Ethics vs. Morals
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
Jim_Henson
Muppet Master
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Posts
- 4,707
Moral.
Ethics can be corrupted.
Ethics can be corrupted.
Jim_Henson
Muppet Master
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Posts
- 4,707
Siren was corrupted by me.
Ever been taught Business Morals in college?
Ever been taught Business Morals in college?
SleepingWarrior
Egocentric Sociopath
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2001
- Posts
- 20,753
Neither because both are overrated.
cybergirly
Cranky
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 7,078
lavender said:
I think the two are one and the same, or are at least inter-changeable. I don't think it's possible to be moral without having that be a part of your ethics.
Persephone36
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
- Posts
- 702
This isn't a question. An ethic is a moral principle by definition -- ethics are moral philosophy. (If you don't believe me -- go look it up.)
ksmybuttons
Push and Pull
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 30,254
Both are personally defined. For me, morals are my personal belief system. Ethics is how I translate my moral beliefs into my interactions with others. Neither are defining words. A person can have morals and ethics that don't match mine...
Frankly, any difference is quite subtle. Morals may be based in more of a theologic than a philopsophic line of thought. If that is true, then I think ethics would be my answer. Is it moral for a woman to be treated differently in the catholic church, i.e. no women priests?
Ethics seems more pure and less affected by dogma. I love the ethical standard that says that decision making should be made from behind a "veil of ignorance." This does not mean that one should make foolhardy decisions. What it means is that, for instance, if we were to be deciding whether to admit women to the priesthood in catholic churches (sorry for the repeated use of this issue, catholics), that decision should be made from behind a veil of ignorance, that is, we should make the decision not knowing whether we were going to be a woman or not.
Would we all be vegetarians if we might wake up as a cow tomorrow?
Would we engage in nudge nudge wink wink discrimination?
Would we hide losses in secret partnerships if we did not know whether we would be a CEO or an ex-stockholder?
I like ethics in this context.
Ethics seems more pure and less affected by dogma. I love the ethical standard that says that decision making should be made from behind a "veil of ignorance." This does not mean that one should make foolhardy decisions. What it means is that, for instance, if we were to be deciding whether to admit women to the priesthood in catholic churches (sorry for the repeated use of this issue, catholics), that decision should be made from behind a veil of ignorance, that is, we should make the decision not knowing whether we were going to be a woman or not.
Would we all be vegetarians if we might wake up as a cow tomorrow?
Would we engage in nudge nudge wink wink discrimination?
Would we hide losses in secret partnerships if we did not know whether we would be a CEO or an ex-stockholder?
I like ethics in this context.
cybergirly
Cranky
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 7,078
There doesn't have to be a theologic basis for morals. Morals are how you treat other people. What you know to be morally right or wrong. It has nothing to do with ones religious views.
sigh
chant mistress
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Posts
- 10,248
I was taught that a question of morals is a question of right verses wrong. Morals are defined, usually by a higher power (religion, society, government, etc.), and are sanctioned in one way or another. To be moral is to be good. To be amoral is to be bad.
A question of ethics, on the other hand, is one where there are at least two apparently "right" answers, though they might be diametrically opposed to one another. Ethical questions are much more difficult to address.
Ethical questions arise every day in the medical field. Most of us will be faced with an ethical issue at some time, most likely when we are faced with the slow death of a loved one. At what point do we withdraw tube feeding? When is life support no longer a good thing? Does quality of life override the sanctity of life itself?
Ethical issues often arise at the beginning of life as well. When do we try to revive an infant that is drastically premature, when we know that the child can never aspire to anything near a normal life? Is it cruel to maintain the life of a child born with severe physical and mental deficits? As we become more skilled at maintaining life itself, we must become more adept as answering when that skill has value.
Many of the greatest conflicts we face arise when one group looks at an question as a moral issue while another sees it as ethical. The most obvious example is abortion. To pro-life advocates, this is a moral issue. Abortion is wrong. It is a sin. Pro-choice advocates on the other hand see it as an ethical issue where there is no clear cut answer and every case has to be measured on its own merits.
Personally, I have a set of morals that I follow. I do believe in right and wrong. I also tend to be one who struggles endlessly with ethical questions.
Oddly enough, the more moral you are (the more convinced you are in your world view of right verses wrong) the less ethical you need to be. Your decisions are made in advance. It's a more comfortable place to be.
A question of ethics, on the other hand, is one where there are at least two apparently "right" answers, though they might be diametrically opposed to one another. Ethical questions are much more difficult to address.
Ethical questions arise every day in the medical field. Most of us will be faced with an ethical issue at some time, most likely when we are faced with the slow death of a loved one. At what point do we withdraw tube feeding? When is life support no longer a good thing? Does quality of life override the sanctity of life itself?
