This is intended to be a philisophical discussion. In this discussion I would like to follow a bit of a format. I may be thinking optimistically but, I have an overview of how I'd like to see this discussion progress.

This is a philisophical discussion and it will encompass many differing belief systems, howevery, it is not intended to discuss religions as a whole, only those areas that will concern the topic.

STEP ONE: FIRST SHORT AND SWEET - Please, in your words, according to what you think, please define the words Morals and Ethics.

STEP TWO: AFTER several posters have had an opportunity to add their definitions we will take the discussion to the next level. That being the arguments and opposing views of each ones comments.

Please stay on topic, this is a very important subject, especially in light of all current events, and in the United States a coming election. A good understanding of these words can be very enlightening, no matter your religious convictions.

I was going to put my definitions, but I think I'll wait till I hear from some of you, as I don't want my defintions to be leading in any way.


MORALS what is a moral code,what defines a moral?

ETHICS what is an ethical code, what defines it?

If definiations are too difficult, give an example of how you think these two words are different.

Morals and ethics are pretty much the same I would define them as standards of conduct.
I was taught that moral philosophy is the same as ethics.

I tend to use moral and ethics as synanyms although for some reason I associate "Morals" more with personal issues and "Ethics" with business or professional issues.

I would define morals and ethics as an individual, group, or societys system for seperating acceptable or harmless actions from unacceptable or harmful actions.

A determination of what is "right" and what is "wrong".

i don't think there is a difference in meanings. both are basically an accepted standard of principles.

Semantic can often be a very personal thing depending on how someone becomes familiar with the use of specific words.

I tend to think of the word, “ethics” as referring to acceptable social behavior, whilst I think of the word “morals” as referring to a more personal code of conduct.

As an example:

I think it would be unethical of me to strip naked and run up and down the isles during a church service screaming, “I’m horny! I’m horny!”

However, I would see nothing immoral about that behavior.

So for me there is a big difference between morals and ethics.

In other words, I need an unethical woman who can appease my horniness whilst maintaining good morals. (Church services not req’d)

I have a tendency to look at things from extreme points of views. When I hear the word 'moral' I automatically think of the word 'immoral' When I hear the word 'ethical' I automatically think of the word 'unethical'. It causes me to over intellectualize to the point of generalizing. I don't actual think of what the two words define. This has caused me problems because when I continue with this association of words I associate other words with it. For instance; the catch phrase 'moral majority' associates with 'immoral minority'. Of course there is a flaw in that logic. I attribute that to media indoctrination and to the socialization process. I have found that this has an effect in how I behave with others. I know that I am suppose to stay out of the past but I keep coming up with this reoccuring theme which to me is illogical. For example, I am right therefore you must be wrong. Because I am right anything that you say must be insignificant. You should hear what I say. I am dealing with this because I am finding other rights that help to explain what I have difficulty in learning. With all the new communicating with the real world that I have had lately the I am right and you must be wrong has been a stumbling block. I am intrigued by the actual way people communicate with others versus the way I think people should communicate with others. It helps to fill in some of the holes that I have had in trying to move on in learning.

Are we really supposed to define these ourselves? Can't we just use the dictionary's definition?

Pulled from dictionary.com:

Moral: 7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character:

Ethical: 1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

Looks like they are basically the same, except that ethical seems to have a bit more emphasis on behavior and action.

Ok - just checking to see what voices have been counted.

OleJeb - While not too many have posted yet, I've had this discussion with many, and you seem to be fitting in with most.

anoasis - I can't decide - dark hair or light? Both are very lovely on you. (ok, I'm tired) engage brain, Yes, businesses from accountants to CEO's to employess require some kind of ethical code, that's why you associate the term to business. But why would that be different than a personal code of morals?

Kingbreeze, I think you too are pretty mainstream, as I find,the two words are often confused as synonamous.

Abra, if you only wrote college textbooks, I might stay interested long enough to read all night. Let me ask your opinion, do you think there's any importance in understanding the difference between these two words?

Hillfolk - Are you trying to say that your ethics allow you to value your own opinion and thoughts above others, but your morals are telling you that's wrong? If you look to your left shoulder do you see a little devil? and if you look to your right one, is there an angel? And is there a pink elephant anywhere in the room?

Sometime after I've had some sleep, I'll be back, maybe others will join us yet.

BayGirl, glad you could join. Actually, in the case of these two words, sometimes a short definition doesn't carry the same weight, but it is, however a start.

Can you think of something that is ethical, but not moral? Or moral but not ethical? If so, consider why and then ask yourself, so what's the difference between these words?

I'll be back tomorrow.

There's really nothing here to think about. I think you're taking a fairly easy concept and making it more difficult than it needs to be.

