To What Extent Are Morality or Ethics Different as Concepts?
I thought about the way in which the idea of the term morality and ethics is used in discussions on the forum today However, for a long term I have thought that while the terms are often used ambiguously, I do see essential differences in the terms. Morality seems to conjure up s a more prescriptive scope of thinking about how we should live. In contrast, ethics can be about more detailed analysis of the complexities and conflicts arising in life. I have always believed that the concept of morality and ethics are a bit different, but I have not explored this within research or philosophy. So, I am raising it as a question, with uncertainty about whether there is any debate at all, as regard to whether morality and ethics are at all different from one another, as conceptual frameworks, or as starting points for ideals, values about how we should live.
Comments (59)
. Society ... tells you ... to be an ethical moral man ...
. Society ... tells you ... to cultivate morality ... independently ... your inner will ...
. Society ... and it's ethics ... What Nietzsche ... this ... brilliant revolutionary of the 19th century... would call Moral costums of the mob ... tell you ... to be ethical ... to any kind of formality and tradition ... anyway ... to be according to that ... which ... subtly ... divides people ... so you can be an efficent machine for society.
. BUT ... that ... in order to be concretized ... you must be deep asleep. And when you are in a deep sleep ... while in wakefullness ... then ... naturally ... you'll think that ... the respectability and the reputation ... that ... society gives to you ... is Truth ... is the essence of existence ... which is not. It's nothing ... but ... just an autohypnosis ... so ... you can be shut up ... for the rest of your Life ... and live Life ... miserably comfortable ... and ... then Die. Deep inside ... the morality of this social structure ... is based on repression. It is always there ... always ... your shadow ... always ... with you ... always ... controlling you ... always ... manipulating you ...
. If you're watchful ... you'll see that ... the majority of people's Life ... is summed up ... like this: Born, eat, drink, sleep, facing the angry boss ... or ... at least ... be competitive and greedy and a miser to others ... return to home and facing the angry wife ... hang out with friends ... so they can forget for a bit about their misery ... eat, drink, sleep, facing ....................... Ad infinitum ... and ... finally ... the physical Death ...
. There's no reason to Live this Burden ...
. My perspective is similar to Nietzsche perspective ... Ethics and morality support each other ... Both the concepts ... are related to the mob psychology ...
. My proposal to you ... friend ... is ... to become more conscious, and you will be moral. But that morality will have a totally different flavor to it. It will be spontaneous; it will not be ready-made.
. Society ... wants ... ready-made moral and ethics ... but that's impossible ... because ... it kills all the spontaneity ... all the dignity of it ...
. First ... become conscious ... as an individual ... not as a collective mind ... and ... then ... yes ... naturally ... you will become moral ... not vice versa!
. Morality ... follows consciousness ... as ... shadow follows man ...
I always believed ethics are something that could be reduced to writing, and to which one could be held, whereas morals are more subjectively an internal guide.
Example: I can violate ethics if I feel justified in doing so; I cannot violate morals without guilt.
I think that I was really trying to speak of the different contexts in which ideas about morality and ethics arose. Morality was often based on ideas of personal duty, while ethics was based more on ideas of larger concerns about effects of action. This was partly based on the shift from a deontological approach to a more utilitarian one,but I think that it was a bit more subtle than this divide. I think that it is about the underlying basis from which ideas stem, but it is also about underlying systems of values.
Ethics has acquired an additional meaning - it can mean 'the study of morality'. But a course on Ethics and a course on 'Moral Philosophy' will have one and the same subject matter, other things being equal.
Kant's 'Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals' for example is called 'Groundwork of the metaphysics of ethics' in earlier translations. So whether one says 'morals' or 'ethics' or immoral or unethical is really a matter of taste, and in professional articles on ethics you'll find the terms used interchangeably.
Needless to say, a lot of people who lack any credentials in this area will now contradict me.
