That’s sometimes true, but not always. And even where it is true, ethics are almost always vague. There’re no hard rules in them generally. Ethics are principles, not actions, and have a general goal. Thus, there’s always room for interpretation.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with questions of good and evil that can be applied to the lives of individuals and groups.
I don’t use the term “morality.”
But others do. They call the branch of philosophy that you describe “moral philosophy”.
I think this highlights the point that there is little difference between ethics and morality. The terms are largely interchangeable, and which one is preferred is a choice which carries no substantive content in terms of meaning.
I agree that the terms can be used interchangeably. Personally, I’ve always thought of “morals” as the feelings I have about what constitutes right and wrong, while “ethics” is the set of guidelines for behavior based on philosophical reasoning that uses morals as a guide.
In other words, “it is wrong for innocent people to die preventable deaths” is a moral statement. Guidelines such as “don’t drive drunk” and “volunteer for and donate to charity” are behaviors that are based on ethical reasoning using the above moral statement as a guide.
One is something that lawyers don’t have; the other is something that everybody doesn’t have.
(Stolen from my favorite radio show.)
Morals are based on religion; ethics are based on secular values. Laws are based on what courts and legislatures decide. It’s perfectly ethical to buy liquor on Sunday, but many religions frown on it. The laws concerning this differ from one municipality to another. Most major religions frown on eating pork on Friday, albeit for very different reasons (Hindus eschew all meat; Jews and Muslims eschew all port. Catholics favor meat-free Fridays). Legally and ethically, it’s not a problem in America.
Morals are about doing right by your god. Ethics are about doing right by your neighbor. Laws are about doing right by your state. The three have very different requirements.
Morals need not be based on religion, which is why we can speak of, e.g. moral philosophy. Ethics may be based on religious values, which is why we can speak of, e.g., Christian Ethics.
These may not be terms that you would use. But you understand what others mean when they use them, and you cannot say that they are using them wrongly.
Some people strongly believe that “ethics” and “morals” are synonymous. What terms would you prefer to use to distinguish between religious and secular values? These two seem ready-made. Churches in America have co-opted “morality” to a much greater degree than “ethics.” I say give it to them.
Well, not to be smart, but how about using the terms “religious” and “secular” to distinguish between religious and secular values? To describe an entire field of philosophical enquiry as either “morals” or “ethics” in different contexts won’t help intgelligent discourse, suggesting as it does that there are two distinct fields of enquiry being spoken of when in fact there is only one.
I’m in personally about 80% in the “don’t see a difference” camp, and 20% in the “ethics is what you do; morals is why you do it” camp.
The way I see it:
Ethics is about how an action would affect other people. Morals are rules between you and yourself about things you will or will not do. Values are a prioritised list of which of these are more important, should they come into conflict.
and shit.