Ethics vs morals and morality
November 3rd 2006 05:36
What's the distinction?
"[Ethics is] is the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual. Christian ethics and Albert Schweitzer's ethics are examples."
-- John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995
My own comment:
Often the word "moral" purports to describe something as if there were a fact of the matter. As if "murder is wrong" were the same sort of claim as "snow is white".
In this sort of usage, the ethical needn't be the factual. It might be unethical (that is, a breach of a particular code) for doctors to sleep with their patients; but it's possible that there are circumstances where no one would call it immoral.
"What is ethics? The word itself is sometimes used to refer to the set of rules, principles, or ways of thinking that guide, or claim authority to guide, the actions of a particular group; and sometimes it stands for the systematic study of reasoning about how we ought to act. In the first of these senses, we may ask about the sexual ethics of the people of the Trobriand Islands, or speak about the way in which medical ethics in The Netherlands has come to accept voluntary euthanasia. In the second sense, 'ethics' is the name of a field of study, and often of a subject taught in university departments of philosophy...
Some writers use the term 'morality' for the first, descriptive, sense in which I am using 'ethics'. They would talk of the morality of the Trobriand islanders when they want to describe what the islanders take to be right
or wrong. They would reserve 'ethics' (or sometimes 'moral philosophy') for the field of study or the subject taught in departments of philosophy. I have not adopted this usage. Both 'ethics' and 'morality' have their roots in a word for 'customs', the former being a derivative of the Greek term from which we get 'ethos', and the latter from the Latin root that gives us 'mores', a word still used sometimes to describe the customs of a people. 'Morality' brings with it a particular, and sometimes inappropriate, reasonance today. It suggests a stern set of duties that require us to subordinate our natural desires -- and our sexual desires get particular emphasis here -- in order to obey the moral law. A failure to fulfil our duty brings with it a heavy sense of guilt. Very often, morality is assumed to have a religious basis. These connotations of 'morality' are features of a particular conception of ethics, one linked to the Jewish and Christian traditions, rather than an inherent feature of any ethical system.
Ethics has no necessary connection with any particular religion, nor with religion in general."
-- Peter Singer (ed), Ethics, 1994
The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) seems to show that, from the earliest times, the words had very similar meanings.
"Ethic" as a noun has the senses "The science of morals" and "A scheme of moral science", and these are treated as parts (a) and (b) of a single meaning. The earliest citation is from 1387.
"Ethics" (in the plural) divides into a number of meanings. The sense of "The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty" dates from 1602. The sense of "The moral principles or system of a particular leader or school of thought" dates from 1651.
"Morality" in the sense of "The doctrine or system concerned with conduct or duty; moral science" dates from 1449. In the sense of "Moral conduct; usually, good moral conduct; behaviour conformed to the moral law; moral virtue" it dates to 1609.
And finally, "morals" in the sense of "Moral habits or conduct; habits of life in regard to right and wrong conduct" dates to 1613. And the sense of "Moral science; moral doctrine; ethics" is said now to be rare, but dates at least as far back as 1651.
The image for John Deigh came from his profile at the University of Texas. The image for Peter Singer came from his webpage.
***
John Deigh
-- John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995
***
My own comment:
Often the word "moral" purports to describe something as if there were a fact of the matter. As if "murder is wrong" were the same sort of claim as "snow is white".
In this sort of usage, the ethical needn't be the factual. It might be unethical (that is, a breach of a particular code) for doctors to sleep with their patients; but it's possible that there are circumstances where no one would call it immoral.
***
"What is ethics? The word itself is sometimes used to refer to the set of rules, principles, or ways of thinking that guide, or claim authority to guide, the actions of a particular group; and sometimes it stands for the systematic study of reasoning about how we ought to act. In the first of these senses, we may ask about the sexual ethics of the people of the Trobriand Islands, or speak about the way in which medical ethics in The Netherlands has come to accept voluntary euthanasia. In the second sense, 'ethics' is the name of a field of study, and often of a subject taught in university departments of philosophy...
Some writers use the term 'morality' for the first, descriptive, sense in which I am using 'ethics'. They would talk of the morality of the Trobriand islanders when they want to describe what the islanders take to be right
Peter Singer
Ethics has no necessary connection with any particular religion, nor with religion in general."
-- Peter Singer (ed), Ethics, 1994
***
The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) seems to show that, from the earliest times, the words had very similar meanings.
"Ethic" as a noun has the senses "The science of morals" and "A scheme of moral science", and these are treated as parts (a) and (b) of a single meaning. The earliest citation is from 1387.
"Ethics" (in the plural) divides into a number of meanings. The sense of "The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty" dates from 1602. The sense of "The moral principles or system of a particular leader or school of thought" dates from 1651.
"Morality" in the sense of "The doctrine or system concerned with conduct or duty; moral science" dates from 1449. In the sense of "Moral conduct; usually, good moral conduct; behaviour conformed to the moral law; moral virtue" it dates to 1609.
And finally, "morals" in the sense of "Moral habits or conduct; habits of life in regard to right and wrong conduct" dates to 1613. And the sense of "Moral science; moral doctrine; ethics" is said now to be rare, but dates at least as far back as 1651.
