Inspired by another thread. We’ll call this one “the somewhat more serious attempt to arrive at an answer.”
I’m positing this argument partly because I’m trying to wrap my head around what’s considered “ethical” and “moral.” I see a difference between the two where others don’t – I can’t be alone. I’ve recently seen waaaaay too many debates in this forum where a perfectly legal, ethical activity is posited as some kind of rule-breaking ethical dilemma when it is, at best, a moral one.
(And is it just me, or is anyone else here getting a profound sense of deja vu? No? Eh. Must be just me.)
In a recent thread on the ethics of competitive eating, I didn’t see an ethical dilemma with gorging yourself on huge quantities of otherwise edible food that doesn’t carry unavoidable health risks for otherwise healthy contestants. I have a bunch of moral objections on the tastelessness of flagrant displays of gluttony, though. I’d have huge ethical objections if someone with known heart problems were competing or the food ingested were dangerous amounts of alcohol, or allergy-triggering foods. I’d have ethical concerns with participants with suspected health problems (the morbidly obese) or suspected tainted food.
But why so much concern with the ethics of fundamentally non-ethical problems? Is it that people do not understand the difference? My first litmus test for determining the ethics of any activity is finding its legality – now is my understanding flawed?
Well, I certainly don’t see a clear distinction between “ethics” and “morals”; I can’t think off-hand of any question on the issue in which the term “unethical” couldn’t be changed to “immoral”, and vice-versa, without changing the answer.
I suppose that “ethics” requries some concept of duty, which isn’t necessary for “morality”; saying “It is unethical for me to do that” implies that I have a duty not to do it, whereas saying “It’s immoral for me to do that” doesn’t automatically imply such a duty, although some philosophers (Kant and Bradley come immediately to mind) would make such a claim.
I certainly don’t think we can look to the law for any sort of moral guidance. There are, and have been, many laws which are immoral, and which it’s the duty of a moral person to disobey, or at least campaign for their abolition. Of course, someone with a legal duty to do something but who declines to do it on principle might say “It’s unethical for me to refrain from this course of action, but it would be immoral of me to do it”, but I would characterize that as a conflict between two different moral (or ethical) standards, not between “morality” and “ethics”.
No, you are most certainly not alone. I posted at some length on this topic a couple years ago (said post falling with a sodden thump on the listening audience). A somewhat briefer version:
My personal take on morality is that it is essentially tribal: that is, its main purpose is to ensure the survival of the group, and moreover to preserve its identity (as opposed to “them heathens over there”). So what is moral to one group may well not be moral to another. Further, it is frequently—but not always—derived from a Law as handed down from Authority (deity, ancestors, etc.).
Ethics, on the other hand, transcend the concept of tribe and are more universal. Also, ethical principles (which tend to be fewer and simpler than moral dictates) are more likely to arise from a sense of value. So one acts ethically because to do otherwise would harm another person. Or oneself, because acting unethically chips away at one’s own worth. Or both.
So in my estimation, the Ten Commandments are “moral” (as well as an excellent set of working rules for a group about to set forth on an extended vacation in the desert), while the Two Commandments (especially the second) are “ethical.”
While the above work for me, they may not work for you. Which I guess makes me “immoral” in your book. So be it.
I think we can agree the law is good for ethical guidance on The Big Legal Stuff… y’know. Murder. Rape. Assault and Battery. I think these explicit ethical rules are generally good for moral guidance, because most of it aligns with moral codes. I think it fails when, as you point out, immoral laws are passed that legalize immoral actions, or obsolete laws persist in the face of changing acceptable ethic behavior. Not much good for certain gray areas. Llike how can I help my father die a dignified death? or should I forgive and help this convicted child molestor get a job?
I think religion is good for moral guidance on The Big Personal Issues, like… Killing. Lying. Cheating. Infidelity. Stealing. I think it is often helpful with ethical behavior, too. I think it fails when purely religious dogma flies in the face of the secular world, like… Is it right to pray on the school PA system for the father of those kids in the thrid grade serving over in Iraq? or why shouldn’t this display of the Ten Commandments hang in this courtroom?
