Morals vs. Ethics

[MineralMan]

What is the difference between those two words? That's a question I've asked myself many times. Personally, I have a code of ethics that has evolved throughout my life. Someone recently asked me what the basis was of those ethics, and whether I considered myself a moral person. So, once again, I had to think of the difference between the two words. I believe there is a distinct difference.

Ethics for me, come from a complex set of experiences and lessons learned. My original ethical beliefs derived from what I was taught by my parents, mostly during the 1950s, and they reflect pretty much the standard ethical values of mid-century America. The basic principle was to be polite, kind, honest, truthful and to think of others before acting. There weren't a lot of details, just some fundamental principles. My parents were non-religious. During that same period and throughout my life, my ethical code has changed and evolved. New situations, new people of influence, extensive reading and other factors all played a role in developing a more complete and inclusive code of ethics that serve me when decisions need to be made. On occasion, a new situation presents itself, often requiring a fall back on the basics learned at my parents' knees.

Morality is something else. Morality has been presented to me from various sources. Religion has presented its moral code. Society has codified proper and improper behavior. As I've read more and more, I've been exposed to a number of different moral templates. The primary character of each of them was that they were a code. Often, the ethical compass I had learned and that evolved for me coincided, in part with the various moral codes I encountered. Often, too, my ethics sometimes conflicted in specifics with the fixed moral codes offered to me.

Those moral codes with their specific instructions for specific life situations, though, never seemed to me to cover all of the ground. They were too limited, too narrow, and too dogmatic to fit all of the situations I seemed to encounter. They often conflicted, too, with the actual behavior of those who claimed to follow them. One moral code said that unmarried people should not be sexually active. Well, that went right out the window. Another forbade adultery, but so many who claimed to follow that code, violated that.

So, my ethical code is not a moral code. It represents principles, rather than codified instructions. It is to be considered before acting.

Ethics are not the same as morals. I don't follow a moral code. I have ethics.

[brutus cassius]

1. Good question

I think you about got it. I've always just considered it a slight difference, being that "ethics" deals with the principles determining what is just & proper in regards to interpersonal relations, whereas "morals" deals with the principles which themselves define what is just, proper, or legitimate. I feel that morality precedes & defines ethics.

What's interesting is the vast human capacity for cognitive dissonance in this area, though. What I mean is, most people you meet will agree that it is immoral to use deadly force or the threat thereof to impose their arbitrary whim on other individuals, or to plunder their neighbors' property. Yet, most also uncritically assume that it's ethical to enlist certain individuals with high-sounding office titles like "congressman" or "senator" to do exactly those things, by way of secret ballot, & can scarcely be bothered to pause a moment & consider the vulgar contradiction there. Very strange.

[rug]

2. It's a simple distinction.

Morals derives from the Latin moralis, literally "pertaining to manners". The origin of morals is no more than what is acceptable to a society. It is externally defined by that community and does not stem from an individual.

Ethics means the study of morals, similar to rhetoric being the study of speech and physics neing the study of matter and energy.

Modern usage often ignores the origin of words.

[brutus cassius]

3. Circular logic?

Seems to me what you just said was, basically, "The origin of morals is no more than the accepted social mores." Also, in asserting that morality is "externally defined by that community and does not stem from an individual," you seem to forget the fact that "community" is not a proper noun; it's a convenient collective noun, a tool of thought, describing a group of interrelating or cooperating individuals.
These are evidently common logical pitfalls of moral relativism. I've scarcely encountered any attempt to rationalize moral relativism (or to place collectivism on grounds of consistent ethical principles) which don't inevitably devolve into some combination of circular logic & composition fallacy.

[rug]

5. No, etymology.

My words, not yours, were "The origin of morals is no more than what is acceptable to a society."

The important distinction is that they are derived externally, from a given society.

That is not relativistic in the least within a given society. The Bill of Rights is an objective statement of one set of morals and is not dependent on individuals within the society. the community as a whole, through whatever mechanisms it had developed, would have to change it.

[brutus cassius]

9. Yes, I know what your words were.

The point is, that "what is acceptable to a society" is just another way of saying "what are the society's morals," so you just end up with circular logic, trying to ascribe a causal relationship by mere reference to the outcome itself, like saying "the origin of generosity is no more than a person's willingness to give." See what I mean? It's a mere redundant truism at best.

