### Preamble

Please be aware that this work is still in progress and some paragraphs may be incomplete or missing content.

It's important to note that while this work aims to provide a global and objective perspective, the authors may inadvertently introduce cognitive biases influenced by their upbringing and environment.

Exploring a complex subject such as Ethics necessitates the construction of a comprehensive "spatio-temporal" and semantic map. In the paragraphs that follow, we will endeavor to undertake this task with humility and thoroughness.

------
# Index of Contents

- [Intro](#intro)
- [ Ethics and Morals](#ethics-and-morals) (origin and semantic)
- [Global Ethics](#global-ethics) (CE period)
- [On Quality and Quantity](#on-quality-and-quantity)
- [Teleology and Deontology](teleology-and-deontology)
- [Once upon a time](#once-upon-a-time) (roughly the BCE period, for references )
-
### Intro

The distinction between ethics and morals is often described as the difference between an inner voice (ethics) and outer voices (morals). This concept will be covered in the text [below](#ethics-and-morals).

We will delve into the intricate process that shapes individual traits and behaviors, exploring the complex values beyond their historical origins.

Ethics involves our interactions with others and is not solely confined to individual thoughts and actions. It is a complex interplay of moral principles, values, and decision-making within the framework of our relationships and connections with the world around us. Considering ethics as purely intrapersonal fails to capture the intricacies and dynamics of ethical behavior in a social context.

In this regard, self-help literature might not directly refer to ethics, nevertheless, the consciousness of our qualities, capacities, and limitations paves the way for a good [Self](https://github.com/encosianima/integral-developing/blob/master/Ego.md), able to share complex values.

The theory of values ([Axiology](https://www.valentinamesseri.eu/wordpress/2016/09/24/theory-of-values-in-a-nutshell/)) positioned near Ethics, aims to define behaviors and norms to be followed, as well as how these norms are established. Values regulate and coordinate human actions, providing a measure for evaluating one's actions and the actions of others. Individuals acquire their concepts of values not from birth or genetically, but as a result of their involvement in society with its specific settings.

### Ethics and Morals

ἦθος (ethos) original meaning is *accostumed place*, in fact, term ethos defines all customs representing the spirit of a given society. Both terms Ethics and Morals origin point to the same word **ethos**, which holds, in ancient Greek, two different meanings, depending on accent *é* or *ê*:

* **éthos** as the *Habits* acquired.

* **êthos** as the intrinsic *Characters* of each one.

In the present day, *ethos* is translated as *The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement*, terms such as ethology or ethics stem from it.

We find *éthos* and *êthos* equally represented in *Quintiliano* (1st century CE), following Aristotelic tradition in which *Habits* are developed through *Acting*, and a person's character is made of *Habits* formed by what that person does.

Finally, when translating the concept to Latin, two new terms were coined:
* for *éthos (Habits)* it was *mos, moris*, by **Cicero** ("De Fato," II.i), from which derives *moràlia* and modern **Morals**.
* while *êthos* (*Characters*) was maintained and a brand new word, *Ethica* was created with the same acception of modern **Ethics**.

Ethics, derived from the Greek word "ethos" meaning "characteristics," is a branch of philosophy that encompasses a practical approach to various aspects of human life, including law, politics, economics, and aesthetics. It is primarily focused on defining the principles of good and bad conduct and delves into the moral duties that individuals may have as part of the human experience.

Morals, originate from the Latin term "mos" or "mores," which was derived from the Greek word "ethos," meaning "habits." Morals refer to the codes of conduct that individuals adopt based on their culture and social groups. These guidelines help people distinguish between right and wrong and govern their behaviour in various situations. Morals are shaped by a combination of cultural, religious, and societal influences and play a significant role in shaping individual and collective behaviour.

Although often Ethics and Morals are used as synonyms, they are not, because the first refers to **attitudes** derived by **characters**. while the other point to **Actions** derived from **habits**
In other words:
* Ethics refers directly to good or bad, not related to actions or doing, but related to the **being with realm**.
* Morals, as the setting up of laws or norms to filter actions as being good or bad, belongs to the **doing realm**.

The widespread use of Laws and Codes in subsequent moral systems, both religious and secular, focused on prescribing **actions**, nevertheless, those actions might collide with those **attitudes** with whom Ethics is made off.

Compared to attitudes, actions may have a secondary role, as an off-chance, especially if they're expected to work as standalone, and not supported by principles, which attitudes promote. Morals are, therefore, a possibility to put in common ethical principles for a common living, with the conditions to get along well with our own intrinsic Ethics.