But ethics and morality make things clearer, when deconstructed. I think using ethical guidelines for situations regarding rules, professional behavior and standards, and law, and moral guidelines when talking about your personal beliefs, helps the distinction be made plain.
Some things will still be in the gray area, and you may find some rules still won’t make sense to you, but at least there’s a start.
Law is a branch of ethics, but ethics and law are not the same, just as a mouse is a rodent, but a rodent is not necessarily a mouse. Ethics concern that which is between a man and his fellow men; morality concerns that which is between a man and his god or conscience. That’s how I see them, anyway, and is how I see them used in the context of most philosophical discussions. All this leads to some interesting assertions, such as “morality laws are unethical”.
Unfortunately, the Webster’s dictionary definition of ethics features several different variations that blur the line between ethics and morality, but it does feature one that seems to be a helpful distinction:
This seems to correspond with the distinction made by Askia. Ethics could be the standard for proper behavior within a professional or work context while morality could be the standard for proper behavior in every other context.
Except that morality need not entail behavior at all. Some Christians, for example, maintain that lustful thoughts are immoral. But clearly, we cannot say they are unethical.
Here’s how I’ve always thought about it. Ethics are the abstract rules; the theory of right and wrong behavior. Morals are a set of rules that attempt to implement that behavior in the real world, instead of theory. “Do no harm” is an ethical statement; trying to define and codify “harm” into a set of rules you can actually follow will produce morals.
I think Liberal’s onto something though. Morality is a personal code. Ethics are rules for behavior. Your morals lead you to behave ethically. I’m not sure if this is a well accepted distinction, but I’ve never been able to find one.
A traditional definition is that morals are those beliefs about how to live life that are broadly accepted by society and may be codified into universal laws that govern that society. There may be a claim to a higher power for the universality of those laws.
Ethics are the rules that govern good order within a sub-set of the society or within specific groups of interacting individuals. Such ethics are determined by the sub-groups themselves and may be in conflict with the broader societal moral system, either failing to meet those moral standards, or going beyond them for some items.
This definition works well in simpler more socially integrated societies. Once there is serious social stratification and conflict between classes, multiple sets of morals will evolve in each sub-culture. However, the ethics will be defined in a similar manner.
The more conflicted and stratified a society is, the closer will those intersecting sets of morals approach the statuse of ethics- just rules set up by a sub-group of society.
Examples:
In a simple society there may be totally accepted moral standards in society for sexual activity, actions that may be defined as assault, property transactions. These will be so widely accepted that transgressions will exclude that person from that society with complete effectiveness (temporary or permanent exclusion or death). Ethical standards may be set up for how power holders should exercise their power (chiefs, shamens, priests etc.)
In a complex society there may be multiple moral systems defined by sub groups (religious, class, ethnic etc.). These may have a broadly similar core but may vary greatly over specifics. Particular formal groups in society (Doctors, Lawyers, Club Members, Stock Exchange Members etc.) may be bound by a set of ethics- formal rules that govern their actions in a particular form of behaviour.
I’ve long ago stopped using the word “morality,” because it’s taken on such a religious connotation, whereas “ethics” hasn’t. I’ve also stopped using “soul” and “spirituality” for the same reason.
It should be pointed out that there is no strict etymlogical difference – ethics is from Greek and morals is from Latin. They are roughly synonymous in meaning. Ethics suggests “ethos” and morals suggests “mores”, both meaning roughly patterns of conduct rooted in values and/or character.
Trying figure out what the difference between them is in English is really not the right question, in my mind. Different moral philosophers (or Ethicists) will use them differently. In other words, their meaning will depend on use.
I have a Ph.D. in Ethics, and in the program where I studied, morals was used to mean something like “having to do with moral philosophy in general” and ethics was used to mean some specific arena of moral concern – business ethics, medical ethics, just war theory, etc.
On the other hand, I have seen Ethics used to describe moral theory – questions of epistemology (how do we know what is right or wrong), debate between utilitarian vs. deontological positions, etc.
I think the most important thing for people using these words seriously and precisely is to define how you are using them. There is no one way to use them in the English language; in other words, their precise meanings have not been settled by native speakers of the language.
One can usually infer the meaning ascribed from usage of a person who uses the words coherently and consistently.
