Grammar in Context?

I came across an article discussing the appropriate uses of punctuation for texts. The author argued that texts are short bursts of ideas, not extended discussions. As a result, he commended the different punctuation strategies used by younger cohorts. For example, a period is unnecessary in a text because the text itself is the complete thought. If a period is used, he sees it used for emphasis as in "Oh. My. God." 

These alternate uses initially irritated me, but I have jumped on the bandwagon. I think that these innovations in punctuation, spelling and grammar empower the new modes of communication. At one time, I didn't understand why people even texted and now I use texts at many multiples of phone call usage. I've noticed that I've already applied these rules to other domains.

For example, I have long discovered that my writing is dramatically different than my speaking. It was not always so. Right after college, I was engaged in a conversation and used a word most suitable for written works. My acquaintance asked me what the word meant. After I explained it, he asked me "well, why didn't you say that?" 

On the other side of this, I don't recall ever using profanity in a written document. But conversations laced with profanity are regular fare. I recall a former Baylor University president once told me that "profanity represents a lack of vocabulary." I only really agree with that somewhat pompous statement as it relates to written expression. Profanity does things verbally that punctuation do in written form. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it!)

Of course, all of this has a "self-serving bias." As someone who started out going to speech class for a speech impediment, I welcomed my move to the South with its conversational idiosyncrasies that aligned with my innate tendencies and have never looked back to an indistinct second person plural.

Morals Versus Ethics

In a recent conversation with a friend, we discussed the role of morals. Afterwards, I found myself reflecting on the difference between morals and ethics - especially since I am working through Spinoza's Ethics. To distinguish two closely related words, I decided to look at their linguistic origins and then their contemporary usages.

Morals comes from a Latin word, mos which means "manner (of behaving)" or "custom." In contrast, ethics comes from a Greek word, ethos which means "character." In the Greek world, ethics was related to character as an area of virtue and its impact on human happiness. It was also as a category of rhetoric and indicated what kind of character the speaker projected. It seems to me that both words are rooted in patterns of behavior, but morals have to do with internal drivers while ethics have to do with externals.

This linguistic alignment seems to work well with contemporary usages. When we speak of morals, we are often talking about an inner sense of right and wrong. Ethics, on the on the hand, are often a strict code of conduct as in an ethical standard. As a result, there can be conflicts between morals and ethics. For example, in my world, it may be considered morally wrong to invest in oil & gas or tobacco, but it is (at least so far) ethically proper. In contrast, it may be considered morally right to avoid investing in oil & gas or tobacco, but it may be ethically improper if it provides inferior investment results.

One of my favorite conflict resolvers between morals and ethics, in favor of ethics, was a non-drinking client's response to owning an alcohol stock, "well, if its going to make money, let's buy it. The devil's had that money long enough." Displaying my preference here, I'm generally inclined to go with the ethical consideration, but I do believe that moral consideration is important.

Warren Buffett has always avoided tobacco investments, even though it has cost him. The decision was a moral one - in my definition here. He stated that it was highly profitable and legal to own, but addictive and injurious. I find his stand honorable, but difficult to see clearly. There is a much brighter line between ethical and unethical than between moral and immoral. Linguistically this vagueness is confirmed. Ethics, like legal and illegal is only opposed by unethical. Moral, on the other hand is opposed by immoral, but moderated by the word amoral.