• DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    No I meant moral here.

    Ok. But, I care about internet strangers morals about as much as I care what their favourite icecream is. It has no relevance to anything.

    Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.

    I don’t think ethics have anything to do with law. Ethics is an attempt to create something like objective morals by evaluating how much objective good or harm an action causes. Of course, it is far from universal since it depends how you evaluate seriousness of a harm and good. E.g. is it better to kill one person and save 3. But you would have a hard time creating an ethics system where wearing a Hijab was unethical, since it pretty much does not affect anyone else.

    • 73ms@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I don’t think ethics have anything to do with law. Ethics is an attempt to create something like objective morals by evaluating how much objective good or harm an action causes. Of course, it is far from universal since it depends how you evaluate seriousness of a harm and good. E.g. is it better to kill one person and save 3. But you would have a hard time creating an ethics system where wearing a Hijab was unethical, since it pretty much does not affect anyone else.

      It is true that law and ethics are distinct (I did not argue otherwise), but they do overlap. Laws often reflect ethical principles even if they’re not identical. Ethics isn’t just about calculating harm and benefit; different theories (like deontology or virtue ethics) focus on duties or character rather than consequences. So while wearing a hijab probably wouldn’t be considered harmful in most ethical systems, that’s more a reflection of the framework than an absolute rule.