***
The image for John Deigh came from his profile at the University of Texas. The image for Peter Singer came from his webpage.
| 120 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I sense that you enjoy this subject matter.
In the western world it is easy to trace many of our morals back to its Judo/Christian origins. Even the Arab world share similar moral origins with the Ten Commandments being its basis. The Eastern world has Hindu, Buddist, Taoist and other religions as their influence on morality. In the case of Buddtha there is the eight fold path to enlightenment which share many similarities with the ten commandments. However there are differences and interpretations that change the way they are applied.
In regards to non-religious morality we have two main influences: Marxism and Nihilism. Marxism could be described as seeking to good without a religious reference point(Opium of the Masses etc...) Nihilism basically says that all bets are off with morality and lets start again. (We have killed God and must so become gods....) Certainly if you are a Marxist or an Nihilist you will believe that your method of determining morality is superior. Objectively, is it?
This is where I think Peter Singer consistantly dances around the point. By claiming morality is mostly the remnant of sexual repression he is ignoring morals that have nothing to do with sex.(Such as: stealing and murder.) When he claims religious bias in morality he fails to declare his own bias for a Nihilistic approach to morality. His own ideology is the basis of his morality and ethical conclusions. How objective is this approach?
I have no problem with ethics as it has been around as long as morality. I have no problems with morals. I do have problems with certain morals and certain ethics. Yet this always begs the question: Whose Morality or Whose Ethics? Find me an objective ethic and I'll find its ideological Bias. Find me an objective moral and I'll find its biased origins.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I like talking ethics in general, but this particular post is probably a bit dry -- just quotations, just dictionary stuff, just semantics.
Agree with you that moral systems often have an ideological bias. For instance, Nietzsche claims that Christianity is a "slave morality", designed to subvert aristocratic values and give power to the masses. And even if one designs a morality quite innocently of agenda, one is never outside one's own skin, never outside one's own very particular time and place and culture.
Two main things to disagree with (and nihilism is something I want to talk about another time).
Firstly, to be fair to Singer, I get the feeling that you misunderstand his point. I mean, he's talking about the word "morality" and its connotations. I don't think he claims that morality is mostly the remnant of sexual repression, or that there is always a religious bias to it.
Secondly, I think it's a big claim to say that non-religious morality influences divide into Marxism and Nihilism.
Okay, this goes back to definitions of the words again, and I still don't entirely grasp how you distinguish them. But if morality is understood as "beliefs about right and wrong", I think there's multiple non-religious sources.
For instance, there are a variety of non-religious systems, including Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, environmental ethics, contract ethics, and non-Western ethics. And I'd argue that all of these have, to some extent, seeped into popular morality. I'd argue, in fact, that Marxism has had a minimal influence, being more a political doctrine about equality than a set of ethical guidelines about how we should treat one another or what the good life is.
But perhaps more importantly, I'd argue that popular beliefs about right and wrong come from popular culture. They pre-dated religions, and they'll survive the death of religions. To put it tautologically, the normal person is influenced in their beliefs by everything that influences them -- by conversations they have, TV they watch, books they read, holidays they take.
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Let me recommend the following site
http://www.cfh.ufsc.br/ethic@/ETH@21~1.PRN.pdf
Which is Baldwin's discussion about the importance of the great work Principia Ethica of G. E. Moore which is now 103 years old. This forms an excellent basis to begin consideration of questions of ethics.
It will be very interesting if this post can be encouraged to have the prominance it deserves and further discourse between contributors would be useful for this purpose.
The interesting thing about Moore and the various authors you have quoted is the prominance given to tradtiional belief. The plasticity of this can be seen when reading the Roman author Livy. The Romans had a set of principles and beliefs, or ethics which we would today find in every sense abhorant and yet was the foundation for the Western World.
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thank you for your kind words.
Not much to say in response I'm afraid.
I don't think this post deserves any prominence
If so, perhaps it would be better if another post and discussion were squarely directed to this issue (though, frankly, I'm cynical that there'd be much discussion).
Re Moore's book, I'm ashamed to say I've only read tiny extracts of it and know next to nothing about it.
Re doctors, sex, and consent -- I personally don't have much of a problem with a general guideline that the behaviour is "inappropriate". There are, after all, all sorts of potential problems of coercion, conflict of interest, and power imbalance. (I think it a good thing that judges are required to recuse themselves on the slightest suspicion of bias.)
But I have no clear ideas about how a general guideline about doctor-client sex could be made flexible to fit particular scenarios...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I have to admit that Nietzsche is one of my least favorite thinkers, so my bias is obviously against him. However I cannot ignor his influence in the twentieth centuary and upon modern ethical debates.
My impression of Peter Singers attitude toward morallity came from his interview on Denton. He ask him what the difference is between Ethics and Morals. Singers' answer is now a matter history. If you didn't see the interview I guess I can't verify my claim.