Ethics focuses on the human being's sense of existence, on the profound ethical-existential meaning of life, of each individual and the universe all around. When associated with the community, ethics defines the common moral any individual should be guided by.

The term Morals, on the other hand, stands for norm-directed conduct, the guidance according to which human beings should act. Morality studies the relationship between behaviour, values and ultimately the community.

## Global Ethics

Although cultures have always intermingled, think of the [Silk Road](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road), since the 20th century knowledge has been globally accessible, documents translated and movement intensified., so that in many authors' thoughts as a result of growing mutual interest between cultures.

Bas
A point on which Western and Eastern traditions may differ is; *being-in-itself* (focused on individuals in the west) and *being as part of* (focus on family/group in the east).

A further point could be the links with religion, with whom Eastern philosophies show a close bond; elements of the various Eastern philosophies may differ from each other, yet they all share a specific *Immanent* vision of God and the cosmos. In the West, the conception of God is *Transcendent* (and religion do not represented a concern across all philosophies).

* The **Transcendence** approach holds that God is completely separate from the finite world in which we live. Nature and human beings are external objects that God creates, not part of God himself. The Western religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam typically describe God in this way.
* In the **Immanence** approach God is not external to the cosmos, a view called *Pantheism*, a term that means all-God. To communicate with God, I look inside myself in a mystical experience. Eastern religious traditions, in general, gravitate towards this pantheistic notion of God.

We may argue that eastern philosophy is steeped in wisdom and mysticism, while western philosophy has an individualistic and liberal, strong component. We can therefore see a way forward that combines the goals of Eastern philosophy and the means used by Western philosophy.

- Krishnamurti 1895-1986

- Anna Arendt 1906-1975

![BruceTao](https://bruceleefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/coresymbol-300x296.png "BruceTao" =200x200)
- Bruce Lee
[The Tao]() represents Yin (darkness) and Yang (purity), the two cultures must be in perfect balance. It shows the path for the search of a happy, moral and wise life, based on the rational method of investigating human nature, and on dialogue with others as an opportunity for growth for each individual.

- Martha Nussbaum 1947 -

- Vandana Shiva 1952 -

### On Quality and Quantity
(as the outcome of early east/west comparisons)

The diatribe on *being* and *having* takes centre stage, in the west, from the 20th century onwards, identifying *having* as a common feature of consumerist societies. ^{[1](#myfootnote1)}. A huge contra culture movement looked at intimistic orient (beat/hippy, new age/hipster) wearing long hair and beards and embracing Buddhism and Yoga Philos.
Among others who tried to synthesize west/east tradition, Pirsig explored the possibility of a Metaphysic of Quality.

Following above lines allows us to identify two distinct modes of Ethics:
* The Quantitative point of view prioritizes quantity, related to attitudes such as to Have or to Achieve, to Win and Dominate. It's motivated by personal interest; ambition is one of the outcomes produced, 'others' became competitors: the main goal becomes personal Success, a tailored-to-your-needs life.
* The Qualitative point of view prioritises quality, represented by attitudes such as to Be or to Learn, to Give and Receive. It's motivated by shared Values and generates high aspirations, 'others' became fellow travellers; the main goal is a Fair life. Qualitative became extremely fashionable starting from the 19th century, many societies sprung around in EU and US, one of this, the theosophist, thanks to whom Krishnamurti could flour.

The condition of Quality over Quantity, Personal Success functional to Shared Values, lead to Attitudes, Actions and Results (Success) that benefit the most ^{[2](#myfootnote2)}, as long as Shared Values are prioritised over Personal Necessity and Success (seen as accessory goals).
This condition produces Commitment; committed people tend to carry out tasks with dedication and although Positive Values can hardly be imposed, they sort of spread among humans equally committed.

The condition of Quantity over Quality, Personal Success functional to Personal Values, both Attitudes and Actions are a mere expression of Selfishness and Result may prove detrimental to the majority. Here it is crucial to understand how much Values are placed in common because the social contract foresees giving up part of personal for the collective, in case our personal values don't match the common ones; a possibility, and as such should be widely debated).

Aristotle introduced an interesting note in this regard, separating *selfishness* from *self-love*; to allow virtuous people to practice selfishness with no harm to the community. Ethical hedonism and Utilitarism also prescribe the pursue of pleasure through Actions for the common good. ^{[1](#myfootnote1)}
On Ego development in blended east/west global society, a [new item](https://github.com/encosianima/integral-developing/tree/master/Ego.md) was added to the original repository.