I read an interview with Harlan Ellison circa 1980 where he claimed to have a great ethical grounding, but no moral grounding at all. I’ve always understood the difference to be that morals are specifically grounded in religious values, and ethics, in secular ones. Wearing slutty clothes is immoral, not ethical. Favoring one of your children is unethical, not immoral (plenty of Biblical precedent). Eating pork on Friday is condemned by many large religions and therefore immoral, but perfectly ethical. Tricking your brother into trading his birthright for a mess of pottage? Moral, not ethical. Selling liquor on a Sunday is ethical, but not moral.
An ethical breach gives pain to your fellow man. A moral breach gives pain to your God. Some things (murder, theft, rape, mayhem) are both immoral and unethical. Civil disobedience is moral and ethical, but illegal. Hostile takeovers, mass layoffs, clearcutting old growth forests and strip-mining are immoral and unethical, but perfectly legal.
Technically, atheists have no morals. They can have terrific ethics, though. And churchmen who sell indulgences have no ethics, but have spotless morals.
This is a good example of my post. There is nothing intrinsic in the word “morals” that implies offense to God, or any religious context whatsoever. I have a book called “British Moralists” which features David Hume, who rooted his morals in no religion whatsoever, or even in any realist sense of moral value. On the hand, I have books that speak of “Biblical Ethics”, “Jewish Ethics” and “Christian Ethics.”
The last paragraph shows how the use of these words can become polemical, to the point of being incoherent from a moral point of view. I can think of no responsibile theorist of ethics or morals who could describe a person as having no ethics but spotles morals, without having defined the words in ways that violate rational discourse on the topic. But Krokodil wants to define the words his way, he may – but, in my opinion, should root his definitions in something more solid that a writer, however so brilliant, who specializes in fantasy and science fiction.
I emphasize: define the words carefully, and then use them rationally and consistently. They have achieved no one definition in the English language.
In my mind, ethics are external, social rules of behavior and morals are the internal compass each of us possess. Morals cannot be imposed on others; ethics can because they’ve been agreed to by most rational adults in a given society.
Morals and ethics can sometimes overlap, but not always.
I know that most people don’t define the words exactly the same way that I do, and many word authorities use the terms interchangeably. Still, I think there is a benefit to using one word to describe religion-based virtues and another to describe secular-based ones. Ellison suggested the split along the lines that I use them, and it caught on (with me, at least) because at the time, Jerry Falwell’s ministry gave the word “moral” some very unfortunate baggage (“Moral Majority”).
If you know other commonplace terms for these specific types of virtues, I’d be open to using them.
Actually, screw that. I’m gonna stick with my first post.
Consider: When you read about a politician with “ethical problems,” the story is likely to focus on fiscal improprieties. But if the story is about his “moral problems,” it is likelier to focus on his sex life.
Sure, “morality” and “ethics” are synonyms. But as with most synonyms, there are nuanced differences between the ways they are commonly used. There is definitely something priggish and Falwellian about “morality” that just doesn’t apply to “ethics.”
Think I’m wrong, Lynwood Slim? Let’s try an experiment. Next time some bubbly young co-ed asks me about my degree, instead of “BA in English,” I’ll say I have a Bachelor’s in, oh, Literature or Writing. It won’t affect my social standing in the slightest.
When she asks you about your degree, tell her you have a Ph.D. in Morality.
This seems the most useful definition to me. If two people have very similar sets of values but one is deeply religious and the other is an atheist, why should we say that one has morals while the other has ethics? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The character of Dr. House from the Fox TV show House makes for an interesting study. I would describe him as moral but flagrantly unethical. He does his damndest to save his patient’s lives, but he utterly ignores all codes of behavior to do it. He browbeats the truth out of people, lies to them, gives them treatments that might temporarily worsen their conditon to rule out various causes, breaks into their houses to look for disease agents or other clues, even violates court orders. In the most recent episode,
a man who needs a new heart and a brain dead woman are both in the hospital. Each is declared ineligible to receive or donate, respectively, any transplant organs; the man is thought to be too old and the woman is thought to be in poor health. House won’t accept this, so he talks his boss into recording the operations as experimental and outside the normal transplant procedures, and manipulates the brain dead woman’s husband by forcing a meeting with the old man’s daughter.