Morals vs. Ethics

Much intellectual debate hinges upon the combatants holding a cohesive and definitive agreement on the meanings of words used during the discourse.

Yet I often find that people launch into a spirited communicative melee without realizing in time (or at all) that the respective positions were based on a woeful misunderstanding of each other’s basis of understanding.

Please realize that I am not talking about a difference in understanding of concepts; I refer, instead, to the much more basic simple definition of words.

Take, for example MORALS and ETHICS.

While most people use the words interchangeably they have, perhaps subtly, different meanings.

Worse yet - people often confuse the meanings of the words.

For example, many define MORALS as being concerned with principles of right and wrong and of an individual's conformation to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; while ETHICS might be defined as the philosophical study of moral values and rules.

These two definitions are as good a place to start as any and we might stop there - since they clearly distinguish between and delineate the two terms - but other definitions confuse the words at a more base level.

For example, below are two definitions. Please select one that you feel should be the definitive meaning of MORALS and the ONE that should be used to unequivocally define ETHICS.

1. Choosing principles of conduct as a guiding philosophy.

2. Conforming to a standard of behavior.

The problem is that many people could not select which of those definitions is more rightly associated with ETHICS and which with MORALS - and in truth, the definitions, by themselves - and without further elucidation - are not sufficiently mutually exclusive.

To wit, to more clearly define the terms the focus needs to be on the concepts of CHOICE or CONFORM.

MORALS have been described as rules and standards to which we are told we must "conform" when deciding on what is behavior is considered "right" and which is "wrong". In other words, morals are dictated to us by either society or religion.

Alternately, ETHICS have been described as "principles of conduct" that one self-selects (chooses) as a guiding philosophy with which to governs one's behavior.

It is these two definitions which I had long accepted. MORALS are externally influenced while ETHICS are internally motivated. This is primarily based on my understanding of the roots of the words. MORALS comes from the Latin "MOS" or "MORES" which means "customs or manners" while ETHICS comes from the Greek "ETHOS" which means "character".

Perhaps it is my visceral reaction to the term MORALS which had always felt had passed down from on high - and was subjective at best; while ETHICS - as a personal code of conduct - seemed to be more organic - and should develop over time based on influence, education and experience.

With MORALS your thinking has been done for you - and the choices made have been without your involvement or agreement. With ETHICS, however the individual co-opts the freedom to think for themselves and choose their own way.

Fair enough.

However, even these definitions (while they may work for me) are not universally accepted.

MORALS are more often than not used to define one's personal choices and personal beliefs, while ETHICS stress a social system in which those morals are applied.

Take for example, the oft-used example of the defense lawyer. While the lawyer’s personal MORAL code might reasonably find the commission of the act of murder "wrong", ETHICS (in this case the generally accepted definition as a code of professional standards, containing aspects of fairness and duty to the profession and the general public) would demand that accused be defended as vigorously as possible, even if the lawyer knows the client is guilty and that, once freed, the defendant might commit additional atrocities.

In this instance the ETHICS, as prescribed by the legal profession, must override personal MORALS for the "greater good" of a justice system in which accused are given a fair trial.

Now of course it is quite likely that the lawyer's personal MORALS were founded on (per my preferred definition) his acceptance of religious and/or societal rules - but in this case the definition of ETHICS is closer to the accepted definition than my own view of ETHICS as a personal code of conduct - and instead is a code of conduct based on some segment of society (in this case that micro-society being the legal profession and its self-imposed rules.

So, what's the answer?

I am not equipped to define the terms for the world...only to define for myself - and explain my definition to those I chat with.

In your next discussion, be sure to have accepted definitions of terms and concepts - so that debates are productive endeavors and do not degrade to mere arguments.