Morals vs Ethics - there is a difference.

I deal with individuals not society. Society is a failed experiment, but we can still take solace in our relationships with the individuals we meet. An individual with good character has value to me while society and its expectation has none.

Morality bred ethics. Moral men make ethical decisions. On the other hand, instituting a paradigm which constitutes what's 'universally moral' is far from being easy to do.

"Well why, if our bodies require protein. is it unethical to kill animals for the matters of provision?"

"Animals feel pain! Therefore-"

"Yeah, but a well placed shot ensures that they feel no pain entirely."

Conflict of morality (moralities).

The first and third man says that it's fine to kill animals so long as we don't cause them any pain.

Presuming the second man would've said "Well why risk it?" They both've taken the same 'moral' stance, that moral stance being 'don't allow these animals to suffer,' but where their same moral stance differs is that one's saying "It's not okay to kill these animals!" and the other one's saying "Yeah but I like red meat."

So who's right? Let the ethics committee decide.

I imagine that the end result WOULD be "GIVE THESE MEN ALMONDS AND OTHER PROTEINOUS LEGUMES!" And that's why it's duly important, also, to have an ethics committee.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Ethics is the reasoning of morals and/or moral dilemmas.

Also, like how the subject mathematics is the study of mathematics, ethics is a study of ethics. That is, ethics is not only the reasoning of morals and/or moral dilemmas, but it is also the study of the reasoning of morals and/or moral dilemmas.

Morals are principles of right and wrong.

Moral is righteous/right.

Immoral is wicked/wrong.

e.g. Morally, I am to be selfless, and give all that I can to others. Ethically, I have deemed John Doe to be selfishly wanting. So, ethically, and by extension of John Doe's selfishness, I would be 'doing wrong', myself, if I gave to him to fulfill his selfish desires.

Another example that people often talk about is the 'Trolley problem': There is a runaway trolley headed straight towards five people, but you have a chance to switch tracks, thereby causing the trolley to only hit one person, instead of the five: should you switch tracks? The reasoning you must use, is ethics. Even choosing might be immoral, as you would be choosing to take a life.

Honor amongst thieves or snitches get stitches is ethics. Morals would be to not go seeking to snitch, but tell the truth if asked.

So, morals are from the heart/conscience/intuition/subconscious - what the individual feels - and ethics are from the mind/super ego/others' minds/philosophy/reason/etc. -- sort of. Morals are actually what is right or wrong in truth, as in absolute truth, and ethics are man's attempt to reach that truth through reason, instead of intuition, or spirit, or heart.

Now to answer the question: You're ascribing to morals the work of the conscience, or spirit, but with that said, I do think the conscience/'morals' is more important. I mean, on the one hand, I think morals are logical, so good reasoning can, often times, lead you to understand right from wrong better than your own conscience, but without the conscience, or the desire to be righteous, reasoning or ethics would be pretty useless.

Morals and ethics were originally attempts to work out logically what the best behavior for a person is. Like geometry for socializing.

A person who wants to live a long and peaceful life would follow moral and ethical theorems. (Which is one of the first theorems from ethics and morality)

Ethics was directed towards actions taken in business or a profession. Ethics applies when a person is doing something, usually for personal gain.

Morality was more about all other life decisions, although morality could trump ethics.

Both morality and ethics are about using reason to decide what is fair or necessary to be happy in normal life.

To be moral, you need to be ethical. That follows.

However, ethics can be diverse. In some countries it is ethical to execute criminals, yet that remains an immoral act.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

This is an interesting premise. I've never thought in these terms specifically before; i.e., ethics apply to the group and morals apply to the person. As I apply this to various situations, I see how it can work for the benefit of all and also to the detriment of some/all.

For example, a person's morals might be that drinking alcohol is wrong... but society's ethics say it's okay. As long as no one forces anyone to drink alcohol, all is good.

But in war, a person's morals might be that killing others is wrong... and even if society's ethics say it's okay, a person with strong moral objections cannot just walk away and let others do their thing.

There could be conflicts within professional associations as well. A doctor who morally opposes blood transfusions personally may not oppose performing the procedure for others in conformance with medical ethics... but a doctor who morally opposes abortion for themselves would probably oppose performing the procedure for others as well, regardless of medical ethics.

Very very interesting. Much to consider and think about. I'm looking forward to your conclusion!

I've read up to this point, and want to thank everyone who has contributed. I'm still pondering the thing myself, and will keep reading, and considering all of this.

