±
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty." 
Toward FREEDOM
Posted on 05/26/2005 8:35:41 PM PDT by Neil E. Wright
At other places in this domain you will have read various news articles from around the nation, on the outrageous actions of various government entities (political, judicial and bureaucratic), which have had the effect of limiting the choice and range of actions of a once free and sovereign people.
But I think that there is a world of difference between the two words. A person can be, in the opinion of others, completely amoral, but still be an ethical person. I believe that moral choice (or morality) is a highly individual thing. Because morality is based largely upon religious precept, or a concept of right and wrong based on individual choice, "is this right or wrong, for me," a person can make a personal moral decision that it is okay to gamble, drink, use drugs or even consort with a prostitute, actions that others might consider highly immoral. So "moral" in this sense is a code of conduct or behavior based on an individual's perception of right and wrong as it relates to themselves. Every human being on earth believes in right and wrong, "good (righteous or virtuous)" and "bad (evil or 'sinful')", regardless of whether or not they claim to, even if they profess to be irreligious. And every human being has a different opinion of what constitutes "right" and "wrong," depending on their own sense of moral values.
Ethics, on the other hand, specifically deal with how an individual interacts with others. I.e., does he keep his word? Does he treat other people honestly and fairly? Is he reliable? Ethics is a code of conduct based on doing "right", not necessarily doing "good." Therefore, while ethics and morals are closely related, ethical behavior is not necessarily "moral" behavior.
In times past, ethics meant simply "doing the right thing." Doing the right thing meant that when you gave your word to another, you did what you said you would do, regardless of the personal cost. Doing the right thing might even mean that you gave up your life, if necessary, rather than go back on your pledge. We can see this principle of ethics in action every time that a soldier dons his uniform and goes into battle, or when a police officer risks his life to save a stranger. In both these cases, the soldier and the officer have taken an oath, and to them, adhering to their code of ethics means they accept the risk that they might someday be killed in the line of duty. On a somewhat lesser scale, we witness people treating each other ethically every day, as they interact each with the other in little things.
Unfortunately today, with so-called "situational ethics," many people (one might venture a guess that a majority) seem to think that breaking their word is okay, as long as they have an excuse that they find acceptable, regardless of how their actions might affect another person. They think nothing of lying, cheating or stealing as long as they can rationalize it to themselves. These are the same "moral" people who think nothing of passing laws that criminalize behavior that they find unacceptable, not to prevent themselves from committing "immoral" acts, but for the "good" of others. People who believe in "situational ethics" loudly proclaim that there is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong, it is the end that matters, not the means used to accomplish that end, and that using force or coercion is okay if it is a means of accomplishing their ideas of "good." Until, that is, they are on the other end, then they holler "Its not FAIR!"
So we see that despite their claims that there is no ultimate "right" or "wrong," they do believe, because if there is no right or wrong, then there can be no FAIR or UNFAIR. So now we must examine their actions in the light of "ethics."
As noted above, ethical behavior constitutes "doing the right thing." A large component of "doing the right thing" is accepting responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Every action taken by a human being, regardless of how large or small, has consequences which can affect other people. When our actions serve to benefit others, we are quick to claim credit for them. But, when our actions tend to injure someone else, we have a tendency to rationalize our activity, or shift the blame away from ourselves on to some one, or some thing, outside of ourselves. But an ethical person, "morality" aside, accepts personal responsibility for all the consequences of his or her actions, for good or ill.
±
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty." Toward FREEDOM
Lawyers have "Ethics" not "Morals", they are not the same.
Reasonably stated argument.
Thank you.
Thanks for the ping!
Euphemism and euphemistic phrases, well crafted to disarm, but without historical or moral basis are then repeated ad nauseum. Stalin used the same tactics plus a gun to rewrite the dictionary.
Morals usually refer to questions of right and wrong, while ethics usually refer to appropriate professional or organizational behavior.
Good answer.
Situational ethics is not supposed to be dependant upon rationalizations, but rather it is morality in context.
E.g.: A woman asks her husband why he was late getting home. The moral response is the truth. The SS ask a man if he has seen a family of Jews (who he is hidiing in his basement). The moral response is a lie.
Context.
-A8
±
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty." Toward FREEDOM
[...snip...]
