Morals Versus Ethics

[Didacus]

Nihil Obstat and I have been exchanging thoughts on the subject matter and would like the opinions of the PHAM.

I've placed this in the debate table because I can forsee differing opinions on the matter.

Didacus
[quote]It has been my experience that people speak of morals as objective, and ethics as subjective. I tend to think more as morals being the source and ethics the results.[/quote]

Nihil Obstat
[quote]Yea, that would fit with my experience too. I think ethics also includes things that we aren't obligated to do. Things that aren't necessarily moral mandates. Would you agree? [/quote]



Didacus
[quote]There is no questioning the source (morals, God), but the application can sometimes be left to interpretation (abortion is conclusively wrong through morals, though many see it as ethically correct). Does this make sense? [/quote]

Nihil Obstat
[quote]Yea, that would definitely make sense.[/quote]



Would anyone have any additional thoughts on the matter?

[Varg]

I've just realised...Nihil, nihilism. Connected?

Edited September 29, 2009 by Varg

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' date='29 September 2009 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1254240224' post='1974289']
I've just realised...Nihil, nihilism. Connected?
[/quote]
Absolutely not.

[Didacus]

This is not intended to be a spam board!



SFD!!!

[Didacus]

*bump*

[Laudate_Dominum]

I tend to think of the distinction between morality and ethics thus:

1. In some cases the terms are used synonymously so the distinction is irrelevant.
2. Properly speaking 'ethics' describes that branch of philosophy which is the systematic study of the moral sphere.
3. 'Morality' more broadly and generally describes the realm of human actions and values and can refer to objective or subjective realities (although I don't see objectivity and subjectivity as relating at all to a distinction between these terms).
4. Because the terms are sometimes used synonymously you can say that something is ethical when it is moral, and that a particular act is moral because it is ethical.

I suppose I would distinguish the terms by saying that ethics implies a systematically sound morality based upon philosophical methodology (or at least implies something of a systematic character), whereas morality is the more general term which could include claims and patterns of "right" or "wrong" conduct based upon superstition, arbitrary bias, cultural taboos, etc. But I'm really just stating my opinion of the more common connotations of the terms and believe that they are often used interchangeably and in common conversation are synonymous. When ethics is used to describe the field of systematic moral theory it is expressing a meaning particular to that term.

What do you think? This is the guess of an English speaking American; I suppose this conversation could differ depending on the cultural and linguistic context. Are there two objectively different realities that would justify two different but related terms which may be expressed in English as 'morality' and 'ethics?' I don't believe so. I believe they are basically the same word with different histories. Ethics has more of an academic history and its set of possible meanings reflects this - that's my theory I suppose. Again, what do you think?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Just saw this QA post:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=98964

I thought they gave good answers.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"ethics implies a systematically sound morality based upon philosophical methodology (or at least implies something of a systematic character), whereas morality is the more general term which could include claims and patterns of "right" or "wrong" conduct based upon superstition, arbitrary bias, cultural taboos, etc. But I'm really just stating my opinion of the more common connotations of the terms and believe that they are often used interchangeably and in common conversation are synonymous."

that's how i look at it
in a way morals are subjective and ethics are objective (contra the initial posts).
but it seems this stuff is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, like saying what a piece of art means. you project your own biases into it. and i see 'morality' as too loaded etc.

[Didacus]

Is there any reliable source that can provide some 'oficial' denifition for the terms? Maybe in a philosophical sense?

[dairygirl4u2c]

there's official definitions, an then there's real world. even if you used a standard that was official, it wouldn't have the connotations of everyday life etc, and vise versa. it'd be harder to have a dictionary of connotations, in a way. i know some like to throw that in there, but to be comprehensive would be harder. and it obvious varies so much even down to the localities of the area, even to the individual.
just sayin.

Edited September 30, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c