In some ways, I agree with you that it can be a choice of term, and I am aware of some historical basis of the interchangeable use of the word ethics and morality, such as that of Kant. But, I do believe that there is a certain distinction in the development of the study of ethics. My original studies were in social ethics, and, strangely enough, I can't remember the use of the two terms being really spoken of clearly, but in most aspects of the course the word ethics was used. I do feel that the word moral is generally reserved more for a description of a one specific view of how one should behave, and when I choose to study social ethics, I did so with a view to dialogue and debate about issues.
Fromage and Cheese - they mean the same thing. Unethical and immoral - they mean the same.
I agree that they can be used in the same way, even as in a code, such as The Nursing Code of Ethics, which is more of a set of guidelines to be adhered to by all nurses at all times rather than a framework for debate.
However, I still maintain that the choice of the word immoral and unethical are slightly different in connotations. The word immoral is used more with certain views about personal behaviour, such as by those who see certain sexual acts as being not acceptable, and it is more about standards. The emphasis is usually on the nature of acts as the focus. On the other hand, unethical is used far more to point to certain effects of action on a social level, based upon specific arguments, such as acts of war, inequality. Of course, there is a blurring of the use of the word, but they are different in subtle connotations.
Why? Can an act be unethical but moral? No.
Look, the experts all use the terms interchangeably. It's not an issue. They just mean the same thing (with Ethics having the additional 'study of morality' meaning).
THe only people - the only people - who'll tell you they have a different meaning are those without any expertise in ethics. I guarantee it.
I think that it is hard to say that an act which is unethical is moral, such as stealing. But, it is not so easy to see all actions which are about personal conduct as being unethical. One aspect of this may be that certain thoughts may be seen as immoral, but it would be extremely difficult to argue that specific thoughts are unethical. The term ethics has more of an emphasis on the outer effects of action, rather than in connection with the intention and goodness of the person.
I definitely agree with you, and think that is probably why Kant's use of the term ethics was different because he was writing in a time when religious thinking was the main framework. I do think that the idea of morality was more related to sinning, such as ideas about adultery, masturbation, or even drinking alcohol.
Very good question. I think we tend to use these terms without thinking too much about any distinctions.
As a tentative/provisional answer, I would say that:
As an adjective, moral (from Latin for “custom”) refers to what is right and what is wrong and to the goodness or badness of human character or behavior.
Morality is the degree of conformity to moral principles, e.g., the morality of an action.
Ethics (from Greek for “character”) is the philosophy that deals with moral principles.
The adjectives "moral" and "ethical" are virtually identical to one another.
Similarly, when used in the sense of philosophy, science, or field of knowledge, morality and ethics are often used interchangeably, although in philosophy ethics is possibly more often used in this sense.
Edit. For example, we talk of "Aristotle's Ethics" or ethical system by which we mean his moral philosophy.
I just began thinking about it while I was reading and writing on the thread about 'wisdom'. It may be that some people see the differentiation as not being important, but I do think that how we use the terms makes a difference to the way we think about morality or ethics. I do believe that a main reason why have moved into the more common usage of the term ethics is related to the secular context of life.
However, I would not go as far as to say that the emphasis on morality, as opposed to ethics only involves whether religion is involved or not. It is partly about ideals and human life. I think that morality is also more closely connected to the idea of sincerity, as involving honesty to the self, whereas ethics is more about authenticity, in which life is seen as involving us as social actors. In some ways, morality seems to involve the mastery of self, while ethics is about trying to perceive the farreaching effects of actions. But, of course they do overlap, because we are both beings with consciences and, with awareness that what we do affects other people and other lifeforms. I think that ethics involves a more analytical stance, or of stepping back from moral feelings.
I really raised the question because I believe that thinking about the two words or ideas is useful for reflection on the way we go about making moral, or ethical, choices.
Correct. Ethics was absolutely central to ancient philosophy which is why for Plato political philosophy and ethics were closely related (Republic, Laws) and Aristotle wrote his Nicomachean Ethics.
