Ethics vs. Morals

I decided long ago that if you listen to your own heart or concience it is best for me. I ask a lot of questions folks. I watch your eyes and hands and listen to the tone of your voice as you answer. I watch what you do when no one else is looking. The greastest pleasure of my life is it's honesty..Morals and ethics are just those poor substitutes for the golden rule.
 
Good one binkley.

As DA said, there's no difference between them but if you're just talking about what others consider you, I'd rather be a moral person.

TWB:
Would you want to be a vegetarian if you might wake up as a tiger tomorrow?
 
Umm.. yes.
I'd guess that sence sperm isn't living they could.
 
lavender said:
Would you rather be considered an ethical person or a moral person?

What are the differences in your opinion?
ethical - 2. Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession. See Synonyms at moral.

moral - 3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

Definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary Third Edition
Considering the dictionary considers them synonymous (and I accept that perception), please explain how you could differentiate.
 
Re: Re: Ethics vs. Morals

Unclebill said:
Considering the dictionary considers them synonymous (and I accept that perception), please explain how you could differentiate.
Your definitions point the way.

Ethics pertains to rules and regulations, of a profession, i.e., standards of conduct.

Morals is solely concerned with right and wrong, not merely correct and incorrect.

They do, of course, overlap as what is ethical is often also moral, and vice versa.

Wild sex is rare unethical (unless it is with an intern), but robbing one's client is both unethical and immoral.
 
Re: Re: Ethics vs. Morals

Unclebill said:
Considering the dictionary considers them synonymous (and I accept that perception), please explain how you could differentiate.

Oh come now, hon. The dictionary is not the begin-all, end-all of definitions. If so, why would we spend millions of hours in classrooms debating all this stuff?

Oh, that's right. We do it to spend the taxpayers' money. I forgot.

Actually, their definitions depend largely upon your viewpoint. I look at the two from a bioethics slant because that's how I was trained, but I see other perfectly valid definitions here too.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethics vs. Morals

binkley said:

Your post is a little, ahem, lacking.

lol...look again. I clicked the wrong button, damn it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Ethics vs. Morals

Originally posted by sigh
Oh come now, hon. The dictionary is not the begin-all, end-all of definitions. If so, why would we spend millions of hours in classrooms debating all this stuff?. . .
Then, pray tell, why do we have dictionaries? Is there purpose merely to use up more trees?

What is the value of language if it is not a means of facilitating precise communication? And how can it achieve that without specificity of definitions?

I can understand the discussion or arguing of concepts and abstract ideas, but the definiton of words?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethics vs. Morals

Unclebill said:
Then, pray tell, why do we have dictionaries? Is there purpose merely to use up more trees?

What is the value of language if it is not a means of facilitating precise communication? And how can it achieve that without specificity of definitions?

I can understand the discussion or arguing of concepts and abstract ideas, but the definiton of words?

Facilitating, yes...defining utterly until the end of time? No, I'm sorry but I can't accept that. Language evolves continuously and dictionaries are chronically out of step.

Bill, I've taken several courses in bioethics and the first four HOURS of lecture in the very first course revolved around the definition of the word ethics and its relation to morals. Since then I've attended a dozen or more conferences on bioethics and the great majority of them begin with definitions of terms. And every single one of them that has addressed ethics verses morals defines the two as distinct and not synonymous.

Ethics IS a concept and an extremely abstract one at that. How can you separate the concept from the word? It's a concept far too complex for a few lines in a dictionary to manage.

But hell, now I sound like I'm back debating in my classrooms again. Geez, I thought I left all that behind me.

Peace, friend.
 
posted Jim_Henson

Ever been taught Business Morals in college?

WAHAHAHA! You believe there is such a thing?
Ah, to be young and gullible again.

Comshaw
 
Well, it's an intresting question. D&D states that someones alignment is made up of two components, an ethical one and a moral one.

The ethical component is Law vs. Chaos. A lawful person obeys authority and works with a group. They obey the law and try to follow the law whenever possible. They keep there word and are normally thought of to be people of character. Chaotic people tend to prefer to do what they want to do regardless of the law, and may keep their word if they feel like it. They are not bad by definition, but they don't work well with a group. Neutral individuals straddle the line between the two.

The moral component is Good vs. Evil. A good character is defined as someone who empathizes with other people and has a respect for the life and emotions of other beings. An evil person generally does not care about the lives of others, and may even seek amusement from other peoples suffering. Neutral individuals don't particularly care what happens to other people, but don't go out of their way to be particularly malevolent.
 
I am Chaotic Neutral.

Now, where'd I stick that katana? Viconia's callin' me.
 
Back
Top