banditoloco

Is there a difference in the definitions of these words, or are they, for all practical purposes, the same? It occurred to me recently that i use them interchangeably, but they may have slight, but important differences.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: banditoloco ]</p>

oneofshibumi

I believe that atheist are not moral. Atheist are ethical. Morality refers to conforming to a standard of right behavior, in accord with that culture. Therefore, a cannibal is moral in accordance with his/her culture. Ethics means a discipline dealing with good and evil and with moral duty, applied universally. Ethics requires that a concept be supported by reasoning or logic. Biblical morality, is contingent on which passages that particular Christian Church or denomination considers important. Taking into account that there are more than 3,000 Christian groups, one can be concluded that Biblical morality, is always changing. Ethical considerations, are usually constant through time.
An example would be Kohlberg's statges of Ethical Understanding.

KOHLBERG’S Stages of Ethical Understanding

The PRECONVENTIONAL LEVEL: ethical behavior is externally controlled

STAGE 1: The punishment and obedience orientation. Children at this stage find it difficult to consider two points of view in a moral dilemma. Fear authority and avoidance of punishment as reasons for behaving morally.

STAGE 2: The instrumental purpose orientation. Awareness that people can have different perspectives in a moral appears, but at first this understanding is very concrete.

The CONVENTIONAL LEVEL: ethically understanding is based on conforming to social rules to ensure positive human relationships and societal order.

STAGE 3: The “good boy—good girl” orientation, or the morality of interpersonal cooperation. The desire to obey rules because they promote social harmony first appears in the contest of close personal ties.

STAGE 4: The social-order-maintaining orientation. At this stage, the individual takes into account a larger perspective—that of societal laws.

The POSTCONVENTIONAL LEVEL: individuals define ethics in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies.

STAGE 5. The social-contract orientation. Individuals regard laws and rules as flexible instruments for furthering human purposes.

STAGE 6. The universal ethical principle orientation. Right action is defined by self-chosen ethical principles of conscience that are valid for all humanity, regardless of law and social agreement.

Alonzo Fyfe

I spent 12 years in college, including 6 years in graduate school, with a specialization in "Ethics", which was also known as "moral philosophy". The study of moral realism and anti-realism fell under the more general rubric of "metaethcis". "Moral theory" and "ethical theory" was the same course.

In short, those who wrote and studied in the field recognized no distinction between the two terms, and would switch between cognates of the word "ethics" and cognates of the word "moral" with no regard for anything but which sounded better at the time.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

banditoloco

Thanks guys, I just needed to make sure my friends and I were on the same page when discussing morals or ethics. If it's good enough for an ethics grad student, it's good enough for me, so i think i'll just continue using them interchangeable for the most part.

oneofshibumi

Alonzo, I agree in the study of the branch of philosophy called “Ethics” both words are interchangeable.

However, in Bicultural Bilingual Anthropology, my specialty, the meaning of the word is based on use. The similar was as linguistics. In the same way science means one thing to a legitimate scientist and another thing to a Creationist scientist. I am sure that you consider ethics to be something universally applied. While morality is usually used as a support for a person’s belief when it is used colloquially. All fields of study have clearly defined the meaning of the words they use. My definition is based on use. For example, Christian right use the word morality, because it can meaning anything they want. While if they used the word ethics, I am sure that professional philosophers, like yourself, would demonstrate the flaw in their reasoning.

Alonzo Fyfe

Error. Error.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

oneofshibumi is correct in pointing out that there is a distinction between technical usage of a word and common usage.

And even within technical usage, a lot depends on which (technical) field of study one is talking about. To a sociologist or anthropologist, morality merely describes the norms of a culture -- a usage that most moral philosophers would cringe at. "You stupid sociologists are confusing right and wrong with beliefs about right and wrong -- which are no more identical than beliefs about elementary particles and the elementary particles themselves."

Then somebody in the crowd throws a punch. Others join in. Chairs, bottles, and people go flying across the room. Things get loud.

Really, the only thing that matters is that you and your friends all agree on a set of meanings, and that you are consistent.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I am aware that others attach shades of meanings to the words 'ethics' and 'morality' which results in each word referring to a different concept than the other.

I, however, use the terms 'ethics' and 'morality' as exact synonyms.

Keith.

tronvillain

I consider myself moral rather than ethical, and I scoff at the idea of a discipline dealing with good and evil and with moral duty, applied universally. Of course, I don't think much of Kohlberg's Stages of Ethical Understanding either.

Arrowman

I do love the posts/questions which make you say to yourself "Hmmm... I never really thought about that before...."

I suppose I tend to use the words "morals or ethics" or "moral or ethical behaviour" as though there are two [very slightly] differing meanings, but I must confess without really being able to provide a hard definition of what that difference is.

But now I've been asked to think about it ... I guess I tend to think of morals as a personal thing, and ethics as a societal thing. A society will debate among itself what is ethical behaviour, and perhaps come to some sort of consensus, and possibly even use that consensu as the basis for law or regulation of some activity (eg stem cell research). People as individuals will develop (or adopt from their religion) moral codes, and those moral codes will often be more restrictive than the ethical codes adopted by society as a whole.

IMHO many people would have far less problem with a government regulating an activity (eg reproductive technology) for "ethical reasons", than they would for "moral reasons" which are supposed to be more personal.

Just a gut feeling thing.