Basically, ethics revolves around the concept of "justice" (dike) or "righteousness" (dikaiosyne) which is the highest among virtues. Knowing what is right and what is wrong and acting in conformity with right is a defining feature of wisdom (sophia) or being wise (sophos).
“....Natural and moral philosophy, on the contrary, can each have their empirical part, since the former has to determine the laws of nature as an object of experience; the latter the laws of the human will, so far as it is affected by nature: the former, however, being laws according to which everything does happen; the latter, laws according to which everything ought to happen. Ethics, however, must also consider the conditions under which what ought to happen frequently does not. (...) In this way there arises the idea of a twofold metaphysic- a metaphysic of nature and a metaphysic of morals. Physics will thus have an empirical and also a rational part. It is the same with Ethics; but here the empirical part might have the special name of practical anthropology, the name morality being appropriated to the rational part....”
This reduces....eventually.....to morality being a philosophy for individual determinations of conduct in particular, ethics being the science of the consequences of the application of them, in general.
Yes, I think that this question about wisdom and ethics is interrelated with wisdom, and my own threads are almost like tangled wires really. But, I guess that so many of the threads on the forum are exploring ideas which branch off from one another, rather like a tree.
I do believe that ethics was a central concept going back to the Greeks. Perhaps, it went a bit differently in the West as a result of Kant. He did stress the categorical imperative, which focuses on universalisation, but, in some ways his system and some other moral systems could be interpreted as being rather insular. Wisdom is important but, it is possible that when the emphasis is upon righteousness it can lead to self righteousness.
I am not saying that thinking about the outcome of actions alone is the only thing that matters, but thinking about consequences does mean that more thought is put into decisions. After all, choices in life often involve conflict. I think that the thinking about decisions is a way in which people may go beyond the surface. Rather than just sit back feeling comfortable, and righteous, the conflicts of life may be less focused on self and about higher priorities of reason.
I would have been interested to know where your quotation came from. But, yes, it is interesting to think about whether morality, or ethics can become based on empirical principles. Of course, to some extent, the basis of morality is central to legal systems, and other aspects of the social system, even involving political ideals. For example, ideas such as the welfare state come from underlying principles of morality and ethics, with a focus upon the outer conditions of human life.
It can in theory if misunderstood. However, when correctly understood, knowledge of right and wrong cannot be limited to right and wrong for oneself. It must take into consideration right and wrong for society at large. Otherwise, it is not righteousness but selfishness which is the antithesis of righteousness. The whole point of righteousness and of moral virtues in general was to serve as the basis for civilized conduct resulting in a peaceful, harmonious and just society. Hence to be righteous (dikaios) was to be a civilized citizen of the city-state. This is why Plato coined the phrase "good and wise" (agathos kai sophos) to describe the perfect citizen. This would positively rule out self-righteousness.
I am sure that the ideals about right and wrong should be able to be about establishing a just social order, but I don't think that it always works that way in practice. We only have to think about the Biblical remarks about the hollow morality of the Pharisees. That showed how much hypocrisy there can be.
And, our own times are so much more complicated because we are seeing the collapse of many systems of thought. We are in the fragmented world of post truth and postmodernism. Or, it is probably not that clearcut. If anything, we are in a cut and paste philosophy era, trying to put the fragments together. In some ways, morality or ethics can be a bit of make it up as you go. It seems to be that in many ways, even those who read philosophy, are improvising, and probably struggling.
Maybe this is why morality is a philosophy, and ethics is a science, in that morals can have no empirical principles whatsoever, while ethics is in fact, predicated on them. This follows if it be granted ethics concerns itself with an object, in the form of community, or society, with behaviors relative to its constituency, but morality, on the other hand, does not have an object, it being nothing but a method by which any behavior of a single individual is to become justified by himself alone.
An ethical community implies a voluntary bonding among individuals, but morality determines the conditions under which an individual member determines himself bondable. Ethics authorizes a welfare state, but my moral disposition may very well disavow my participation in it.
One way to look at it, anyway.