Ethics, on the other hand, specifically deal with how an individual interacts with others.
Excellent, Neil. Easy to remember, too.
Discerning the difference is almost as hard as trying to follow Phaedrus as he tries to reconcile the 'classic' with the 'romantic.' ('Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance.')
Jeff, that is the way it USED to be, and it is a good point. However, in today's "situational ethics" the question most often posed is "I'm hungry and I'm broke. Is it ethical for me to steal food to sustain myself" or some such along those lines. My point in the op-ed piece above was that "ethics" concerned "doing the right thing" and accepting the responsibility for your actions. In your second example in particular, "doing the right thing" is also the "moral" choice, as saving the lives of the Jewish family also serves to fight "evil". It's pretty much a no-brainer .... :)
However, if the SS found out that the guy lied, there's still a price to pay, in this case, he'd pay with his life. But, once again, his ethical and moral choice was, IMO, the correct one.
adiaireton8 said:
Morality and ethics are the same. What is immoral cannot be ethical. What is unethical cannot be moral.
By your definition of "morality and ethics" I am amoral, as I CHOOSE to drink, gamble, and I have been known to consort with "women of the night", which, some would contend are IMMORAL. I contend that "morality" is subjective and personal to the individual, as relates to his guidelines for living his or her life as he/she feels fit, PROVIDED that his/her "moral" choices only affect him/herself. Ethics, "doing the right thing", relates to your choices of action that affect others directly. If I CHOOSE to drink and then get behind the wheel of my car and drive, my choice potentially affects EVERYONE else on the road. Therefore it is an UNETHICAL choice of action. And if my actions result in the injury or death of another person, then I am both ethically and "morally" responsible for the injury or death. This is why I said they "morals" and "ethics" are closely related, but NOT quite the same.
I'll be glad to discuss it in greater depth if you'd like ... :)
Moral behavior has an inherent quality that is absolute in nature. It is implied that it originates from God.
Ethical behavior has an arbitrary quality that is practical or prudent in nature. It is implied that it originates from human consensus.
Societies have general standards of morality which are not subjective: age of consent laws, disapproval of bigamy, sodomy, beastiality, incest, etc., behaviors which don't neccessarily hurt the individual(s) involved, but which are detrimental to society and its institutions. That is why marriage is between a man and a woman.
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin.
The idea of fate is rooted in the fantasy that some imaginary, ethereal forces determine the course of human events. This is contrary to the ideas that God allows free will to choose or reject Salvation, and that God alone reveals prophecy (a.k.a. Providence). It is also an attempt to counterfeit and replace those ideas, where pantheons of fantasies are the medium of infinitization and not a singular limitless Creator.
But since we are all properly obeying * the modern interpretation * of the First Amendment... Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right, wrong, evil, moral: all of these are purely religious. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.
* The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. * (The "modern interpretation.") Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong. Excuse the sarcasm...
Today, "morals" are defined by a quasi-religious pagan philosophy based on esoteric hobgoblins. A greater number of "atheists" and "pagans" adopt the same hackneyed tenets of a false Judaic-Christian ideal (golden calf). They also subscribe to the Judaic fetishism of "sin," but will fight to their death in denial of it. Most of them are so wrapped up in their own polemics that they have become nothing more than pathetic anti-Christians with the same false hypocritical philosophy. They just slap a new label on it hoping nobody will notice - - they replace the idea of "avoiding sin" with "morals."
Is dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality driving ersatz secularists and religious heretics to seek connection with something Eternal through a Universal Truth by constructing an idol out of their own vanity or conceit they label as morality? Is this a self-deceptive replacement of avoiding sin with a synthetic secular morality?
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on idolatrous fetishes? Perhaps homosexual union advocates in politics, the press, the legislatures, and the courts could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first ecumenical Pope!
ping for discussion
Ethics and morals are indeed completely interchangeable. Morals derives from latin, ethics derives from Greek. What they meant at that time that is totally different from what they mean today. Morals as used in latin referred to customs and traditions...what we would use the word 'culture' for today.
What is the basis or ground of your contention? Anybody can assert anything. Why should we believe your contention to be true?
Are you a relativist about morality? I.e. Do you believe that there are no absolute moral truths? Where are you getting this notion that ethics concerns only actions that affect others, while morality concerns only actions that do not affect others?
-A8
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.