Ethics and Morality (ethical, religion, morals, humans)

[Ultralight]

What is the diffrence between the two are their any diffrences between ethics and morality if so what.

[Chatteress]

I'm not an expert but I think that they both are a way of viewing right and wrong. Those from a religious standpoint think in terms of morality and those who are secular think in terms of ethics.

[Werone]

I see them interchangeable, at their discrete definitions.

Morality or Ethic Philosophy - The measurable or data driven study of what decisions and actions humans make, benefit all life on earth as opposed to decisions that benefit: a few./one./no one./are destructive to life on earth.

I must add that the definition must include that human's are the defining entity. It is through our point of view and success that we can define morality. We must come first.

Morality and ethic's definitions must be discernably repeatable to all, given understanding of physical conditions.

[ovcatto]

"[Ethics is] is the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual. Christian ethics and Albert Schweitzer's ethics are examples."

-- John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995

[helios666]

Though the two words are very closely intertwined, there does lie a HUGE difference between the two words. I personally take great issue with the word "moral" because it usually implies a degree of judgement, often based on religion, and imposed by the religious. But rather than go into circles of trying to explain my take on things, here is a link that provides what I believe to be a very well thought out response to your query:

Morals vs Ethics - According to the Pragmatic Thinker (http://ezinearticles.com/?Morals-vs-Ethics---According-to-the-Pragmatic-Thinker&id=802720 - broken link)

[VelcroQueen]

I am both a moral and ethical person, in my opinion, but the ethical side has needed continual teaching. Bluntly, I was reared without ethics and continued in that manner for years, not understanding what was missing.

When I took philosophy, although it was a freshman class and I was not able to continue because of other educational issues, it was disappointing that ethics were not included -- at least enough to give a running start.

I sought out various books to help with the issue, and being a religious person, ended up staying mainly with Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. I've learned a lot from him and have much more to learn.

[Werone]

Originally Posted by helios666

Though the two words are very closely intertwined, there does lie a HUGE difference between the two words. I personally take great issue with the word "moral" because it usually implies a degree of judgement, often based on religion, and imposed by the religious. But rather than go into circles of trying to explain my take on things, here is a link that provides what I believe to be a very well thought out response to your query:

Morals vs Ethics - According to the Pragmatic Thinker (http://ezinearticles.com/?Morals-vs-Ethics---According-to-the-Pragmatic-Thinker&id=802720 - broken link)

I disagree, although morals are associated with religious teachings, the underlying principle is seeking the truth. A good moral person is the same as a good ethical person. It just depends on how you wish to see yourself. I can be a moral person and base my morals on principles of conduct, or in other words, define moral behavior that is repeatable and understandable by the masses. In the definition above, people who are active participants in interpreting right and wrong, and whose opinion counts, are ethical, and the masses are moral.

The author of that article discounts a different view, one of a faith based teaching. I am not a religious person but I can appreciate someone searching for the truth regardless of where they are with their thinking and how loyal they are with their religion or upbringing.

[helios666]

Originally Posted by Werone

I disagree, although morals are associated with religious teachings, the underlying principle is seeking the truth. A good moral person is the same as a good ethical person. It just depends on how you wish to see yourself. I can be a moral person and base my morals on principles of conduct, or in other words, define moral behavior that is repeatable and understandable by the masses.

But therein lies the difference between morals and ethhics; do you not see that? Perhaps we are just not understanding each other...In some cultures, the "masses" believe that stoning a woman for committing adultery is "moral". Based on their particular religion. And thus justified. Were you to live in such a culture, could you defend such a thing as being moral, by your own standards that you explained above? I'd hope you do not. But that's what you are saying that the word moral is based on, the masses. And that is, irregardless of the specific definition- what the word MORAL implies as defined in the post I linked. Yes, the "masses" have everything to do with what is deemed "moral", but not necessarily anything to do with what is ethical.

Fact is, one's personal ethics should remain, as they are, in spite of societal, and/or the religious standard of morals. Which, I believe, is as it should be. Within the mind of any thinking person- religion or culture aside- there happen to exist certain standards that are, and are not acceptable within the confines of how one is best to treat another human being. And that comes not from societal MORALS, but from the heart of the individual, and his/her code of ETHICS- which is universal...among thinking, emoting human beings, anyway. It's really simple insofar as theory, but as for semantics- yes, we may all be complicating things so it would seem right now. But let's face it- if we are to be honest, we all *know* that whenever the word "moral" is used there are implications and innuendos. And NOT the same when the word "ethical" is used so yeah, outside this thread, the difference between the two words is in fact quite vast. It just may take some thought to realize it.

Originally Posted by Werone

The author of that article discounts a different view, one of a faith based teaching. I am not a religious person but I can appreciate someone searching for the truth regardless of where they are with their thinking and how loyal they are with their religion or upbringing.

Well, that might be where our differences lie. To me, there is no "searching" for any "truth". The manner by and how we live, and how we treat other is obvious, automatic and innate, and there requires nothing but just being true to ones' self, and others. No truth be sought, as we already "have" it within ourselves. Nobody should need any outside influence to "know" that things like murder, stealing, what have you is just not what we are here to do to one another. People just tend to think too much and seek for that which is either not there, or they make stuff up in order to create guidelines and laws in order to keep themselves and other non-thinkers like them in line. Hence organized religion...

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Werone

I disagree, although morals are associated with religious teachings, the underlying principle is seeking the truth. A good moral person is the same as a good ethical person. It just depends on how you wish to see yourself. I can be a moral person and base my morals on principles of conduct, or in other words, define moral behavior that is repeatable and understandable by the masses. In the definition above, people who are active participants in interpreting right and wrong, and whose opinion counts, are ethical, and the masses are moral.

The author of that article discounts a different view, one of a faith based teaching. I am not a religious person but I can appreciate someone searching for the truth regardless of where they are with their thinking and how loyal they are with their religion or upbringing.

I rather see the truth as unconnected with ethics or morality. That may seem surprising or even distasteful but it isn't. It recognizes that Ethics and morality is the search for what's good and what's bad and that very much depends on human preferences.

The truth is that the universe doesn't care whether we live or die but we do. Our preference is that we continue to exist. The reason for that is an evolved survival instinct.

That we have to factor in our preferences is the reason why moral codes are human conventions and not universal truths.

[Werone]

Originally Posted by helios666

Well, that might be where our differences lie. To me, there is no "searching" for any "truth". The manner by and how we live, and how we treat other is obvious, automatic and innate, and there requires nothing but just being true to ones' self, and others. No truth be sought, as we already "have" it within ourselves. Nobody should need any outside influence to "know" that things like murder, stealing, what have you is just not what we are here to do to one another.

I like the discussion. Thank you. I see it as a mental error making ethical and moral defintions have a DIVIDING difference. I see anything that divides people instead of uniting people as a mental error.

The fact that you see there being an "innate ethical compass" is contradictory to your statement and acceptance of the cited definition of ethics. You stated:

"To me, there is no "searching" for any "truth". The manner by and how we live, and how we treat other is obvious, automatic and innate, and there requires nothing but just being true to ones' self, and others. No truth be sought, as we already "have" it within ourselves."

You sound like some religious person defending western morality.

Beware the "auslander" or "foreigner" when he comes to your lands....

I instead offer ethical and moral defintions a level playing field, where the merits of what benefits the majority of the people can be discussed and agreed upon regardless of differences in religion, geographical origin or level of philosophy.