I also think you are "mis-applying" the 'right-wrong' idea to the term "ethics".

Let's take stealing for example.

Morally your conscience knows better. You don't take what doesn't rightfully belong to you, nor do you take what you haven't necessarily earned. Which then translate into behavior, which is where ethics is then defined. It would be ethical not to steal, and thus unethical to do so, based on the morals you defined around stealing.

How's that?

Ethics...the codes of behaviours I accept from self and others, especially in a societal situation..ie, work.

Morals...a deeply personal and accumulative code with which I place my thoughts and ideals in...a series of actions, thoughts and behaviours I wish to remain in.

Redy-

Thanks, what a sweet thing to say. Actually my hair is the same color in both pics- one is just in much brighter light, also my hair is alot lighter on top because of sun-bleaching... red hair is my favorite so I envy yours. I find it slightly hilarious that I am talking about this but sometimes it's nice to get distracted from the "heavy"stuff with a little side wandering... and being honestly nice to one another is part of my moral code so I guess it's appropriate.

Re: ethics (business) vs. morals (personal): Yes, and we had "business ethics" in school and have had discussions on work ethics, etc.

Are they actually "different"? Hmmm... Again, because I associate "morals" with my personal moral code that word is more all-encompassing for me while "ethics" would apply to fewer situations. And I think Jess expressed this part of the concept very nicely for me as well when she added "with which I place my thoughts and ideals in".

I was trying to keep my initial definitions brief because I tend to ramble when I extrapolate and it seemed you were requesting some narrow focus from us (for a change). But, when I think of morals my first thought is definitely of my *personal* moral code, not anyone elses, not some set of rules, not the 10 commandments or any other specific outside source or opinion, not what society or the majority believe to be wrong or right... just what I think about the matter/action.

I found Abra's "running naked in church" example hilarious but for me that action would be both unethical and immoral. Because, for me, the only rock bottom criteria (distinction between moral and immoral) for actions is *harmlessness*. If no living creature is in any way harmed, including oneself, then the action is not immoral. However, in Abra's example (and depending on the congragation) it seems like some might be harmed because it would sincerely upset some (harm= deliberately causing avoidable mental anguish) and it could even result in physical harm (I assume some of the more delicate ladies might faint or get high blood pressure, depending ).

What actions might fit in one category but not the other? I'm not sure, I will think about it... My initial thought is that I will ultimately agree with Abra and find some things that are "unethical" might not be "immoral" but I want to examine some specific examples to see which ones might fit.

BTW- this is fun, thanks for the topic!!

Red wrote:
“Let me ask your opinion, do you think there's any importance in understanding the difference between these two words? “

That’s an interesting question. I’m not so sure how important an actual understanding of the semantics of the words are, however, I think it’s quite important to understand the difference in the concepts.

As several have already indicated, they view ethics more as a social thing, whilst they view morals more as a deep-seated personal code of behavior. I completely agree with this view. Ethics are contextual and may change from situation to situation. Morals are more fundamental to the core essence of what a person personally believes.

However, like I say, these words are just words. Other people may use differnet words to express these difference concepts. It’s no so important what words are used. All that’s really important is that a person recognizes the difference between personal convictions and socially acceptable behavior.

There are people who cannot make this distinction. They allow society to shove morals down their throats in the form of ethics. I do not care about the laws of men, other than to the degree that I must respect them in order to survive in society. To me, the only thing that’s really important is humanity. Not the authoritarians.

If I can do something to help humanity and it requires spitting in the face of ethics, then so be it. From my point of view to do any less would be immoral.

Anoasis wrote:
“However, in Abra's example (and depending on the congragation) it seems like some might be harmed because it would sincerely upset some (harm= deliberately causing avoidable mental anguish) and it could even result in physical harm (I assume some of the more delicate ladies might faint or get high blood pressure, depending).”

This I would totally disagree with. If people become sincerely upset or had mental anguish, that would be a reaction that I had absolutely no control over. They would basically be doing harm to themselves because they couldn’t deal with their immediate environment.

I’m not responsible for how other people react to a given situation, and therefore I can take not moral responsibility for how they might react to it.

If we allow that to be the guiding principle of our morals than other people could force us into immoral situations simply by the way they choose to react. My morals are not dependent upon other people’s judgments about their environment. As I say, it might be considered to be “unethical” but it’s certainly not “immoral” by my standards. However, it may be immoral by someone else’s moral standards.

We all have our own moral values.

I would never run through a church naked anyway. Not because I think it would be immoral to do so, but simply because it’s not on my agenda for things to accomplish in 2007.

Maybe next year.

Ok, I'm so pleased with the way this is going. It seems that most don't see much value in discriminating between the two words, except in the case of Lee/Jess where she seems to apply more seperation and possibly more value on one than the other.

