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.

Rationality in History

"Looking back over history, rationality has been the anomaly. Being rational takes work, education, and a sober determination to avoid making hasty references, even when they appear to make perfect sense."

- Amy Wallace

'An Epidemic of Fear:

How Panicked parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All.'

Wired Magazine

11/09

Poor enemy of the supreme essence

François-Marie Arouet was a brilliant man. The very essence of the French Enlightenment, he was a well-regarded philosopher and oft-quoted writer, although you've likely never heard that name.

Arouet, was quite complex in his beliefs. Born in Paris, November 21, 1764, he was a man of irrepressible wit, he was virulently anti-slavery, and a staunch supporter of civil liberties and free-trade. Yet, he was distrustful of democracy as he believed the average man was too stupid to rule himself. In fact he viewed democracy as "propagating the idiocy of the masses." He also was scornful of the Jews, saying among other things that they were "an ignorant and barbarous people."

The man was, by no means an atheist - quite the opposite . . . He was a devout believer in a supreme being and dismissed atheists as stupid and dangerous. Contrarily, he was an outspoken opponent of Religion and often faced the ire of the Catholic church:

Criticize the servant, but respect the master.

God should not suffer for the stupidity of the priest:
Let us recognize this God, although he is poorly served.

The excerpt above is taken from a brief work entitled "Epistle to the author of the book The Three Impostors", written in 1768, and directed at the anonymous author of the work of that name.

According to Mr. Arouet, The Three Impostors was a horrendously misguided and harmful text that denied the existence of a supreme divinity. He declared it a "very dangerous work, full of coarse atheism, without wit and devoid of philosophy."

This was apparently a "dangerous work" because it dared to question the notion of a supreme being.

Arouet espoused a strong belief that a supreme being was a necessity for society because those who might chance punishment on earth in committal of a crime, might, on further review - decide against the commission of that very crime were an eternity of punishment to face the transgressor.

Thus, in his response Arouet expounds the idea that the existence of God necessarily helps to establish and enforce a natural social order. To that point, in the most famous line of Mr. Arouet's work, the following oft-quoted, but apparently misunderstood line appears:

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

You may recognize that as a quote not by Arouet, but instead by Voltaire . . . and you would be correct - François-Marie Arouet and Voltaire are one and the same.

What Voltaire was clearly trying to say here is that even if there were no God, man would invent the concept of a supreme being - because man is a weak-willed animal and needs an invisible father-figure to mete out reward and punishment for bad behaviour.

Voltaire truly believed that without the threat of eternal punishment or promise of eternal reward, man was simply incapable of moral decisions based on what is right. To Voltaire, a supreme being and eternity were an absolute necessity for the concept of the "Social Contract" to work correctly.

This otherwise brilliant philosopher who, despite his dismissal of the dogma of organized religion, accepted, unquestionably, it's most basic tenets.

The irony is of course, that since there is no god, man DID in fact, invent a supreme being.

So despite his strong deist views, Voltaire is a favourite of the Atheist - and admittedy, I myself have been known to quote Voltaire liberally. To wit:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Atheists love this particularly quote and gleefully use it as an example of the religious establishment's attempts to use faith in a higher power (absurdity) to elicit such religiously-based atrocities as, for example, the Crusades.

And indeed as stated earlier, while a "believer," Voltaire was certainly no proponent of organized religion - so it is obvious that Voltaire meant this is in a broader definition . . . that ANYONE who can get you to believe something - religiously; politically; socially, economically, philosophically - and can get you to blindly accept it without question - can further manipulate you for their own ends based simply on your misguided acceptance of the belief in question.

A brief digression: Voltaire is also credited with the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This declaration is often embraced by self-proclaimed proponents of the First Amendment.

This particular piece of wisdom is, in practice, easier to regurgitate than to support - and is often dismissed when defense is required for politically incorrect actions or words.