That shouldn't be the case if philosophy, at least as expounded by Plato and other Platonists, is correctly understood and practiced.
The only difficulty would be the dichotomy of private and public life. In private or personal matters you act according to the principle of righteousness. But in public life this may not always be possible. The struggle then does not consists in not knowing what is right and what is wrong (not in my case at least) but in how to reconcile right conduct with socially acceptable conduct. And that is something that everyone has to work out for themselves according to their abilities and circumstances.
For example, if you happen to live in a country where manifesting your religion is not socially accepted, then you act according to the principles of your faith in your private sphere and do the same in the public sphere as far as possible without unnecessarily exposing yourself to personal harm.
I can see your idea of morality being a philosophy and ethics as science as useful in some ways. However, they probably cannot be polarised, but it does seem that ethics may be so much more than personal feeling, and based more on rational thought and knowledge drawn from sciences.
I think that it is not that simple, because we have imperfections. I believe that it is important to have principles, but I would not say that I feel that I am righteous. In particular, life throws so much stress and horrible things at us, and it is sometimes hard to just keep together in some kind of balanced way. I do focus more on thinking about the consequences of actions rather than on a sense of being morally good. I think that I never felt 'good' because I have inherited a big Catholic guilt complex.
I am not really against religion, or in favour of it, but I did feel that the whole emphasis on sin was stressful. When I was 13 I read the passage in the Bible about the unforgivable sin and became convinced that I had committed it. I spent about 6 months worrying about it. Also, I have known so many people who have experienced difficulties with religious beliefs affecting their mental health. But, really, I keep an open mind towards so many ideas generally, and in making informed ethical choices.
My own experience is that often life circumstances involve so many competing factors, so I apply reason to be best of my ability. I make mistakes, but I try to learn from them, and I do believe that life is about learning through trial and error.
Well, I know many Catholics who don't have that problem, not consciously or obviously, in any case.
What you seem to be saying is probably more to do with psychology than with ethics.
But I agree that life can be difficult and some people can have more complex personalities (and lives) than others.
Ethics, from ethos (habitat, or commons) and ethikos (of habits, or character), is the study of how one cultivates habits that sustain the habitat.
Morality, from mores (customs, or norms), is the collection (or code) with which one cultivates one's character by (A) exercising judgments and actions that sustains the commons and (B) avoiding judgments and actions which fail to sustain the commons.
In these terms, I conceive that – having learned from Laozi, Buddha, Hillel the Elder, Epicurus, Spinoza, Kropotkin, Peirce-Popper, Zapffe-Camus, Buber-Levinas, P. Foot, I. Murdoch, Nussbaum-Sen – reducing one's own misery (ethics (self-care / agency)) is the intrinsic benefit of working to reduce the miseries of others (morality (others-care / social justice)). Want to feel better about yourself – make your life significant? Care for others, not just yourself, in effective ways.
I agree with you, and that was the kind of way I was thinking about when I wrote the thread. I think that morality and ethics are slightly differently angles but closely interconnected. Of course, people use the terms as identical at times, but I just think it is worth being aware of the subtlies of the ideas, for clarity of thought.
Just one correction:
?????? ?thikós is not "habits, or character" because it isn't a noun.
It's an adjective meaning “of habits/character" or "expressing habits/character”.
?????? - Wiktionary
For instance, you are insisting there is a subtle difference. Do you have expertise in ethics? No.
Now go and find the journal 'Ethics'. Read it and notice the terms being used interchangeably.
I remember a linguist colleague came up to me once and asked me what the difference is between the terms. I said what I said here. She then did what you did - she said 'oh I think there's a slight difference'. Well why ask then? Why ask an expert and then just ignore the answer?
I will look it up, but I am wondering is that the Chicago journal? I am not trying to argue definitively, and if it is that they really are identical, surely it is worthwhile that I have raised the debate because it does appear that some other people use the two terms slightly differently. I will try to research the matter a bit further because it may be that even academics are not in complete agreement.