Ethical issues often arise at the beginning of life as well. When do we try to revive an infant that is drastically premature, when we know that the child can never aspire to anything near a normal life? Is it cruel to maintain the life of a child born with severe physical and mental deficits? As we become more skilled at maintaining life itself, we must become more adept as answering when that skill has value.
Many of the greatest conflicts we face arise when one group looks at an question as a moral issue while another sees it as ethical. The most obvious example is abortion. To pro-life advocates, this is a moral issue. Abortion is wrong. It is a sin. Pro-choice advocates on the other hand see it as an ethical issue where there is no clear cut answer and every case has to be measured on its own merits.
Personally, I have a set of morals that I follow. I do believe in right and wrong. I also tend to be one who struggles endlessly with ethical questions.
Oddly enough, the more moral you are (the more convinced you are in your world view of right verses wrong) the less ethical you need to be. Your decisions are made in advance. It's a more comfortable place to be.
Jim_Henson
Muppet Master
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Posts
- 4,707
Only online with me
Sigh, sighlent sigh, that was brilliant, thankyou.
Sigh, sighlent sigh, that was brilliant, thankyou.
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
Pheonyx said:
I like that distinction. It provides a good line of separation. Of course, it could then be said that one of my morals is to act ethically.
Nomad4112000
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2001
- Posts
- 380
I feel I am an ethical person
Morals are what people say is correct in life. Ethics are what I have decided are correct for me.
Morals are what people say is correct in life. Ethics are what I have decided are correct for me.
paganangel
born wrong
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2001
- Posts
- 18,277
ethics are what lawyers use as an excuse to be immoral.
paganangel
born wrong
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2001
- Posts
- 18,277
lavender said:
did i ever deny it?
RisiaSkye
Artistic
- Joined
- May 1, 2000
- Posts
- 4,387
I'd rather be considered by others as an ethical person, as many people (though, of course, not all) base their version of morality on religious dogma or Biblical mandate. So, what many view as immoral (many kinds of sexuality, for example) wouldn't even enter into my consciousness as something to pass judgement on a person for.
Jerry Falwell may be a very moral man, but I consider him deeply unethical in that he seems to advocate stripping people of their legal rights on the basis of his moral compass. It would appear that he sees derogatory remarks, legal discrimination, and invasion of privacy as perfectly acceptable behavior justified by the immorality of homosexuality. This is the kind of thing that makes the question hard, and it's the reason for my distinction.
Personally, though, I consider myself both--to the best of my ability, at least.
Jerry Falwell may be a very moral man, but I consider him deeply unethical in that he seems to advocate stripping people of their legal rights on the basis of his moral compass. It would appear that he sees derogatory remarks, legal discrimination, and invasion of privacy as perfectly acceptable behavior justified by the immorality of homosexuality. This is the kind of thing that makes the question hard, and it's the reason for my distinction.
Personally, though, I consider myself both--to the best of my ability, at least.
TheDR4KE
Breathing the sensuous Om
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Posts
- 2,223
Good answer sigh. It's close to how I understand it. Close enough for me to build on yours rather than write my own post 
I was taught that a question of morals is a question of right verses wrong. Morals are defined, usually by a higher power (religion, society, government, etc.), and are sanctioned in one way or another. To be moral is to be good. To be amoral is to be bad.
Amoral is without morals, while imoral is bad. It is usually thought that not having morals is imoral. But that's minor details
The important bit here though is morals is how you judge.
A question of ethics, on the other hand, is one where there are at least two apparently "right" answers, though they might be diametrically opposed to one another. Ethical questions are much more difficult to address.
I see the problem as starting with the choice and how we choose.
Given options X and Y, we try solve the ethical dilemma of which to choose by applying our morals (how we judge) to comparing X and Y.
Where most people go wrong is in comparing the benefits of chosing X with the drawbacks of Y, and vice versa, and trying to decide that way. The other way to approach this is to make to comparisons, one between the benefits of X and Y, and the other the drawbacks. How you make those comparisons is based on your morals.
Ethical questions arise every day in the medical field. Most of us will be faced with an ethical issue at some time, most likely when we are faced with the slow death of a loved one. At what point do we withdraw tube feeding? When is life support no longer a good thing? Does quality of life override the sanctity of life itself?
To look at this example, we might get the following lists:
Benefits of continuing tube feeding:
We have to look at the negatives too of course to get the whole picture.
Drawbacks of continuing
Many of the greatest conflicts we face arise when one group looks at an question as a moral issue while another sees it as ethical. The most obvious example is abortion. To pro-life advocates, this is a moral issue. Abortion is wrong. It is a sin. Pro-choice advocates on the other hand see it as an ethical issue where there is no clear cut answer and every case has to be measured on its own merits.
Personally, I have a set of morals that I follow. I do believe in right and wrong. I also tend to be one who struggles endlessly with ethical questions.
