Ethics vs Morality

[Anarchological]

Those who have studied philosophy in college generally maintain that there is no difference between the meaning of the words "ethics" and "morality", and dictionaries accept this view. But although there is a large overlap in meaning, there is a subtle, but distinct, difference between the usuage of the two words.

The bottom line is that ethics generally refers to interpersonal relations, while morality most often involves the relationahip between a person and jhis or her God. For example, few people would say that homosexual acts between consenting adults are unethical, but Baptist preachers have been known to say such things as "I do not hate homosexuals, but homosexual acts are an abomination in the eyes of God." Many orthodox sects of the Biblical, Judeo-Christi-Islamic, religions also maintain that premarital sex, oral sex, and other sexually oriented activities are "immoral", but not necessarily unethical. Fundamentalist Muslims and Jews maintain that eating pork is immoral because it violates the laws of God, but, again, it would be doubtful that any would try to make a case that eating pork is unethical.

[coberst]

I came across this statement “for everything human beings do by intelligence rather than instinct, any course of conduct they choose when they might have chosen differently, is a moral action” in “The Metaphysical Club” by Louis Menand and it stopped me in my tracks. I had to study this statement and make a decision about its validity.

I consider the words ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ to be interchangeable.

We all have the ability to do harm or to do good to other people; and we all are fully aware of that capacity. How can we know this? We can know this because we are capable of imaginatively placing our self into the boots of the other person?

Young children know this, as is evident by there shouts of condemnation:
“That’s not fair!”—“She won’t share!”—“He hit me and I didn’t do anything to him!”—“He promised!”—“Cheater, Cheater!”—“Liar, Liar!”—“It’s my turn!”

I suspect most of us, adults and children; learn these ‘ethical principles’ through social osmosis (without conscious effort). We ‘know’ these principles of ethical behavior but often fail to practice them because there are always so many other forces pulling us in another direction.

The forces pulling us into unethical behavior are many; for example, ego and social centric forces, self-delusion, selfishness, and especially because of our ignorance and the complexity of the problems we face.

Webster defines educate as—to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically [beauty] especially by instruction. Webster defines indoctrinate as—to imbue [infuse] with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.

I think that it is imperative for each adult to become conscious (aware plus attention) of the difference between these two terms--‘educate’ and ‘indoctrinate’--and also to recognize just how much of our attitude toward matters of ethics results from our education or from our indoctrination.

Almost everything that we do has some effect upon others. Morality is about relationships between humans. Therefore almost all acts are moral acts.

I agree with the statement in the first paragraph, do you? I find it I to be staggering to realize this to be a fact, do you?

[Anarchological]

I don't diasagree with that statement, You and I might wish to equate morality and ethics, believing that sex between consenting adults is neither unethical nor immoral, and that the "shock and awe" on the totally blameless people of Iraq was both immoral and ethical. The problem is that in common usuage, people such as the Moral Majority believe just the opposite- that premarital sex is immoral and that the shock and awe on the people of Iraq was hunky-dory. In common usage morality is involved with "the laws of God", and one's relationship to God, whereas ethics refer to interpersonal actions.

[lev_lafayette]

Whilst the definition of morals derives from the Latin 'moralis', meaning 'custom', contemporary and universal useage describes it as the judgement by which the goodness/evilness of a human action may be ascertained.

Note 'human action' - it is not possible to describe the actions of non-reasoning animals as moral. Animals are described as 'amoral', as distinct from human actions which are 'moral' or 'immoral'.

The general distinction between good/evil, moral/immoral is acting in an injurous fashion and without the consent of the others. Note that these is 'and' not 'or', although that there are some who claim that injury with consent is immoral (which is impossible to determine because the experience of feelings are subjective). The mirror-image of such a position is that it would be immoral to help someone who was unconscious (ie., beneficial behaviour without consent).