I am comfortable to claim that Maxism created its own set morals. It was essentially an egalitarian materialist ideology that operated upon the notion of equality. Why was equality better that inequality if not for moral reasons? Taking it further the Maxist moral code judges everything in political terms. Politically Correctness was the core of its policy long before it became a trendy western term. Progressives were the saints of communism but Reactionaries were the devils. Despite the fact that Communism has crumbled I cannot ignor its influence in current ethical debates. Particularly the concept of the 'needs of the many verses the needs of the few'.
I have to agree that popular culture often creates popular morality and ethics. "Who is to say what right and wrong these days now that we have invented..." Yet there are other forms of morality than popular morality. Just because everyone is doing the wrong thing doesn't mean that it isn't wrong. If rape becomes socially acceptable by a majority in the community does it make it right? What of slavery, prejudice, aparthied? Are there any objective morals and ethics.
Finally the question of whether there are objective morals that exist beyond popular culture is very controversial. If I am to claim that there is any objective morals I must also claim that there are objective truths.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Very little to say in reply. Will postpone nihilism and objective morals for another time.
But I do think that needs-of-the-many thinking was around long before Marxism; and, personally, I find it very hard, in many circumstances, not to use it. You know -- when a general makes decisions in a war, or a hospital administrator allocates resources...
I'm a supporter of individual rights, as you know from some of my posts on liberty (fucking in public, freedom to believe in rape, etc); but I would add a consequences-based limitation to these rights.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I'm late to this one due to comittments but find ethics really interesting....
I have read many of the works cited here, but also Toffler's Third Wave would have bearing here as Ethics are based on societies and societies are based on epochs. Epochs of course are made up of tiny little fragments of things like evolution, independant thought and often, revolution...and/or circumstance
My point...western ethics seem to me to be houses built on shifting sands...
One thing we could learn from the Trobriand islanders is that they have low taboos on sex and big ones on murder.... something that makes sense to me...
as to rape...?
As a female I would never condone such behaviour as ethical in any system or society. Even Dolphins (who do have such anti-social problems also) exile the offending male from the group...
*Time to ponder...*
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
by lowering the taboo on sex (as you previously suggest somewhere), would that lower the incidence of rape, or would it encourage it...?
I feel that within a multi-cultural society like Australia... this is perhaps the biggest ethical consideration of all, wouldn't you?
Ha, very good,
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Don't know whether it's the biggest ethical problem (what about environmental issues, migration, foreign aid...).
About whether sexual and nudity taboos would increase or decrease rape, I honestly don't know.
My very vague impression is that a few studies argue a correlation between access to porn/sex shops and lower sexual assault rates (almost as if society were a pressure pot, and sexual energy the build-up of steam, and the more you dispense through non-violent channels, the less likely the whole thing will blow).
Whether this correlation is a causation is more difficult to say. (And I also think there have been studies that contradict the correlation, and studies where no correlation was found.)
But there are other grounds on which to lower such taboos, even if they result in increased crime rates. Framed a different way, this is the Danish cartoons debate. The fact was, that the cartoons led to violence and death. But should they have been barred on that account?
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Absolutely not... I enjoyed them as the joke they were...
Humour: 1. State of mind, mood; inclination... 2. The faculty of perceiving the ludicrous; jocose imagination etc etc
The faculty of perceiving the ludicrous suggests to me whilst all jokes may contain the elements of truth, they also contain that truth as repesented beyond the boundary of the truth itself = the ludicrous. Truth made funny.
They do have bombs under their ....turbans (?)....that part was true... as were the rest... perhaps its the faculty part that's missing in the whole affair.
Having said that, I'm not about innocent people dying, but then I'm not God and even evil has to work for good... doesn't it?
What about the portrayals of the west in the Iranian tabloids... anyone researched them..?
L.
Comment by cocosmooth
I took a few ethics papers in university, got excellent grades, then graduated, found a good professional job and that's about it.
However, I have found the meta tools of philosophy and its branches (political philosophy, jurisprudence, ethics, etc.) more than useful in cutting to the essentials and achieving clarity, in the professional and business world.
I think the discussion in this post has gotten "wooley".
This post is about the "distinction between ethics and morals".
Not the detail of either, or their various branches, but the essential definition and difference (or similarity) between both.
My view is that ethics the heart of ethics is "reason" and the heart of morality is "faith", and/or perhaps "feeling/emotion".
Of course both ethics and morlity overlap - like the ripples of two stones tossed in a body of water. And there are forces of ideology at play. But in my view those are the essential disctinctions that are worth dissecting further.
Comment by Timothy Powell
subjective determinist
Bad men
meditations while in genetics lectures
Comment by SeekerReading
Commingling morals and ethics is no longer needed.
In a world where so many cultures may interact so easily morals are thrown around causing contention.
Morals nowadays are given to you.
If you are one to evolve past your moral paradigm and standards of what is right or wrong that were arbitrarily given to you, you may find yourself as an ethical person.
Morals are other's rules to follow... and a start in learning how to survive in a group of humans. Eventually a moral gets outdated, absurd, and useless (except for study). We must leave the nest.
Ethics are your own and valid. Once you are able to fly on your own, existentialistic and Kantian ideas fair the best... if you have control of your emotions.