"Unethical" is wrong!

[garbonzo]

This guy is saying it is wrong for me to use the word unethical or to use the word "ethical" to mean "ethically correct":

Ethics is a field of study. The reason why a *colloquial trend* of using the word ethics to mean "ethically positive" has arisen is because not everybody studies ethics. This isn't even a contendable point really - i can only refer you to general research.

In the etymological sense it's kind of like saying **"The sentence: the pharynx is superior to the larynx, is anatomical"**

In this example you *could* have said: "is anatomically correct" but it is important to know, as we do, that it doesn't mean that. It merely really means that the sentence is about a quesiton which resides within the subject anatomy.

If everybody talked about this enough - anatomical could end up meaning "anatomically correct" but in fact anatomy is just a category of study and information within which the sentence is purveyed

Anatomical just doesn't mean anatomically correct. An anatomical question doesn't mean a correct one. The reason why here the other sentence with *ethics* is confusing for you and others, is that Ethics is indeed the *Study of right versus wrong*.

Forexample we say "That is Unethical!" But really this is etymologically invalid - in the sense that it completely renders the word ethics disconnected from the real ethics - the study and body of information about right and wrong behavior, rules, etc. The right phrasing could/would be "That is ethically wrong, false or condemable."

The difference is subtle and i would never object to someone saying "unethical" ... it has certainly become common use. But when you have a discussion wherein the distinction matters it is simply neccesary that it be observed.

Is he right? I showed him Google's definition of the word "ethical" and he said it was wrong and he is using etymology so he is correct. >.>

 

[mathman]

Your friend is a nitpicker. Word definitions can be described or prescibed. Most dictionary people have long since opted for description, not prescription.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I can't imagine how small and cheap this fellow's dictionary must be, to have such a limited list of definitions. Dictionary.com (which is free!) lists, as the second definition of "ethical":

2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.​

Your friend is simply wrong.

And, of course, the problem with having a fetish for long-winded writing is that it provides more opportunity for typographical errors, such as "condemable."

Fraggle Rocker
Moderator
Linguistics

 

[KitemanSA]

Word definitions can be described or prescibed. Most dictionary people have long since opted for description, not prescription.

Which seems to be one reason that people can't think well or communicate well anymore. Folks don't know what they are thinking, the thought units are a jumble.

 

[mathman]

Which seems to be one reason that people can't think well or communicate well anymore. Folks don't know what they are thinking, the thought units are a jumble.

That's true. I have no idea what your statement has to do with mine.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Which seems to be one reason that people can't think well or communicate well anymore. Folks don't know what they are thinking, the thought units are a jumble.

I don't have that problem. Do you?

The Nazis were famous for their prescriptive dictionaries. It was essentially illegal to import a foreign word; no editor or publisher would let it pass for fear of punishment. Since German is a highly synthetic language that easily builds compound words, this worked for them. The down side is that they don't use words that are virtually international in Europe: they say Kraftwagen (power wagon) instead of "automobile" (self-moving) and Fernsprecher (distant speaker) instead of "telephone" (distant speaker).

It stands to reason that you'll have a more expressive, adaptable language if you allow your entire population to coin words, instead of a panel of "experts." Sure, we end up with words like "twerk," but we also get "fuel-efficient" and "labor-intensive."

 

[garbonzo]

Alright. He is saying that I took his words out of context:

In the context of our disagreement, as i see it; I used ethical as a categorical denominator, you swapped the usage in your response, and we disagreed on the meaning.

THIS is the context and what we are arguing about:

He said the following:

That is an actual ethical position to take though, and one that contradicts the nature of democracy in the most basic political way.

I mistook what he was saying as, "this is an actual good position to take[...]". When he meant was, "this is an actual position to do with ethics to take[...]".

The crux of our argument is that now I told him that you can take it both ways, and he told me, no, there is only one meaning that word can take on within the above context.

Now I just want to ask you guys, do you believe there is only one way to take this, or 2 different ways (or more)?

That is an actual ethical position to take though, and one that contradicts the nature of democracy in the most basic political way.

Thanks a bunch.