I purposely did not want to control the topic to begin with, as my intention was to show that we tend to, automatically, look at problems on a totally subjective point of view. When I asked, "What do these words mean to you", it seemed that I was inviting definition based on how they reflect, by definition, in your personal life, subjective.

It seems to me that, on the whole, poeple do this with language, as instinct and training and one's idea of value of self, direct. It's my opinion that this is self imposed restriction to thought, that is continually enforced by the societies we live in. This restriction is one of those things that areas that,unchecked, lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, and ultimately require us to "define" already defined terms or words, with our own subjective view, in order to make ourselves clear and understood.

There are times when we need to be open minded about statements and positions based on words, by keeping the emotions and opinions, that are subjective, out of the equation. In order to do this it is necessary to have a clear understanding of words and their roots. Sometimes a definition is all there is to a word, and no context, possibly other than slang, can change the value of the word whether it's viewed subjectively or in terms of it's affect on society. In many cases the word has a meaning that is reflected in the roots of that word and through those roots we see a word that, defined subjectively holds one value, when a sociatal or cultural value is what is required to understand what is being discussed.

Not to make one post too extremely long, I will put My definitions of the words Ethics and Morals in the next post.

Please read and then let's discuss. I state my definitions as though they are facts, because they are truths to me, based on many years of singular study. I have no education in philosophy, it's just basically a hobbie. So what I find to be truth does not mean it is fact. Notice, how I used truth and fact as two different words? That's another of those words that cause conflict, when the definitions are subjective.

Morals vs Ethics

First, these are two different words for a reason. It's easy to confuse the two, but it's important to know the difference and keep these differences in mind when discussing the one or the other or both.

Morals was born of religion. It came about when civilization was mostly smaller groups of people, villages large extended families, nomad tribes and the like. Religious beliefs guided the accepted conduct and hierarchy and basically were the laws to which the small group adhered. When confronted with larger cities and towns, one did not change or trade in their morals for new laws, they simply adhered to the laws as long as they did not conflict with their morals.

Ethics was born of philosophy. It began as the study of morality and how it affected conduct. It developed through questions that deal with values. While a moral is based on a directive, most commonly from a religious source, a value is based on the human experience minus any preconceived or religious based moral. In other words what holds value, what is good, what is bad, right or wrong, simply based on the human condition, religious convictions not withstanding.

To have a system or society governed by morals, there must first be a consistent set of morals to which the largest portion of the population subscribes. Then of course laws are put into place to uphold these morals. The problem with using morals, religious dictates, as a base for a society is that they inherently include bias against a great many in the society. This causes, bigotry, unrest and can even lead to a caste system, a monarchy or something other that a free society.

Ethics, on the other hand, determines what is or serves the greater good. A society of ethical law, allows for change as new technologies, new science and new knowledge sway the wellbeing of the greater good to a new direction. As opposed to a static religious belief system, whose only change is based on opinion.

For example. (true case) - There are those who believe that scientific studies on cloning should not be pursued. Their fear is that we are acting like God, and that the creation of a human through cloning would create a soulless creature, something evil and pathetic, against the nature that God created.

In an ethical society, that fear would not be considered. The reason, is that the scientific study of cloning does not necessarily include the creation of a whole human body. Actually, what is being studied is the ability to clone specific body parts. But those who are extremely entrenched in religious morals will immediately take the word subjectively. However, if cloning meant creating a human, then the questions would not be God related. They would be concerned with societal values. What are the risks of such an undertaking to the newly created individual, to society as a whole, verses what are the gains. How much will it cost, who will pay and ultimately, for the newly created human, will it be accepted in and become a productive member of society?

So in this case a moral society, would never be willing to allow such an undertaking. Therefore, it lacks the ability to advance, while the ethical society continues to advance and to change what values will be considered as moral to society as a whole.

FIRST, please feel free to discuss anything I've posted.

SECOND, think about what I've said, and tell me in terms of the definitions and examples I have provided, if you would rather live in a society ruled by laws substantiating a majority of particular religious morals, or in a society that allows freedom to 'subjectively' maintain your personal moral convictions while being ruled by laws of an ethical nature.

Di wrote:
“FIRST, please feel free to discuss anything I've posted.”

Just to touch on semantics. I personally give semantics a very wide birth of abstraction. Words are merely our attempt to convey ideas. I’m totally open to allowing anyone to use any words to mean anything they like. I can usually understand what they are attempting to say by the context of the entire conversation and not be any rigid definitions of any particular words. Moreover, if I feel that I may not be clear on how they are using a particular question, I simply ask them what they mean by that word, and they will usually elaborate.