When good or bad refers to an Action (Moral) ruled by laws or codes of conduct explicitly or implicitly agreed by large or small groups, Attitudes (Ethical principles) are at risk to become Accomplishing (Fulfilling) degeneration from Ethics, which should stand for. Of course, there are different forms of coercion, such as penal codes, but also codes of conduct, sometimes unwritten; with regard to the latter, the power is inversely proportional to the number of its members. In a form that may seem paradoxical, it is more difficult to maintain certain flexibility of thought in a small group of people than in the masses, in fact, amongst different ways to perform coercion, social pressure plays an important role, imposed by proximity, mass media, social networks, etc.

As we have seen so far, though laws and codes are perceived as imposed, a set of principles is a basic need in common issues, for that laws and codes exist. The inner necessity to share morals and establish grounding rules for human interactions lead codes of conduct to negotiate continuously.

## Once upon a time
Archaeological proofs tell us about individuals of Homo genus were present in Africa, Americas, Eurasia and Oceania about 3 millions ya, probably originated from Africa (in which is geography included Middle East).
Homo Sapiens, the only Homo genus called Human due to its characteristic, spread gradually around the globe, and it was more present in Africa and Eurasia. For that, we can argue some peoples had more exchange amongst them in certain areas than others, This fact could explain the abundance of proofs from the past in some areas, in respect to others.

The first writing was found in ancient Sumer, around 3400 B.C., Accordingly, an early trace of ethics is observed in business documents, legal codes, maxims of wisdom, but above all in stories of heroes and myths.

<b>Gilgamesh, 2000 BCE</b>

Prominent is the epic narrative of the life o King Gilgamesh of Uruk, a story in which he goes from being a tyrant consumed by passions to assuming responsibility to take care of his people and God's heritage. The fundamental value conveyed is life, its recognition and acceptance; Gilgamesh must discover himself as mortal and accept, enjoy and live his present.

<b> Winged Maat, 1255 BCE</b>

From 3000 B-C., an idea of Ethics, embodied by Maat (order) goddess is present in The Book of the Dead, The Coffin Texts, and the Pyramid Texts. If fact, the “Judgment of Osiris,” (named for Osiris, the god of the dead) was believed to be a sort of test of conformity to proper values for the deceased. Maatt, associated with Thoth, god of wisdom, represents *justice, balance, norm, order, truth, right and proper action*.

<b>Vedas. from 1500 BCE</b>

The Vedas (/ˈveɪdəz/,[4] IAST: veda, Sanskrit: वेदः, lit. 'knowledge'), composed in Vedic Sanskrit, (the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism) are a large body of religious texts. Hinduism introduced the key concepts of Dharma, the moral law listing general and particular virtues.

<b>Torah (1000 BCE)</b>

A further conception of ethics is found in the Hebrew Scriptures; the **Torah** (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Biblical Hebrew: תּוֹרָה‎ Tōrā, “Instruction”, “Teaching” or “Law”). It contains a compilation of prescriptions, some borrowed from earlier peoples and others original, expressed in casuistic (law of chaos) and apodictic (will-do) form. Also emerged the notion of **corporate personhood**, the idea that the evil from each generation is punished by the other, or for an infinity of generations (original sin). Finally, of central importance is the principle grounded on *"do ut des" - I give so that you may give*.

---
We've seen Ethics rooted in Philosophy as well as in Religion, a significant difference lies in the fact Philosophy express human thought, while Religion comes from non-human. Following these criteria, Cristian ethics is, undoubtedly, religious while Buddhism may be treated as a philosophy.

<b>Greek Ethics from 6th century BCE </b>
![image alt](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Griechischen_und_ph%C3%B6nizischen_Kolonien.jpg/640px-Griechischen_und_ph%C3%B6nizischen_Kolonien.jpg "title" =x250)

The ethical conceptions discussed so far are linked to mystical or religious thought; the shift to rational thought happened in ancient Greece ( which included vast areas around Mediterranean and Black seas . Philosophy, distancing itself from deities, applying the search for an explanation to the responsibilities each one has towards others.

It's worth to observe Socrates (Athens) and Gautam Buddha (Indian continent) were almost coeve.

![from mythos to logos](https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2353/2251562747_086572dd5e_z.jpg?zz=1 "from mythos to logos" =300x)

The term [êthos](#ethics-and-moral) refers to the building up of a virtuous character. Some main virtues highlighted by Socrates and Plato were *Wisdom, Justice, Courage, Moderation* and *Piety*. At the same time, concepts such as **Arête** and **Eudaemonia**, Virtue and Happiness respectively, emerged.