I consider myself to be "highly-principled", and I try to follow my own morals even when "codes of ethics" disagree.
I've left jobs because I was unable to fulfill the "code of ethics" without violating my own morals. I would be a "conscientious objector" if I were called up in a military draft.

When I see immoral behavior, even if its the "expected behavior", I protest. But, my "morals" are mine alone. I've known psychopaths with no ability (or desire) to be compassionate or to care who they harm, and I've known professionals who "say they care" but turn around and follow "corporate directives" even when they feel it's wrong to do so.

I refuse to live like that.
It is an interesting question, though - I haven't come to a firm conclusion yet....keep the ideas coming, folks!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I consider myself to be "highly-principled", and I try to follow my own morals even when "codes of ethics" disagree.
I've left jobs because I was unable to fulfill the "code of ethics" without violating my own morals.

Just an observation that on personal morals and ethics...

1. Stalin probably thought he always has the moral high ground when he extinguished whole communities of people he did not trust. He may even have considered it an ethical duty.
2. Doctors (in the UK at least) are governed by ethical considerations. The Hippocratic oath is certainly an ethical code.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Tell me, ATS members, which is more important?

I think morals are more important for several reasons.

1. If we each have high moral standards, then the ethics would take care of themselves.
2. We are individually responsible for our moral character, but can't control the ethics of a society.
3. My morality, over time, contributes to the ethics of society.

Ethics seems like the outcome of morality.

I haven't seen the movie, but I may check it out.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Morals and ethics are entirely subjective in nature I think many people in this thread have attested to that.
My question though to you is if an individual's morals are sufficient in their eyes, does it matter if it conflicts with the ethics of a society their in or group that they live with?

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Morals and ethics are entirely subjective in nature I think many people in this thread have attested to that.

I'm not disputing that. Not at all. I'm talking about when one's own inner compass conflicts with the "expected behavior" of society.

My question though to you is if an individual's morals are sufficient in their eyes, does it matter if it conflicts with the ethics of a society their in or group that they live with?

This question makes me think about Kim Davis.
And yes, it matters. Using her as an example: what she did/has done is wrong by my standards. Because she is harming others, and interfering with their free will and individuality.

Just like a parent who refuses to let their child learn about options, but instead forces down their throats the parents' OWN beliefs.

Kim may claim her "morals" made her do it - that's fine. But if her "morals" are not conducive to AVOIDING the potential negative/harmful effect she has on OTHER PEOPLE's LIVES directly, then, her MORALS are flawed. (Again, like forcing your little kid to comply with a religious ideology and thrashing them mercilessly - either mentally or physically or emotionally - because they are skeptical and might question your thinking IS WRONG-HEADEDNESS.)

Those people whom she is harming are not strapping on bomb-vests, they are not picketing outside churches, or shooting up other people for whatever insane reason. She has exhibited NO COMPASSION (except in her own self-interest, like when people said "God doesn't love her" and she got all sappy and weepy). Pathetic.

She is actively hurting others, AND not living up to the expected behaviors and "ethics" of our secular society, which are: We are all free to be who we are, AS LONG AS WE DON'T HARM ANYONE ELSE.

Because she has abused her "position" to deny others their rights (whose actions have NO DIRECT IMPACT on her, or hers) that makes her "morals" depraved.
Her professed "piety" has nothing to do with it.

The only thing that REALLY MATTERS is the way she treats other people.

I think I read somewhere once that morals are what you apply when dealing with people you know, and ethics are what you apply with people you don't know.

I found that thought provoking. In terms of morals, it is usual following your feelings, the internal reactions of repulsion or attraction to certain acts, that come "naturally".
They are often formed according to our own past experiences - I felt someone hitting me once, it hurt and I did not like it. So I develop a repulsion to hitting, whether it be me doing it, or another doing it. Those mirror neurons come into play, and the subconscious that isn't real good at distinguishing "I" and "other".

This is always stronger with those one is closest to, family, friends, people we identify with stronger. It comes into play less with strangers. Relying only upon morals, you get a society that has a lot of favoritism and inequity.

Ethics are set up in a society to give people guidelines for peaceful cooperation, exchange, and communication when the morals are not kicking in. Sure you won't slap your best friend, but would you feel as repulsed from slapping a stranger? And if that is collectively accepted to do, then you create mistrust which hampers the solidity of the society.

