Morals vs. Ethics

[Kerrie]

Is there a difference, and if so what is it in your opinion?

[selfAdjoint]

Some people would assert that ethics are a part of philosophy and morals are a part of religion. I'm pretty much a Humean myself, and think you have to have some premise other than what you get from empirically observing nature in order to specify either ethics or morals.

[Kerrie]

IMO, ethics has to do with what's right for society as a whole and the general population, whereas morality has to do with the choice being individual...example:
medical ethics vs abortion.

[Dissident Dan]

I use the words interchangeably. Kerrie's view does reflect the fact that there are professional organizations that have codes of ethics, but not codes of morals.

[honestrosewater]

IMO, ethics has to do with what's right for society as a whole and the general population, whereas morality has to do with the choice being individual...example:
medical ethics vs abortion.

Does the categorical imperative concept belong to morality or ethics?

I think that distinction is invaluable in an anarchist society.
But a consequence of making that distinction is that it can be used as a viable excuse for the harassment, persecution, torture, and murder of criminals, pagans, heretics, rebels, terrorists, etc.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

[Njorl]

Ethics are specific codes applied to different organizations. There are medical ethics, legal ethics scientific ethics etc. There are real and official repercussions for violating ethics, without there necessarily being any legal result. Any group may make up its own ethical standards. No other group should feel even slightly bound by them. Sometimes, two ethical codes can be in complete contradiction to eachother. A schizophrenic on death row has a doctor who ethically must help him recover, and a lawyer who ethically can not allow recovery.

Morality, on the other hand, is not official. Nobody makes up the official by-laws of morality. While everyone may have a different view of what is moral, they believe that view should apply to all.

Njorl

[Kerrie]

Ethics are specific codes applied to different organizations. There are medical ethics, legal ethics scientific ethics etc. There are real and official repercussions for violating ethics, without there necessarily being any legal result. Any group may make up its own ethical standards. No other group should feel even slightly bound by them. Sometimes, two ethical codes can be in complete contradiction to eachother. A schizophrenic on death row has a doctor who ethically must help him recover, and a lawyer who ethically can not allow recovery.

Morality, on the other hand, is not official. Nobody makes up the official by-laws of morality. While everyone may have a different view of what is moral, they believe that view should apply to all.

Njorl

thank you njorl for your definition :shy: i am in agreement with this perspective of both.

[Dissident Dan]

=webster.com]eth·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thk)
n.

A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

As you can see, there are multiple definitions: morals, professional standards, or "principles of right conduct", which fits either of the two previous.

[Jeebus]

Can't you equate ethics from morals? Or can't you make a standardized equation fitting in the terms to be interchangeable, as Dan has said? I think it all forms from each other. Like one chemical structure bonding into a unique formulae.

[p-brane]

Morals are passed on by tradition. They represent a sort of blueprint of the survival methods of a group of people (society). Some morals may be vestidual remains of a by-gone era - some morals may up hold the systemic ethical standards nature has put in place. It would be this universal type of moral that can survive well beyond its point of inception.

Ethical guidelines are inherent in nature and when applied to various conditions in human society a balance between opposing elements is struck. This balance, which is the result of what we call ethics, creates positive results that are invariably progressive and supportive of a productive survival in the majority of examples.

Thanks!