- Socrates developed the Mayeutica was to split problems into a series of questions, whose answers would gradually 'extract' a solution through critical reasoning to discern between right and wrong for how to live correctly.

- Plato, in terms of Ethics, he believed that virtue is a kind of knowledge (of good and evil) we need to attain the ultimate good, which is the purpose of all human desires and actions, calling this doctrine Eudemonism.

- Aristotle realised that ethics is a complex concept and that we cannot always control our moral environment. He thought that happiness could best be achieved by living a balanced life and avoiding excesses, pursuing a golden mean in everything.

Several schools emerged during this period will survive over the centuries till modern time.

#### Sophism
It presents a sceptical view of truth and morality and a relativistic view of knowledge. Truth is not absolute, and two points of view can be acceptable at the same time.

#### Cynicism
rejected all conventional desires for health, wealth, power and fame, and advocated a life free of all possessions and property as the way to attain Virtue.

#### Scepticism
argued that since we can never know the true inner substance of things, but only their appearance, we should suspend judgement on everything as the only way to achieve inner peace since we can never know which opinions are right or wrong.

#### Epicurism
The main goal was to achieve happiness and tranquillity through a simple and moderate life, cultivation of friendships and limitation of desires.

#### Hedonism
Pleasure is our most important pursuit, and that we should always act in such a way as to maximise our pleasure. Despite egoist and altruist hedonism are possible, in fact, virtuous people can achieve ethical hedonism if others acknowledge this virtue (self-proclaimed virtuousness is not valid).

#### Stoicism
Self-control and fortitude are means of overcoming destructive emotions in order to develop clear judgement and inner calm and the ultimate goal of freedom from suffering.

<b>Confucius 551–479 BCE </b>

### Confucio
Confucius claimed to have gathered wisdom from previous dynasties and brought up the concept of Role ethics, as the basis of Confucianism. Rather than be a religion in the strict sense, Confucianism is based on humans and their inner duties toward their communities).

<b>Siddhartha Gautama, 6th-5th century BCE</b>
![image alt](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Astasahasrika_Prajnaparamita_Dharmacakra_Discourse.jpeg "title" =x200)

### Buddha
Buddhism developed its own concept of **Dharma**

<b>Taoism, about 4th century BCE</b>

### Tao
Taoist ethics tends to emphasize *virtues* like: **"non-action"** (无为; 無為; wúwéi), **“naturalness”** or **“spontaneity”** (自然; zìrán), **"simplicity"** (朴; 樸; pǔ), *and the three treasures:* **compassion** (慈; cí), **frugality** (俭; 儉; jiǎn) and **humility** (不敢为天下先; 不敢爲天下先; bù gǎn wèi tiānxià xiān).

---

- Roman Ethics?
The Roman philosophy was heavily influenced by Hellenistic philosophy (grossly 323 BCE — 31 BCE); Romans introduced the term **mores, morality** (Cicero, 1st century BCE) in republican Rome. The concept developed during the imperial Rome, combining virtues and responsibilities towards the Empire with good habits in the pursuit of the Supreme Good (represented by the *Princeps*, the Emperor, from Augusto onward).

#### Neo-platonist
(developed largely by Plotinus), a religious philosophy that became a strong influence on early Christianity and taught the existence of an ineffable and transcendent One.

#### Cristian Ethics
from Libyan St Augustine.

#### Islamic Ethics
Arabs helped the spread of Aristotelianism, which gradually overlapped with the prevailing Neoplatonism, giving rise to *Scholasticism*, developed in monasteries.

#### Empiricism
opened doors to the Enlightenment, which would lead to the liberation of science and thought from the
yoke of religion.

#### Rationalism
- the much-criticised Descartes,
- Spinoza, who proposed a pantheistic system in
which reason, senses and emotions played their part.

- Hobbes
- Rousseau
- A. Smith
- J. Bentham
- KANT's major contribution to Ethics was the theory of the Categorical Imperative, according to which we should only act in such a way that we wish our actions to become a universal law, applicable to everyone in a similar situation (Moral Universalism). And that we should treat other individuals as ends in themselves, not as mere means.

- Hegel

- Marx

- Heidegger

- Wittgenstein

- Russel

- Weber

- Pareto

- Structuralism

- Frankfurt School

- John Rawls

## Notes:

(<a name="myfootnote1">1</a>) *To have or to be?*, Erich Fromm; Gabriel Marcel's, *Etre et avoir: Journal métaphysique (1935)* and Balthasar Staehelin's, *Haben und Sein*.

(<a name="myfootnote2">2</a>) Edonism, Eudemonism, Utilitarianism, Formalism fit in this description.