So I find it even more strange that Voltaire - the enlightened man's model of rational thought; who so easily dismissed organized religion; and propounded to choose death over censorship - accepted the existence of a single all-powerful entity and chose to reprimand a specific work as "dangerous".

I often give some latitude to great thinkers and prefer to examine them, their thoughts and their beliefs, in the context of the time in which there were living. But those of us whose only religion is that of rational thought tend to idolize Voltaire. And as such I hold him to a higher standard.

Life in't fair.

Artistic Merit

Far too many creative endeavours are lionized based not on the comparative artistic merit of the piece itself, but instead on the subject matter.

Were one to appear unmoved by a movie such as Schindler's List they face derision (at best) as "a heartless bastard" or face the more harmful epithet (at worst) of being called an "anti-semite".

Can one still feel sympathy for the Jews and still dismiss Schindler's List as melo-drama? Indeed.

Were one to dismiss say, The Passion of the Christ, the ad hominem attack on the reviewer would be that they simply did not understand the plight of poor JC (at best) or (more likely) be labeled a godless heathen.

Should not one be able to dismiss Mel Gibson's magnum opus as a self-indulgent religiously-cloaked snuff-film? Rightfully so.

Sadly, this is not the case in our overly politically correct world.

Might I boldly suggest that just because a movie or book tells a sympathetic tale, it is not by definition of topic matter a crowning achievement?

Reviewers: It is best to steer clear of any negative review of material of a sensitive nature. One is better served to laud it as a masterwork.

Artistes: Seeking pulitzers, emmys or academy awards? Tackle "challenging" subjects focusing on the disabled or otherwise down-trodden. Do not worry about quality, but instead focus on subject matter with an aim towards making women cry and making men feel selfish for not volunteering at homeless shelters.

Plot: Ensure that the poor, young, elderly or mentally handicapped (or any other class of underdog) are the unlikely, yet plucky heroes - and that success in any form is villianous. Despite success being the American Dream, Hollywood loves to demonize the capitalist pig, doesn't it? And do not audiences respond? They do.

Furthermore, require that the antagonist has no perceivable reason for behaving the way he does - his success and desire for material gain must be the sole cause of his evil.

Thus does one have the recipe for an award winning product.

Faith

I shall never cease to be amazed at the lengths that people will go to to prove what they believe to be true; or to dismiss that which they do not believe to be true.

Such approval or dismissal rarely includes, or requires, knowledge that is rationally based; is pragmatic; or is simply authentic.

One of the biggest failures in the history of human non-rational thought is the reliance on faith.

Faith, by definition and unto itself is not a bad thing. I have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow - very likely before I get out of bed. My faith in the rising of the Sun is based on science, personal observation and the historical experience of a thousand generations.

The word "faith" has been appropriated and imbued with false meaning - it has irrevocably been tied to belief without proof - most often in connection with objects and persons of supernatural origin.

I renounce this aberration of the word.

Belief in ANYTHING without evidence of its actual existence is ridiculous.

My faith in the sun's probable rising is not a reliance on any gut feel that I may personally have; on an oft-recited fairy tale; or on any ecumenical definition of the word "faith".

My faith is NOT solely based on science and on provable evidence - but also on rationality. Yet, in turn, my personal rational thought system is based on that which is perceivable and measurable and provable.

As such my belief in all things is based on my own sense of individuality.

I believe what I know to be true. I cannot believe in what I do not know. This is, of course, the very essence of ignorance. Yet my ignorance (and my self-awareness of my ignorance) can easily be rectified by acquiring new knowledge.

I realize that the ability and desire to learn should not end while a man still draws breath.

Yet there are those that believe in that which is not provable. There are those who will not believe that which is provable or has been proved. And both of these represent ignorance of a very different and far more insidious nature.

Should the sun NOT rise tomorrow, I will then have evidence that the rising of the sun is not such a reliable occurrence, as I had previously believed. I will no longer have faith that the sun's rising is an absolute.

And I will adapt.