WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORALS & ETHICS?

 It is not uncommon for individuals to confuse morals with ethics. This is due at least in part to the fact that the derivation of these terms come from the French, Greek and Latin languages.

While the meanings of these terms do have similarities, there is a marked distinction in application amongst members of society.

At its root, what does the term “morals” mean? It is a reference to a person’s idea of that which shapes their surrounding environment, to include their belief system. It is these values that shape a person’s view of what constitutes right and wrong. It is the belief system, to a large degree, that guides an individual’s perceived notion of that which must be either right or wrong.

It is these morals that provide many of the ideas behind ethical systems. Herein lies much of the confusion.  In most instances, morals serve as the basis for ethics. It is obvious that morals are not always the guiding principle upon which one relies.

What constitutes a moral person? He or she is someone who desires to do that which is right. It is this moral impulse that frequently bespeaks  best intentions.

Morals are associated with or characterized by right behavior. They are also associated with or concerning either conduct or principles perceived as either good or bad. The Latin term “moralis” references a person’s behavior in society. We commonly see this term used in relationship to manners.

Societal mores takes into account that behavior which is accepted as appropriate, beneficial and permitted. A violation of conduct that satisfies the foregoing often results in opprobrium.

Synderesis refers to inborn knowledge of the primary principles of moral action —distinguished from syneidesis (the capacity to apply general principles to moral judgment).

Ethics is frequently discussed as though the term is a study of moral character. (See discussion infra.) However, such a description may lead to profound confusion, as well as legal conundra, if applied to situations in a cavalier manner.

The term “ethics” is derived from Old French etique “ethics, moral philosophy” from Late Latin “ethica,”, and from the Greek “ēthik.” These terms refer to character, particularly moral character. These terms reference “moral principles of a person or group.”

While they’re closely related concepts, morals refer mainly to guiding principles, and ethics refer to specific rules and actions, or behaviors.

A moral precept is an idea or opinion that’s driven by a desire to be good. An ethical code is a set of rules that defines allowable actions or correct behavior. Most frequently observed in professions (e.g., Law, Clergy).

What do we mean by the term “ethics”? Ethics are often distinguished from morals in that ethics  are intended to accomplish codified goals. For example, an attorney violates professional ethics if he or she discloses privileged information, irrespective of the consequences of a failure to disclose. Disclosure may clearly be the moral course of action, while at the same time being a gross ethical violation.

It is important to bear in mind that an ethical code doesn’t have to be even remotely moral. The ethical code need only be a set of rules individuals are required to follow. There are many professional organizations (e.g., American Bar Association, American Medical Association) that have created specific ethical codes for their respective fields. Those of you who are Seinfeld fans may recall that even Dry Cleaners have a code of ethics that prohibit them from wearing customers’ clothes.

These ethical codes have nothing to do with a firmly established set of beliefs. They are rules that are drafted by trade organizations to assist members in gaining confidence from those who retain members’ services, to demonstrate conduct that brings credit to the organization, and provides standardization in regulating violations of the ethical codes.

How do we determine that which is moral? This leads us into the question of whether a cosmic being (e.g., God) issues edicts from on-high that establishes that which is moral or is the determination that which arises organically? 

We may easily distinguish between the two by considering the following: (1) Society A is governed by a belief system that relies upon the Sixth Commandment - Thou shalt not kill - and concludes that to kill is immoral; and (2) Society B is governed by a belief system that relies upon the practice of killing one’s enemies and consuming their flesh to be imbued with greater courage and power.

Are we to merely speculate as to which, if either, Society A or Society B adheres to moral principles? Irrespective of how repugnant one finds the foregoing, in the absence of some universal principle of morality, I suspect that we are truly left with no alternative but to conclude that Society A’s and Society B’s conduct are equally moral in their respective milieu. 

To explore the matter further, let us look at the difference between deontological and consequentialist views regarding the issue under consideration.

Let us first consider Kant’s Deontology. Deontology is described as an ethical theory that relegates the distinction between right and wrong to a set of rules. Kant believed that ethical actions follow universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.” Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and perform their duties. The question naturally arises, “From whence cometh these universal moral laws?”

If one simply considers the basic premise of Deontology, it is simple to apply. People are, at least in theory, required to follow the rules and perform their duty. Such an approach appears to comport a supposed universal view regarding that which is or isn’t ethical. Kant said, “Two Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.”

The contrary view that judges actions by their results is referred to as Consequentialism. There is no consideration of costs and benefits in a Deontological analysis. The only consideration is whether the specified rules were followed.

There are numerous deficiencies in a Deontological analysis, not the least of which is that it can produce results that many people find not only unacceptable, but also repugnant.

Much confusion arose with respect to behavior deemed either moral or ethical during the so-called Enlightenment era. It was during this time that Nietzsche proclaimed, “God is dead.” Many agreed and were propelled into a morass of confusion regarding any universal perception of that which is either right or wrong.

Essentially three responses arose to address the mindset emanating from the Enlightenment era: (1) Social Contract Theory; (2) Utilitarianism; and (3) Kantian Ethics. I am reminded of the passage found in Romans 1:22, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

 

What is the Social Contract? It is a theory propounded by Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher. He argued that morality was essentially a set of rules that human beings agreed upon amongst themselves in order to make living with one another possible. Hobbes opined that if individuals didn’t implement these rules, life would be absolutely unbearable for those in societies devoid of such rules.

What is Utilitarianism? It was another attempt to give morality a non-religious foundation. Proponents of this theory were David Hume and Jeremy Bentham. This theory posits that pleasure and happiness have intrinsic value. It is assumed that happiness and pleasure are what we all want and are the primary goal toward which all actions are directed. That which is good is that which promotes the most happiness. That which is bad produces suffering. The primary duty of man, under this rubric, is to try to do things that increase the amount of happiness and reduce the amount of misery in the world. 

What is the Kantian Ethic?  In Kant’s view the basis for our sense of what is good or bad, right or wrong, is our awareness that human beings are free, rational agents who should be given their due respect. Of course, “the devil is in the details.”

Kant asserts, “The only thing that is unconditionally good is goodwill.” Kant states that goodwill is always good, irrespective of circumstances. Kant defaults to a description of goodwill as doing what is done because it is perceived as the duty of the individual performing the deed. In essence, Kant believed that goodwill is a result of a sense of moral obligation.

In conclusion, what is the difference between morals and ethics? As you can see, there is a great deal of confusion. However, if we accept the premise that ethical conduct is frequently established via codes for various entities, we may conclude that a violation of such codes of conduct would be the antithesis of ethics.

Regarding morals, it would appear that one’s view of a Universal principle, as opposed to an organic principle (i.e., arising from acceptable conduct as determined by selected societal members), would determine what constitutes moral conduct. The former being that which is necessary, the latter being that which is contingent.