Dear Peter Kaleb Theodoropoulos

It is a very difficult question to answer, but still a challenge, I venture to make the following comments:

• Ethics is both, both the grammar of human expression as essence clarifies relationships.
• There are social and anthropological ethics that probably arose from the need of the human being in collusion with other similar (in community), to learn to relate in terms of a common good evidence.
• This common good understood as "blank or germ of ethics" has now been found in nonhuman apes (gorillas, baboons, chimpanzees, monkeys) for sociological study of behavior in groups of them as punishing the offender agreed rules of behavior by all (eg not attack or kill members of the herd or tribe that are weaker, like puppies or decrepit)
• By extrapolation it is speculated that this also happened in prehistory with the tribes of pro-hominids and was accentuated with humanization (humanization) to be substantially equal to the known Homo sapiens.

At the moment these ideas and thoughts, to stimulate the participation of all interested parties and further to deepen the matter with more evidence.

Sincerely

Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil

It is an interesting point that questions on RG relating to technical, eg engineering and scientific matters can usually be phrased quite economically, and answered in similar vein. On the other hand, questions on RG  relating to philosophical matters tend to be at least twice as long and, sadly, not thoroughly answerable with much less than a well written paper, or even a book. It would be interesting to explore this difference in its own right!

But to get to the question you have posed, Peter, I think that part of the answer would lie in a more careful definition of 'ethics'. In  my view, ethics is a system innate to intelligent beings which govern their behaviour so that societies of such beings are stabilised against internal destructive tendencies. In this view, which is after all only a view, ethics are more an essence of human relationships than a grammar. On the other hand, ethics most certainly informs the creation of such grammars. In societies where formal speech is yet to evolve eg other primates, it is useless having an innate inhibition on violence if there is no effective body language to express this inhibition and operationalise it, so that harm does not actually occur.

I would be interested in seeing other contributor's comments on this.

Best wishes.

Dear Peter,

I will follow French Philosopher Michel Henry's to suggest that ethics is part of the essence of human life.

The core argumentative line is the following:

1) they are two ways of appearing (which is the question of phenomenology): in the light of the world, at a distance... in the light of affect, with no distance, which is according to Henry the light of life.

2) Hence the ontological statement of a divided subjectivity:  identity appears in the light of the world when ipseity appears in the light of auto-affection feeling oneself (see Henry's Genealogy of psychoanalysis which discusses Descartes' cogito ergo sum). Ipseity as singular life is given to itself from Life. From there the ontological self is both affective self and "I can", active self (see Henry's Phenomenology of the body) and the source of practice as experienced by the affective self.

3) Hence praxis may be deployed by according to the prescription of life to life itself as a good life with and for others (which is Paul Ricoeor's defintion of ethics). Non ethic behaviour occurs when precritions, let's say objectives, ways of doing comes from light of the world disconnected from light of life (i.e. making profit at any cost. Just to remember that Lockes political ideal was to favour anyone life). Which means that malaise, the experience of acting against one's life prescriptions is silenced.

4) Culture (what you call grammar ?) as opposed to Barbary (see Henry's book  Barbary) appears as the way from generation to generation are transmitted ways of life which help one's life growing with and for others. Which presupposes one's life desire to grow, to live itself at the utmost. Barbary hence may be understood as perverted culture where acting, disconnected from its ontological source (i.e. following the mathematical principle of maximisation) is institutionalised.

Hope you'll find this usefull. Some expanded views are in the following paper available in RG: Perezts, M., Faÿ, E., Picard, S., (2015), “ Ethics, Embodied Life and Esprit de Corps, an ethnographic study with anti-money laundering analysts”, Organization, 22(2): 217-234. 

Best wishes,

Eric Faÿ

I think that so far have agreed that Ethics is both inherent, innate or ontological intelligent human beings; as a faculty, aptitude, ability and experience developed by humans in their behavior with other similar clans, groups or advanced societies in the form of positive values for emotional health and quality of life, facilitating and regulating the permanence and survival in the "Ethos" with certain norms, principles and values tables.

In short, as I mentioned in my previous participation, as humanized Essence is both behavioral development of human beings in their relationship with their peers ¿Grammar? throughout its history and its long process of humanization.

Expecting further deepen the topic at hand, I say goodbye - for now - of you.

Sincerely

Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil

Thank you Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil for your wonderful contribution to the question. I'm especially fond of your points in the first paragraph.  

Best, 

Peter

Dear Peter,

Good Question!

Ethics are set of rules lead down by the society regarding right or wrong, though in my opinion it is the eternal expression of an individual, so it may differ person to person or societies. It is indeed grammar of human expression as well as essence of human relations, but it is some thing larger than this.

In social behavior i have follow the norms set by the society but Beyond this i have to think about my eternal feelings. If i found something ethical than i would like to prefer my eternal feelings rather than the social norms

Thank you Sandeep Kulshrestha for your well voiced and prescient response!