I think this distinction between ethics and morals is a little confusing. They are not different. It is just that most people aren't consciously or rationally aware of one or the other. Either they don't realise that they are making ethical decisions, using the moral "here is one thing in the right list of choice X and here is one thing in the wrong list of choice Y, so therefore X is the choice to take" oversimplification, or they are addressing it as an ethical problem but not consciously understanding their moral code, with the "but this is just right and this is just wrong, it doesn't need a justfication" approach.
Oddly enough, the more moral you are (the more convinced you are in your world view of right verses wrong) the less ethical you need to be. Your decisions are made in advance. It's a more comfortable place to be.
Any set rules will fail in life's complexity. I would rather not have people think I am moral or ethical, because that implies that they can predict my behaviour without being me. Let them not judge me.
Actually, I really don't care what people think about me truth be told.
Quack
the Drake
I was taught that a question of morals is a question of right verses wrong. Morals are defined, usually by a higher power (religion, society, government, etc.), and are sanctioned in one way or another. To be moral is to be good. To be amoral is to be bad.
Amoral is without morals, while imoral is bad. It is usually thought that not having morals is imoral. But that's minor details
The important bit here though is morals is how you judge.
A question of ethics, on the other hand, is one where there are at least two apparently "right" answers, though they might be diametrically opposed to one another. Ethical questions are much more difficult to address.
I see the problem as starting with the choice and how we choose.
Given options X and Y, we try solve the ethical dilemma of which to choose by applying our morals (how we judge) to comparing X and Y.
Where most people go wrong is in comparing the benefits of chosing X with the drawbacks of Y, and vice versa, and trying to decide that way. The other way to approach this is to make to comparisons, one between the benefits of X and Y, and the other the drawbacks. How you make those comparisons is based on your morals.
Ethical questions arise every day in the medical field. Most of us will be faced with an ethical issue at some time, most likely when we are faced with the slow death of a loved one. At what point do we withdraw tube feeding? When is life support no longer a good thing? Does quality of life override the sanctity of life itself?
To look at this example, we might get the following lists:
Benefits of continuing tube feeding:
- they are still alive
- they have a chance to recover
- we can be with them
- they are no longer suffering
- even if they recover their quality of life would be very low, given the [hypothetical, remember ] injuries
- we can move on
- the hospital bills are seriously affecting our lives
- their organs may be used to help someone else live
- the time spent on them may be spent on patients who have a better chance for recovery
We have to look at the negatives too of course to get the whole picture.
Drawbacks of continuing
- they are suffering physically
- we are suffering emotionally
- our financial future is becoming dangerously impaired
- they are no longer experiencing whatever good they may still feel
- we have to live with any guilt of that decision
Many of the greatest conflicts we face arise when one group looks at an question as a moral issue while another sees it as ethical. The most obvious example is abortion. To pro-life advocates, this is a moral issue. Abortion is wrong. It is a sin. Pro-choice advocates on the other hand see it as an ethical issue where there is no clear cut answer and every case has to be measured on its own merits.
Personally, I have a set of morals that I follow. I do believe in right and wrong. I also tend to be one who struggles endlessly with ethical questions.
I think this distinction between ethics and morals is a little confusing. They are not different. It is just that most people aren't consciously or rationally aware of one or the other. Either they don't realise that they are making ethical decisions, using the moral "here is one thing in the right list of choice X and here is one thing in the wrong list of choice Y, so therefore X is the choice to take" oversimplification, or they are addressing it as an ethical problem but not consciously understanding their moral code, with the "but this is just right and this is just wrong, it doesn't need a justfication" approach.
Oddly enough, the more moral you are (the more convinced you are in your world view of right verses wrong) the less ethical you need to be. Your decisions are made in advance. It's a more comfortable place to be.
Any set rules will fail in life's complexity. I would rather not have people think I am moral or ethical, because that implies that they can predict my behaviour without being me. Let them not judge me.
Actually, I really don't care what people think about me truth be told.
Quack
the Drake
cybergirly1989 said:
Dear, if you read carefully, I said "Morals may be based in more of a theologic than a philopsophic line of thought. If that is true, then I think ethics would be my answer. "
Morals are a set of rules applying to behavior. People who belong to a religion generally subscribe to a set of rules which guide thier behavior. Certainly an athiest can subscribe to a code of conduct not based in religion and call it morals. However, each religion has a code of moral conduct pertaining to behavior that its members are to follow.
Ethics also can proscribe a code of conduct, but is more of a science relating to human duty. I see it as less flexible, and more based on logic than belief. That is why I tend to correlate morals with religion. I agree that morals do not have to be based in religion, but I do think that morals are more than just how you treat other people, and religious views are undeniably related to morals.
Hamletmaschine
This space for rent
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2001
- Posts
- 9,011
I prefer aesthetics to either one.
