Here are the definitions I use in my media classes:

Ethics are broad, fundamental principles that represent a "world view."

Morality is the determination or judgement of good versus bad, right versus wrong, based on those ethical principles.

Values are the resulting actions taken, based on those ethical principles and judgement of morality.

Here are the definitions I use in my media classes:

Ethics are broad, fundamental principles that represent a "world view."

Morality is the determination or judgement of good versus bad, right versus wrong, based on those ethical principles.

Values are the resulting actions taken, based on those ethical principles and judgement of morality.

Thank you for your explanations, Michael.

Let me make a brief comment on your view. I hold that values come first; they are based on human feelings, wishes, interests ... On the basis of a "value system", power-holders (in every community, the global one included) define their ethics & morality.

Hello Professor Radovan

Your question interests me. You mention a contemporary author. Please can you offer a citation for their relevant work.

On refection I am inclined to agree. Ethical theory implies that ethics is a theoretical model that perhaps provides a framework for our individual values.

Moral practice implies that morality is the manifestation of that ethical framework in our behaviour.

From that perspective, "ethical theory and moral practice" would seem an appropriate phrase.

With best regards

Mike

The author is Robert Audi; the book is "Reasons, Rights, and Values".

This is not a suitable book for me; I though it speaks about "reason", not "reasons", which looks similar but is not the same. The book speaks mostly about ethics/morality; I am interested in the topic "reason and/vs. passions".

Paul, thank you for the information. (I miss plural here "informations", but ...) Anyway, I am not particularly interested in popes and saints, although they are usually very passionate souls. I seek a "new poetics of existence", although it may not be quite clear what this new poetics might be (or look like). In my book "Reason and Passions", I wrote (par. 05):

Intense global communication and interactions create a global culture, which may weaken and displace traditional cultures. I do not think that traditional religious and national narratives could disappear in the foreseeable future, but I would not regret the decline of their power; I do not like their discourse and behaviour. I am not happy with the contemporary business civilization either, which imposed a new religion of consumption and stupefying media noise. I still hope that people are capable of something better than serving gods, waging wars, consuming and making noise. People and humanity must do their best to minimize suffering, ignorance and destructive behaviour. ......

Slavisa Bradic Brada, you might be interested in the work of Mario Radovan

Thank you, Mike!

But it seems that nobody reads books nowadays.

I mentioned the book of Robert Audi, "Reasons, Rights, and Values" earlier. Audi has been described as "one of the leading figures in contemporary philosophy"; he is (or was) the president and the editor of various "big things". And yet, his book is in 5 millionth place (today) at Amazon's "best sellers ranks". My best ranked book is in 2,5 millionth place. This is bad.

Hi Mario.

Good point.

Usually, and in ordinary language, morality or ethics are used indistinctly. Now, in an academic environment, conceptual differences are usually made, namely: default has a practical application while ethics its applicability is theoretical or lends itself more to theoretical discussion. Questions like the following: What should I do in this situation? they point more to a moral concern because there is a problem that needs to be addressed. While questions of the type Why should I follow this rule instead of this one? they refer to an ethical issue in which arguments or theoretical proposals seem to be asked, which would be prior to any practical action.

In this simple text I have a part that I dedicate to explain this point. Which always took to the classroom with my students

Article La importancia de la reflexión moral para el autogobierno de sí

Paul, thank you for your reasonable & passionate criticism of the way I write (in my book Reason and Passions)! However, I am not sure your discourse is quite precise and coherent. I did not say that “nobody reads good books nowadays”; I wrote: "it seems that nobody reads books nowadays"; you added "good". I have read many times that the consumption of books has been in a constant decline for many years.

I will look at the books you mention, and see if they are suitable for me. Because there is no "good book" by itself; it all depends on what you expect of a book, what you seek, and what you love to read.

You say: "I am going out on a limb here, at the risk of provoking your wrath". Do not worry; I am not Yahweh and my wrath is quite innocuous. Your criticism (of the "three repeated features" of my writing) may be quite correct, but this was the fifth paragraph from the "Introduction", in which I tried to set a general framework of discourse. "Generalizations" are unavoidable at that level; I love top-down discourse: first general claims (the essence) then details.

You love "Great books, temperamentally written, based on deep knowledge, and seasoned with wit and humor." So do I; the question is which books are really such. "Despite the seriousness of the topics" treated in such books, they "inform us with fortuitous, often original and graceful phrasings, plus a pinch of irony." This is an excellent description of "great books". But these (your) claims look like a lesson of a (frustrated) part time editor to a would-be writer. Because your claims are even more "general" and "vague" than those in my introductory paragraph which you criticize.

Anyway, I love your description of "great books"; this is exactly how I wish and try to write.

PS: I looked at Amazon.com; it says: Jan Assmann: The Price of Monotheism - "Best Sellers Rank: 402,439. When one of my books (on the Amazon) was "ranked" in the place 100,000 I was selling one piece monthly. On that basis, I expect that your favourite book is sold four time worse than that. I do not have time now to check for the other books you mentioned.

I will look at the book "Galathea 2.0" of Richard Powers, which you recommend; however, I see the author in Wikipedia, with a microphone in hand, "reading in April 2018". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Powers - This does not seem promising to me, because I consider "serious writing" a solitary activity of solitary people; I cannot imagine myself reading my texts to an audience (which wants to be "impressed" & "entertained"). I am usually not even on the internet from Wednesday to Monday.

I have one serious question. You praise books which are "temperamentally written, based on deep knowledge, and seasoned with wit and humor." I wrote (in the quotation you criticize): "I am not happy with the contemporary business civilization ... which imposed a religion of consumption and stupefying media noise. I still hope that people are capable of something better than serving gods, waging wars, consuming and making noise."

I thought that this was a "temperamental writing", based on "deep understanding" and adorned with "humor" and "irony". You do not think so. Do you have at hand a short piece of text, which satisfies your criteria of beauty & wisdom (or of "temperamental", "wise", "witty" and "ironical" writing)? I ask because I am still ready to learn from others.

Paul, thank you for your answer. Before I read it more carefully, let me add one small explanation. You say: "Don’t you think it hypocritical to criticize Powers for reading his novels in public ..."

I did not intend to criticize those authors who read their text in public. What I do think is that the people who attend such events want (expect) entertainment rather than a great literature. I have seen such events, and this has been my impression. There is nothing bad in reading a text in public, if the author has good reasons for (or finds a pleasure in) doing this.

Anyway, thank you for the answer and "Examples"; I will study then carefully.