Thus spoke the Dunning-Kruger troll. Again.
It isn't an issue in philosophy. Academic philosophers do not debate whether ethics and morality have the same meaning.
When someone contradicts me, ask that person if they have any expertise in ethics. That is, do they have a PhD and/or peer review publications in respectable venues. They won't.
I tend to agree with that. Ethics and morality in the sense of field of knowledge or study are unquestionably synonymous.
I think the confusion arises from the way some writers use the terms. For example, "ethical and moral" tends to occur quite frequently as if it was two different concepts:
"Humans are ethical and moral regardless of religion and God"
And discussions keep shifting from one term to the other and back again:
"To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person’s choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the individual to include what is determined to be right, and wrong, for a community or society at large.
Ethics is concerned with rights, responsibilities, use of language, what it means to live an ethical life, and how people make moral decisions".
Ethics and Morality - Psychology Today
So, I can see why people can find it confusing.
So, do you have a Ph D and peer review in ethics? Also, I am sure that the academic philosophers are worth listening to, but I would have thought that within academic and other philosophy discussion it is all about the interchange of ideas rather than ultimate deliberations about the meaning of terms.
Thanks for finding a useful article, because I do think that there are probably differing opinions on the matter.
Why will you only find articles by non philosophers on this? Why might that be? Why might it only be sociologists or psychologists or what have you drawing the ethics morality distinction? Why?
I can see that it is worth being aware that psychologists have a different training, but I am still not sure that it means that only academic philosophers have the authority to have an opinion. Even if you are an 'expert' it doesn't mean that every other expert would agree with you because in philosophy, the whole purpose must be about discussion of ideas, or otherwise there is no point in philosophy at all.
Where do you get your car serviced? The dentists? Sheesh.
But I am not aware of other professionals thinking that they have exclusive knowledge. For example, I have worked with consultant psychiatrists, including professors, and they don't try to argue that their knowledge and expertise about mental health is superior to that of all others. The way you describe it makes it seem as if truth is decided within ivory towers.
You have asked a question about whether ethics and morality denote the same concept. That's not a question in philosophy. There's no dispute over it. It isn't interesting. It isn't about reality, just about word use. And the answer is undisputed: they mean the same. One is Greek, the other Latin. Deal with it. You do when it comes to fromage and cheese - or is that a philosophical question too?
The psychiatrists I knew were open to debate. In the first place, I simply raised the topic for discussion, and I am not really concerned to prove a point. If you are an academic of such importance I respect your opinion, but don't that it gives you the authority to come up with the one and ultimate opinion. I see this being in contradiction to the true spirit of philosophy. I believe that in order to make your case you would need to look at forming an argument rather than just claiming that you are the expert.
It's really funny, actually. But I have this book at home, An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis by Philosophy Prof. J Hospers that I hardly ever even look at, to be honest. I just checked right now and under "Problems in Ethics" (chapter 8) it says "The nature of moral judgments", under "Ethics and Law" it says "moral rules, moral principles, moral theorists", ... then it goes on to talk about "moral rights" vs "legal rights", "morally unjust", etc., etc. I haven't found the phrase "ethical and moral" yet, but you get the idea.
They are used interchangeably (though, like I say, ethics has an additional meaning - it can also mean 'the study of morality'). Now and throughout history. Ethics comes from ethos. That was Greek for customs. Morality comes from mores. That's Latin for customs. That doesn't mean that ethics and morality mean customs. But it does show you that the terms have always been used interchangeably.
There can be more than one word for the same thing. Hence, you know, different languages. Morality means ethics and ethics means morality. Unethical means wrong and that's what immoral means. And 'unethical and immoral' is stupid and now you will start hearing it everywhere. And when you hear it you will now know that its utterer is a fool who has no expertise in ethics. They are everywhere.
I am not saying that I don't respect your opinion, but we can see if anyone else contributes to the discussion at all. I see it as a topic for exploration, because the usage of terms does affect the way the ideas themselves are understood and interpreted.