For the life of me I can't figure out what you mean by "[morals] are derived externally, from a given society." Do you mean to say that the human capacity for empathy & the innate sense of right vs. wrong within the individuals of a given community or society play no role in determining the prevailing moral sense of that society?

I think I agree with what seems (to me) to be the main point of the last paragraph; if what you mean is that the moral validity of the principles contained in the Bill of Rights (individuals are born with equal, inalienable rights; the force of law can only justly be directed toward defending & enforcing those rights, lest it necessarily be made to violate them) is objective, & not dependent on the personal preferences of any individuals or groups within our society.
But then, I can't reconcile your last sentence with that point, because it doesn't matter what "the community as a whole" does, or changes (although "the community as whole" can't "do" or "change" anything; only individuals are capable of such things, & sometimes individuals do such things pretending to act on behalf of "the community as a whole," but in reality the best they can be doing is representing the expressed or tacit will of a majority interest group within society), whatever they do can only ever be either in harmony with intrinsic rights of individuals, or in violation of those rights; but those rights are intrinsic, objective & inalienable, & cannot be altered or abolished by the decisions or actions of those claiming to act on behalf of "the community as a whole."

[rug]

22. It's hardly another way of saying what you're saying.

I'll state it again: "morals" are concepts that a society as a whole approves as right and right behavior. As such, they can be objectively known. There is nothing relativistic about it, even though they may shift over a time.

Whether an individual chooses to agree with or follow them is an individual choice that does not change their objective character.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Moral Relativism

Similar to "Situational Ethics"
They're not just circular logic, as you suggest, they are inherently redundant.

For the former, morality is always going to be relative to some accepted standard. Killing is wrong. Killing in (absolutely true) self-defense provides very different context. Relative to the circumstances, it very well may be ok. If we discuss George Zimmermann in this regard, we have even different circumstances, and would likely draw a different conclusion.

This leads me to conclude that all morality is relative and the term moral relativity is meaningless.

Same with Situational Ethics. What ethical consideration comes into play without a situation? There is always a situation that leads people to decide whether to turn left or turn right, to take the tip laying on the table at a restaurant or not, to pay taxes or cheat on them. If you never go to a restaurant, the situation never presents itself and ethics are not relevant. If you live in a country with no taxes (hypotheticallY) same thing.

Those terms always bugged me. Just glomming on to your post to make that point and to essentially say, "good post and welcome to DU".

[malthaussen]

4. Remember Papa Hemingway's definition?

"A moral act is one you feel good after."

Boy, is that concept fraught.

-- Mal

[MineralMan]

6. I didn't remember that. Was that a direct quote

from Hemingway or spoken by one of his characters? As you note, there's lots of room in there for unethical behavior by a person who feels good about doing unethical things. Lots of those in our banks and corporations, it seems.

[malthaussen]

8. From Death in the Afternoon.

IIRC, it was during one of his ruminations in the book, and thus probably reflected his own thinking. I first ran across it in one of Travis McGee's ramblings. John D. MacDonald and Papa would have made some great drinking companions.

Of course, it doesn't address your question of the difference between morality and ethics. I have a feeling the relationship is similar to the distinctions between unlawful and illegal.

-- Mal

[MineralMan]

15. Morality as most people understand it usually has its roots

in religion. Of course religious moral codes are rarely followed in whole, and most people follow what they like and ignore what they don't. That's why I separate ethics from morals. My own ethical compass borrows from multiple religions and societal mores. Where there is general agreement on moral principles of living from all sources, such things generally become part of my ethical code as well. On the other hand, things like non-marital sex may be considered immoral in some sets of moral rules, but are not part of my code. Instead, I use appropriate ages and enthusiastic consent as rules. Minority sexual orientations are often considered immoral in religious morality, but I can see no issue with people who are of age having sex with whomever they wish. My ethical rules of appropriate age and consent override dogmatic rules for myself and my judgement of others.

When I see or hear the word "immoral," I can almost guarantee that what is being discussed has to do with religious belief. When I hear or see "unethical," I know that a reasoned evaluation on the part of the speaker or writer is more likely at play. I'm more comfortable with reason than with religion in general. If morality could be successfully separate from religious beliefs, I would have no problem with it. Sadly, it usually cannot be so separated.

If I had to condense my ethical compass into a single statement, it would be, "Do as little harm as possible in any situation." The corollary, of course is "Do as much good as possible in any situation." There is a balance in there, since everything we do has potential for both. Each situation must be weighed before taking an action.