There is a distinction between morals and ethics 'a theory or a system of moral conduct' from the Greek and Latin 'ethos' or character. Morals are principled - ethics are situational. Ethics are applied morality and especially the difficulties of choice that arise from moral dilemmas.

In pragmatic terms morality represents a normative approach from the individual worldview. It is about how we as individuals treat others and how we would like others to treat us. Morality has rational points of connection or distinction with Law (the normative approach from the social worldview) and Sensuality (the aesthetic approach of the individual worldview). In other words, morality is what is "right" with a relationship (sometimes troubled) between what is "legal" and what is "pleasurable".

It also is distorted by irrationalisable claims, such as those resulting from metaphysics (normative claims to the physical worldview) and personal objectivism (objective claims to the individual worldview).

[RommelMcDonald]

OP, while I disagree with you on morality being a personal relationship with God, I believe I see what you're getting at. You're talking about the difference between guilt and shame.

Shame is something other people give you. If your community sees you as a bad person who does bad things they shame you. Sometimes you may be shamed because an act you committed that was not deserving of shame was misinterpreted by the community. Conversely, an act you should be shamed for may be praised by the community.

Guilt is something you impose upon yourself. You can feel guilty for something as simple as mispronouncing someone's name in front of a large crowd. The person whose name you mispronounced may not even care. They might have even found it amusing. But since you perceive it as something you did that was wrong you gave yourself the gift of guilt.

Sometimes these terms are interchangeable, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. You might be a sociopathic child killer who is shamed by the community for killing children but doesn't feel guilty at all. Or you might be a saint who has the praise of the community, but feels guilty about some small faux pau you committed at a social gathering.

Either way, it's up to you to determine whether the shame you receive or the guilt you impose on yourself is justified.

[Guest]

Those who have studied philosophy in college generally maintain that there is no difference between the meaning of the words "ethics" and "morality", and dictionaries accept this view. But although there is a large overlap in meaning, there is a subtle, but distinct, difference between the usuage of the two words.

The bottom line is that ethics generally refers to interpersonal relations, while morality most often involves the relationahip between a person and jhis or her God. For example, few people would say that homosexual acts between consenting adults are unethical, but Baptist preachers have been known to say such things as "I do not hate homosexuals, but homosexual acts are an abomination in the eyes of God." Many orthodox sects of the Biblical, Judeo-Christi-Islamic, religions also maintain that premarital sex, oral sex, and other sexually oriented activities are "immoral", but not necessarily unethical. Fundamentalist Muslims and Jews maintain that eating pork is immoral because it violates the laws of God, but, again, it would be doubtful that any would try to make a case that eating pork is unethical.

I could hardly disagree more strongly.

I've studied Christian theology for six years of school and college and am a university graduate in Philosophy, and Ethics and Morality aren't usually blurred together, and where they are it's accepted as a weakness in the writing.

You're right that there's a distinction, but entirely wrong that the distinction is between theological and secular systems of thought.

Ethics can exist in theological and secular forms, an Morality can also exist in theological and secular forms. Ethics is the methodical engagement with "moral problems", as can be done equally by theologians and ethicists, whereas Morality is more simply the social expression of these things, the less carefully considered habits and social mores of a group, and as such doesn't necessarily overlap with Ethics.

Ethics is the study of what is felt to be right and wrong. Morality is the expression of what is felt to be right or wrong.

I hope this helps!

[Invictus_88]

I don't diasagree with that statement, You and I might wish to equate morality and ethics, believing that sex between consenting adults is neither unethical nor immoral, and that the "shock and awe" on the totally blameless people of Iraq was both immoral and ethical. The problem is that in common usuage, people such as the Moral Majority believe just the opposite- that premarital sex is immoral and that the shock and awe on the people of Iraq was hunky-dory. In common usage morality is involved with "the laws of God", and one's relationship to God, whereas ethics refer to interpersonal actions.

Again, not true.

There are ethical arguments against premarital sex, and there are also moral objections to it. The arguments can be theological or secular, and the objections can be theological or secular.