I agree with @Bartricks that ethics and morality are the same thing. It's just "ethical" and "moral" that seems a tad unclear.
These are the OED definitions:
ethics a. The branch of knowledge or study dealing with moral principles
ethical a. Of or relating to moral principles, esp. as forming a system, or the branch of knowledge or study dealing with these
moral a. Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.
So, they are synonymous. It’s just that some authors seem to use one or the other when they wish to emphasize a particular aspect of ethics or morality. Possibly, this is the root of the confusion. I for one particularly dislike phrases like "ethical and moral" when it isn't at all clear from the context what the writer is talking about. It's almost as if they are talking about one thing but they throw in the other one just to make sure they are as inclusive as possible.
I have a feeling that this is about as far as you can get with philosophy.
When I say ethics and morality are synonyms, I am not expressing an 'opinion'. I am telling you how they are used by experts - that is, by those who understand them. They are used interchangeably. I use them interchangeably and no reviewer has yet said 'er, are you talking about morality or ethics in this paper?'. They are used interchangeably by everyone such that switching between the two will go unnoticed and unremarked on. Ethical properties. Moral properties. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory. Utilitarianism is a moral theory. That act was unethical. That act was immoral. And so on.
That's how they're used outside the academy too. I mean, virtualy everyone knows that unethical means the same as immoral. 'He was very moral but totally unethical' makes no sense at all.
It is those in other disciplines who are responsible for muddying the water. For it is they who say things like 'ethics concerns an organization's rules and regulations, whereas morality concerns an individual's conscience' or some such nonsense. I have no idea why they do this. I think they think they're being sophisticated or something, or perhaps they just like making unhelpful distinctions, or perhaps they are just stupid.
Really, I am not going to keep arguing my point, but what I do see as being a problem is the view that there are 'experts', who have the last word. Also, dictionary definitions are useful, but they are brief. But, I do think that it is worth bearing in mind a point arising, early in the thread, how moral was more of a preferred choice of term within religious contexts, and ethics within the secular.
But, really I just raised it for thinking about. It may be that many will agree with you, or not think that it is worth talking about. I am about to log out for the present, and we will just have to see if the discussion is finished here, or whether anyone else joins in further. I am interested to see if others agree that experts have decided that moral and ethical are identical, and if so, I am happy to accept that.
"Christian ethics, which is also referred to as moral theology, is a multi-faceted ethical system: it is a virtue ethic which focuses on building moral character...."
Christian ethics - Wikipedia
But we'll keep an open mind and consider all new findings.
For any situation calling for an immediate moral judgement on your part, what......you gonna query an expert? Nahhhh......I suspect you’d agree you’re the last word, and it’s you alone that has to answer to yourself, for whatever you do with that last word.
Ethics is what you learn; moral is what you are.
What I believe is that there is a danger that concepts are thought about in a concrete and static way. I was just reading 'A Short History of Ethics', by Alasdair Macintyre. He argues that, 'to analyse a concept philosophically may often be to assist in its transformation by suggesting that it needs revision', and I would say that this is something that applies here in the thinking here. So, I wish that the academic experts could begin to see the need for being able to be more progressive.
But, I won't trouble myself too much, as life has enough stress and strain without getting too worked up over word definitions.
I would agree with that, and it was really an abstract discussion, but in reality the use of terms does depend on the context in which they are used. Really, I think that in some ways the ideas have to be understood historically. However, I do believe that ideas about morality and ethics have changed, so there is a need for understanding of this progression being reflected in the meanings of the terms.
:up:
Absolutely, I am about to go to bed and don't wish to end up having nightmares about words transmogrifying into monsters.
Then see https://www.etymonline.com
Thanks for the link. It looks useful, and you definitely love dictionaries.
The fact that words are synonymous does not mean they can't on occasion be used in slightly different senses and vice versa, the fact that words are sometimes used to convey slightly different meanings does not mean that they can't be synonymous in other contexts.