[malthaussen]

21. Indeed, and there are those whose religious dedication...

... would find your "ethical smorgasbord" (I forget who originated that one, "buffet" would do, too) to be the most immoral thing of all, which is irony if you like. I've spent way too much time reading tedious diatribes by religious authority figures, who would find the concept of an individual setting himself up as the arbitor of right and wrong (even for himself, or should I say "especially?&quot , and relying on the use of his "reason" to address such questions, the greatest anathema of all. And I don't think that idea has completely fallen out of favor. Humanists are still in bad odor with fundamentalist types, and probably always will be, since the one relies on reason and the other, faith.

My own observation has shown that people who spend time thinking about ethics tend to act, overall, more "morally" than those who rely on authority for guidance. However, for those who can't be bothered to think much about ethics, authority does serve, to a greater or lesser extent, as a governor on their actions. This is why I cannot, ultimately, condemn religion out of hand. The Enlightenment idea that education and leisure would lead to a better class of human seems to have been rather more optimistic than was expected. Although we must also ask ourselves how much of our current state is due to men of ill-will securing the reins of government and controlling the flow of ideas. But then again, the Truth is Out There, so ultimately some degree of responsibility for lax ethics (or morals) must devolve on the laziness or disinterest of the individual. Religion has always served as a club to keep men in line, and while the use of this club has been of obvious benefit to its wielders, it must also be confessed that it has been of some benefit to those of us who've had to dodge it.

-- Mal

[brutus cassius]

10. Lots of those

in our banks and corporations, it seems .... but what, not so many in our government institutions & agencies?

I see government of all levels, throughout the United States, literally infested with sociopaths; liars, thieves, & murderers, completely lacking in empathy; moral compass either broken or non-existent. Not saying the private sector is devoid of these people, but it is, to a large extent, a thoroughly corrupt & out of control political class that enables & sustains those types in the corporate & financial world.

Put it this way: When the job description includes the exercise of arbitrary coercive power over the rest of society, what type of person is going to be most attracted to it? And it will be precisely the most cunning, conniving & ruthless - the worst & most insidious that society has to offer - who seek it most ambitiously & inevitably rise to the top!
Ordinary folks with a solid moral foundation, who have no inclination or drive to traffic in the liberties or property of others, are (commendably) repulsed by the political game, & certainly have no stomach for the insidious, backroom process that passes for "legislating," in any case.

[arcane1]

11. You are making the difference between corporate and political to be far greater than it really is

When you look at how many in government came from and/or went to the corporate world, you can't really claim the corporate world is more moral.

When the job description includes taking the maximum amount of money from people's pockets, even if you have to scam or coerce them for it, then you are going to attract the sickest people in society.

Corporations are the enemy. Politicians are occasionally their henchmen.

[MineralMan]

17. My example was not exclusive. Truly.

[malaise]

12. Excellent post

I don't follow a moral code. I have ethics.

Same here.

[MineralMan]

13. Thanks for understanding my point.

Not everyone has.

[malaise]

14. It's a war I've been fighting for decades

No religious code governs my behavior but I know right from wrong for myself - based on a code of ethics.

[MineralMan]

16. For me, reason trumps religion always.

Since religion is based on a belief in supernatural entities and events, I find it lacking when it comes to reasoning things out. Since morality is generally associated with religion, I prefer a reasoned set of ethical principles instead.

[malaise]

20. Precisely and while all religions have some moral code

few among their leadership practice what they preach.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

24. I saw a unicorn in a dream once.

That's what I think of religion. Spirituality? Only the dead know the truth. I intend to outlive my own death. I do, after all, have good ethics!

[Vattel]

18. Sometimes they are used synonymnously.

But often "ethics" is used in to refer to codes that are specific to a profession and reflect the standards for the profession that are generally accepted by those in the profession or by groups that regulate the profession. Even lawyers have a code of ethics in that sense. "Ethics" is also often used to refer to a field of study where the object of the study is morality. I have never heard the terms used quite in the way you want to use them, but maybe that reflects my own limited experience.

[MineralMan]

19. Yes, they often are used that way. I prefer not to do so.

In terms of language, I prefer descriptive to prescriptive definitions. Since morality is so often tied to religious dogma, I prefer not to use that word in describing ideals of human behavior. For me, "ethics" implies a reasoned approach. I'm describing my own use and understanding of the terms.