I don't so much like the question of "which is more important?" I think they both are.
People like to bring up the Golden Rule thing, but I just find that completely assinine. We don't all want to be treated the same - some people like to be slapped, perhaps it was the only form of attention they got from their parents as a child and they developed an attraction drive to it. If they go about slapping me because they assume I'll like it as much as they do, I will not be a happy camper. I'd like to have some sort of rules coming from the outside to keep that happy slappers hands to him/her self!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Kim may claim her "morals" made her do it - that's fine. But if her "morals" are not conducive to AVOIDING the potential negative/harmful effect she has on OTHER PEOPLE's LIVES directly, then, her MORALS are flawed. (Again, like forcing your little kid to comply with a religious ideology and thrashing them mercilessly - either mentally or physically or emotionally - because they are skeptical and might question your thinking IS WRONG-HEADEDNESS.)

Your right Kim Davis's morals are in fact somewhat harmful to the rest of the people in that society. I'm just not sure if I would say her moral's are flawed, there are many people who would and probably are standing by her side who agree with her "moral" judgement. So within that sect of society, (I realize they are the vocal minority) their views on same-sex marriage are not viewed as flawed but are endorsed as wholly ethical and to say otherwise would be considered unethical.

She is actively hurting others, AND not living up to the expected behaviors and "ethics" of our secular society, which are: We are all free to be who we are, AS LONG AS WE DON'T HARM ANYONE ELSE.

Another thing to keep in mind is the ethics within a society whether it's bound by the foundations of a rigid code of honor, ideology, methodology or a theological premise, it will shift with the changes of social development. The base philosophy for ethics of our secular societies that you mentioned may not apply to the very same societies a few centuries ago.

I more or less agree with what you stated overall.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
Your right Kim Davis's morals are in fact somewhat harmful to the rest of the people in that society. I'm just not sure if I would say her moral's are flawed, there are many people who would and probably are standing by her side who agree with her "moral" judgement. So within that sect of society, (I realize they are the vocal minority) their views on same-sex marriage are not viewed as flawed but are endorsed as wholly ethical and to say otherwise would be considered unethical.

I agree. According to her 'sub-society', she is doing the "right" thing. The problem is that her job is not a part of that 'sub-society'. Her job is a part of the larger, secular society, and it conflicts with her morals. She shouldn't have the job, especially since she knew she was going to mount this battle when she took her oath to uphold the law and the Constitution. She had no intention of doing so. THAT lie under oath (and I'm sure she said "so help me, God") also conflicts with her personal morals, but she had no problem with that.

Another thing to keep in mind is the ethics within a society whether it's bound by the foundations of a rigid code of honor, ideology, methodology or a theological premise, it will shift with the changes of social development.

This is also true. I agree with you and Buzzy.

a reply to: Bluesma

I think I read somewhere once that morals are what you apply when dealing with people you know, and ethics are what you apply with people you don't know.

This is a very astute statement. Rings true with me.

I found that thought provoking. In terms of morals, it is usual following your feelings, the internal reactions of repulsion or attraction to certain acts, that come "naturally".

Right. I agree.

I have no clue why this is a thought rather than an experience.

Ethics devised law.... in particular... assault is against the law.
Morality... devised honor... in which a woman places her trust.

Ex: He doesn't know know her... but he'd like to have sex with her. He moves in.... she moves out. The gentlemen in him is no longer aroused... so he calls her vile wicked names and belittles her. Then he angers himself and proceeds to assault her. Along comes the white knight and valiantly saves her from the wicked man. The white knight beats up wicked man... and then white knight is confronted by law enforcement. The white knight admits to beating up wicked man... who by now is pressing charges for being assaulted. Later he will sue for punitive damages... pain and suffering... medical bills... and lost wages. He'll win too.
White knight is taken to jail. Because woman was not harmed.... thanks to white knight... White knight will become a criminal ethically.... but of with the highest moral being and character we'll ever know. So... woman honors him. Oh.... and they have sex too.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Morals vs Ethics - there is a difference.

A HUGE difference!

'Morality' is a conditional insanity born of ego, thought/imagination!

From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!

This is exact manifestation of the stolen Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Sin of Pride/judgment) in the Garden!

As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against 'judging' others;
"Judge not lest you be judged!"
Such judgment (good/evil) is the sin of 'pride'!
'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of their god!

You are told that;
"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
Yet goes on to say that;
"None are righteous, no not one!"

'Ethics', on the other hand, are UNCONDITIONAL, born of unconditional Love!

With no insane 'judgment', an 'ethic' is;

"Do NOT do to 'others' what you don't want done to you!"
(EVERYTHING in the Universe (and everyone), is 'others', and 'others' Is Self!)!

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS recognized by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!
(Now you can tell the real thing from the 'cheap thrills' offered by the ego! *__- )

Sinfully insane conditional 'morality', and unconditional Loving 'ethics' are a world of difference apart!