has nothing to do with words or concepts relating to death.
The etymology of the word “etymology” does have something to do with “true” meanings of words, but the modern study of etymology does not involve any search for deeper meanings, at least not in the way you’ve suggested. Modern etymology searches for the first documented use of each word, which other languages it was borrowed from and when (or whether it was newly created), and how and why words evolve the way they do.
Words are used among people; for one person alone, words are hardly necessary. What “everyone” thinks a word means, IS what that word means. It can be tricky to figure out who “everyone” is in certain cases - for example, the two words in question might have very specific meanings among philosophers or other specialists but might have another meaning among the general public - but I can say with certainty that the “birth” and “death” interpretations are shared by so few people, and are so foreign to the ordinary meanings of the words, that it’s safe to say they’re false. They’re arbitrary invented meanings that don’t serve a useful purpose, because anyone who wants to talk about birth or death can simply do so.
Interpretations of words are questionable when they don’t match the opinion of the vast majority of the people who know the word. When they don’t even match the opinion of a very significant minority, they’re simply not valid.
I think “ethics” meaning is “birth” or beginning.
I think “morality” meaning is “death” or end.
Therefore, any beginning has its own end, any deed has its own reward, meaning the way we choose at the beginning to action has its own consequences how that action will end: ethics and morality.
This perspective is clearly described by proverbs and fables, also a lot of wise fairy tale expressing the conclusions as consequences of acting actions: beginning and end, ethics and morality.
This is my feeling regarding these words tandem: ethics and morality, beginning and end, respectively.
Thank You, David.
Your implication is very welcome.
Have a nice day everyday.
Best regards and happy wishes to You, from Vitalie.
Glad to hear Your opinion regarding.
Your personal definition of those words is complete nonsense. They both can refer to beginnings, endings, and everything in between. If I start saying that “shoe” really means “river”, it won’t help anything, it won’t educate anyone, and it won’t turn my shoes into long narrow bodies of water. And more importantly, no one will believe me and no one will think differently about shoes. Your situation with these two words is the same kind of thing - what you’ve said you believe about them is irrelevant, because it’s not what they mean at all.
It’s also not related to etymology. The thing you’re discussing might have more to do with philosophy, so if you want to get useful feedback for it you should probably talk to philosophers, not language people.
Dear and lovely wise and esteemed friend, David.
These are my feelings regarding the primitive etymological senses of words ethics and morality.
Dear David, You have a very wise name “David”.
My interpretation of Your name is as follow.
David from my point of view of interpretation is Cosmic Void or Nothing or Zero, therefore Your name means the Absolute Knowledge that The Whole and Entire Universe can encompass.
Let me show that by the following dialog example.
- What is God meaning and how wide is Zero?
- God meaning is Zero and Zero is infinitely wide as wide as The Universe is
and Zero is The Interstellar Space that is the foundation of The Universe and keeps all The Celestial Bodies.
Therefore, Christians Gods is Jesus Christ having meaning of incarnation of Logos or the senses and meaning of any Word.
More than that, from my point of view, Virgin Mary means Nature: Earth planet, Stars, Sun, Moon, interstellar space, all of these is Nature.
That is my own interpretations of meanings.
Dear David, please forgive me if my interpretations make You upset.
That was not my intention.
You’re very far off topic, and you haven’t written anything that makes sense.
Even so, dear David, Thank You.
Your name “David”, for me is a remember of Absolute Knowledge that The Whole and Entire infinitely wide Universe can encompass.
Thank You, David.
What is the relation between Squaring the Circle, IT, Absolute Knowledge, Lapis Philosophorum,
Semiconductors and Digital Integrated Circuits, Minerva, Zeus, God and Zero?
Squaring the Circle problem is hypostase of Absolute Knowledge represented by Minerva or Athena, Goddess of Wisdom, that have equilibrium geometric path mathematical relation between square and circle same area and same perimeter, where Circle is 0 as false state, meaning life, dynamics, instability, ethics, and Square is 1 as true state, meaning death, statics, stability, morality, where 0 and 1 is logic behind Boolean Algebra of Digital Integrated Circuits with Semiconductors having ancient naming as Lapis Philosophorum. God meaning is Zero and Zero is infinitely wide as wide as the universe is and zero is the interstellar space that is the foundation of the universe and keeps all the celestial bodies. God meaning as Zero that encompass the whole and entire universe Absolute Knowledge. From Absolute Knowledge of view, ethics and morality meaning is birth as beginning and death as end, 0 and 1, false and true state respectively. Zeus is seen as electricity that pass trough all electronic circuits.
Image representing Squaring the Circle problem as Minerva or Athena, Goddess of Wisdom