Pre-Rant Primer: Morals vs Ethics
Earlier today I was thinking about how people often have a great deal of trouble, be it honestly or dishonestly, interpreting some of the things that I say. A part of this involved issues of morality and issues of ethics, and the two being interpreted as the same. Rather than having this inserted into that post, I decided to have it out here and just reference it in the next post, since otherwise it would be quite a distracting tangent.
So, morality and ethics. A lot of people seem to think that these are the same thing, but there are some key differences. True, both have to do with deciding acceptable ways of behaving, but that's where the similarities stop. Within the differences, however, is where some particularly sneaky people like to imply that, through the similarities, morality is the same as ethics, but at the same time, through the differences, purport that the dictionary definition of "morality" supports their own arguments.
That's the hypothetical of it. It'll probably make a lot more sense in context, however. See, morals are laws given down from authority that demand people act in certain ways. These are not necessarily ethical, nor are they necessary for people to do good, nor are they necessary for people to decide what "good" is. In fact, the presence of morals can often confuse people as to what is good, and prevent them from deciding what is good, and in turn perform harmful acts, thinking them to be good.
Ethics, on the other hand, are a system of determining whether an action is good or evil, for instance, utilitarianism demands that people consider the net result of their actions and act in the interest of the greater good, whereas Kantian ethics demand that people consider whether a world could exist wherein everyone chooses to act in the same manner as the person considering action, then considering whether that world would be a desirable place to live in. In both cases, a person must take the specific situation into consideration and think critically about the consequences of an action, rather than just automatically following the rules as in morality.
A society can survive and thrive without morals; these are just rules--perhaps completely arbitrary rules--handed down from positions of authority--perhaps false or corrupt authority. However, codes of ethics are important for people to decide how to act appropriately.
See in this example: The Bible contains a great many moral rules in them. For example, a disobedient child must be stoned to death, and there are rules that assume that some people will own other people as property. But there are no ethics behind these rules. When ethics were applied, society considered the impact of a disobedient child versus the death of a child. We considered what it meant to own a human as property, and what it would be like to be found in that situation ourselves. And we decided that these moral rules were abominable. We discarded them.
So, morality and ethics. A lot of people seem to think that these are the same thing, but there are some key differences. True, both have to do with deciding acceptable ways of behaving, but that's where the similarities stop. Within the differences, however, is where some particularly sneaky people like to imply that, through the similarities, morality is the same as ethics, but at the same time, through the differences, purport that the dictionary definition of "morality" supports their own arguments.
That's the hypothetical of it. It'll probably make a lot more sense in context, however. See, morals are laws given down from authority that demand people act in certain ways. These are not necessarily ethical, nor are they necessary for people to do good, nor are they necessary for people to decide what "good" is. In fact, the presence of morals can often confuse people as to what is good, and prevent them from deciding what is good, and in turn perform harmful acts, thinking them to be good.
Ethics, on the other hand, are a system of determining whether an action is good or evil, for instance, utilitarianism demands that people consider the net result of their actions and act in the interest of the greater good, whereas Kantian ethics demand that people consider whether a world could exist wherein everyone chooses to act in the same manner as the person considering action, then considering whether that world would be a desirable place to live in. In both cases, a person must take the specific situation into consideration and think critically about the consequences of an action, rather than just automatically following the rules as in morality.
A society can survive and thrive without morals; these are just rules--perhaps completely arbitrary rules--handed down from positions of authority--perhaps false or corrupt authority. However, codes of ethics are important for people to decide how to act appropriately.
See in this example: The Bible contains a great many moral rules in them. For example, a disobedient child must be stoned to death, and there are rules that assume that some people will own other people as property. But there are no ethics behind these rules. When ethics were applied, society considered the impact of a disobedient child versus the death of a child. We considered what it meant to own a human as property, and what it would be like to be found in that situation ourselves. And we decided that these moral rules were abominable. We discarded them.