You clearly associate the word “morals” with religious convictions. I obviously don’t. If I did that I would have to say that I have no morals at all because I totally denounce all concepts of “religion” as I define THAT word. To me, a mere belief in a spiritual nature of our essence does not constitute “religion”. To me, “religion” is to follow some predefined doctrine or well-defined belief. I do neither of these and therefore I do not consider myself to be “religious”.

Moreover, my morals on not based on what I feel some external godhead my approve of. My morals are my own. However, my morals do include all of humanity, (as well as all other living creatures and even non-living entities). I still prefer to call them “morals” rather than “ethics” because, for me personally, I associate the word “ethics” to socially acceptable behavior, and that may change from one society to another, whilst my morals are a constant with respect to my essence.

Obviously, the use of semantics is indeed subjective, and I feel that it should be. We can always explain what we personally mean when we use certain words. You’ve explained your meanings, and therefore if we were to have a conversation concerning morals and ethics I would understand what you ‘mean’ by those words. That’s really all that’s important to me, as my only goal is to understand your ideas and not to publish a dictionary. I’m all for personal usage of words. Just as long as a person is willing to elaborate on precisely how they are using them. I’m certainly not going to attempt to “correct” them as their usage is just as valid as anyone else’s. Assuming they are even in the ball-park of what the words are supposed to relate to.

Just on the concept of ‘cloning’. To me, biologically a clone is no different than a nature born person. It’s still the same DNA that was in an egg and a sperm. How is it any different? To clone just a body part, such as a hand say, would be just as acceptable to me as growing a tomato plant. A hand doesn’t have consciousness, and if a hand can be grown in a laboratory and be used as a replacement part on a human being that would be fantastic as far as I’m concerned. The only place where it would become questionable is within the ream of growing brains where consciousness might be involved.

I don’t believe that spirits come into being at birth. To me that is the greatest misconception that mankind has ever devised. That whole vision stems form the vantage point of an ego that would like to believe is it separate from everything else and will maintain it’s individuality for all of eternity. No one is created when they are born, and no one ceases to exist when they die. That is merely an illusion of this physical world that people just can’t seem to get past.

Di wrote:
”SECOND, think about what I've said, and tell me in terms of the definitions and examples I have provided, if you would rather live in a society ruled by laws substantiating a majority of particular religious morals, or in a society that allows freedom to 'subjectively' maintain your personal moral convictions while being ruled by laws of an ethical nature.”

I hate religions with a passion. They are ungodly. They breed prejudice, bigotry and intolerance. Religious “morals” are more often than not quite hypocritical in their nature.

However, having said that, rules of law that are of an ‘ethical nature’ (as you describe it) could also run the same risk of being created by people who are bigoted, prejudiced, and intolerant. So the answer is not clear-cut. Although, if all religious superstition and mythology could be cast into the pits of hell forever, then people would become less bigoted over time I imagine.

Even Hitler believed that his genocide and planned genetic control over society would be the best thing for humanity as a whole. So who decides what’s best for humanity???

Even looking at things from a purely social point of view does not guarantee that everyone will agree on what the best “ethics” should be.

So in the end the only society I’d really be happy in is one where I get to make all the rules. :o)

I feel that Morals and Ethics are similar, the difference is Morality is your personal values and Ethics are the collected Values of the community.

Joshyfox wrote:
“I feel that Morals and Ethics are similar, the difference is Morality is your personal values and Ethics are the collected Values of the community.”

This is the basic distinction that I make between these words too.

Red seems to like to associate the words “morals” with religious underpinnings, whilst reserving the word “ethics” as purely humanitarian or philosophical notion.

Like I say, have their own preferred semantics. To me, the word “morals” has nothing to do with religion (despite any claims that any dictionaries might make). I think that misconception simple comes from the idea that most people base their morality on religious ideals. I personally don’t believe that morality needs to stem from religion.

According to Red’s definitions, then it would not longer be called “morality” it would simply be called “ethics”.

I simply refuse to allow religions to steal the word “morality” from me. I consider myself to have very high morals despite the fact that they are not based on any religion. I would not feel right about calling them “ethics” because to me that’s an entirely differnet concept. I see ethics and morality as being distinctly differnet things as Joshyfox, Jess and others have suggested. Morals are personal convictions, whilst ethics have more to do with social acceptance and could change depending on the society that I happen to be living in at the time. But my underlying morals would never change.

For Red, I think if you’d like to make the distinction that you are taking about, you should merely explain that at the outset of your presentation, (i.e. how you are going to be using the words for your discussion). Authors do that sort of thing all the time without making any attempt to solidify the definitions. It’s only important that they explain how they are using the terms within the context of their discussions.

Based on your definitions Red, I would certainly embrace “ethics” over “morality”. But that’s simply because you define morals as being based on religion. I don’t. My morals, are basically what you would call "ethics".