Morals and Ethics

[Marc L]

Mainly because it's 5 o'clock in the morning, and I just got done trying to sleep in an impossible position, I'm feeling fairly philosophical today. I'd like to post what I'm starting to see as the difference between morals and ethics. I freely admit to having stolen ideas from other people and grafted them into my own, so don't be surprised to see it. I have absolutely no academic credentials (though I did stay at a Holiday Inn not too long ago), so this may not seem too well thought out. Feel free to pick my ideas apart into tiny pieces, stomp all over them and spit them back at me.

I define morals as those actions which affect an individual's rights. My belief is that each individual human has value simply because they're human. My proof for this is the fact that I feel that I myself, have intrinsic value because I'm human. Since everyone else (to my knowledge) is also human, it stands to reason that they have intrinsic value as well.

As a human being, I feel that I have the right to self ownership, the right to attempt to provide for myself, the right to the products that come from my labor, and the right to dispose of myself, and my products in anyway I see fit. I also feel that I have the right to make my own destiny, to decide what I want to do and how I want to do it. There are probably others, but I haven't really been able to think of any.

Immoral acts are anything that violates those rights. If I kill someone, it's an immoral act, since I am interfering with their right to self ownership. If I steal, I am interfereing with their right to the fruits of their labor. Were I desirous of living as a hermit, it wouldn't matter if I did these things, because no one would be affected. However, since I choose to live in a society, I also choose to respect the inherent rights of others, if for no other reason than I don't wish to be removed from society.

Ethics, to my mind, are those things which affect a person's relationship with other people. They are the things that you do to ensure a good relationship. For example, a merchant creates a quality piece of merchandise and sells it for a fair price because he wants his customers to keep coming back. Also, happy customers refer friends, generating more business. I am faithful to my wife because I respect her and want to continue being in a good relationship with her. Lying is also covered under this. Like I said, anything you do which negatively affects your relationship with other people is unethical, anything you do which positively affects your relationship with other people is ethical.

Children, in my opinion are kind of in a limbo as far as morals go. Because they don't have the thinking skills to live on their own and take care of themselves, they don't have the same individual rights to the same degree as I do. While my 18 month old daughter may want to stay up all night and play, her mother and I are not being immoral by violating her right to live out her own destiny when we make her go to bed at bedtime. While this may upset her (thus being, technically, unethical), it will help make her a responsible adult.

Other exceptions include criminals. As they are preying upon other individuals, it is moral to put them in prison, otherwise society as a whole suffers. Killing in self-defense is also moral.

Like I said, this is just stuff I've been pondering, and probably needs to be fleshed out a lot (part of the reason why I posted it. I do welcome all comments.

Marc

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think of them differently, morals come from an appeal to authority, ethics come from an appeal to reason.

So wearing red might well be immoral because god said so. But with ethics you need to show your work.

 

[Marc L]

I think of them differently, morals come from an appeal to authority, ethics come from an appeal to reason.

So wearing red might well be immoral because god said so. But with ethics you need to show your work.

In general, yes. However, being as I don't have any authority other than reason to appeal to, I've decided to draw the line as I did.

Marc

 

[Loss Leader]

I had always thought that morals are objective rules as to how one should behave overall. Ethics are subjective rules determined by groups of humans as to how they should treat others within the group.

It is a violation of legal ethics to knowingly allow a client to lie under oath. It is not, however, immoral to stand around and watch a person lie under oath, even if you know he's lying.

It is a violation of medical ethics to treat a patient against his will, even if it is necessary to save his life. It may, however, be immoral to allow a person to die even if he wants to.

 

[Marc L]

I had always thought that morals are objective rules as to how one should behave overall. Ethics are subjective rules determined by groups of humans as to how they should treat others within the group.

It is a violation of legal ethics to knowingly allow a client to lie under oath. It is not, however, immoral to stand around and watch a person lie under oath, even if you know he's lying.

It is a violation of medical ethics to treat a patient against his will, even if it is necessary to save his life.

Your definitions are pretty much the same as mine. Personally, I think that ethics can be reasoned, and if they can't, then why keep them? For instance, is it ethical to deny medical treatment to a person based solely on their skin color? Of course not. Why? Because there is no rational reason to base such a decision on skin color.

It may, however, be immoral to allow a person to die even if he wants to.

I wanted to deal with this seperately. In order for a moral to be objective, it has to be unbiased (from dictionary.com, definition #5). There isn't, that I can see, an objective reason to prevent a person from dying if he wants to. There are certainly subjective reasons. Either religious, or just personal, but there is no objective reason to force someone to live who wants to die.

Note, I'm not saying we should encourage suicide. Certainly someone who is considering taking their own life should seek counseling. But for someone, for instance, who is dying of cancer that medicine can't cure, who says, "Stop keeping me alive, I can't take it anymore", it is, to my mind, immoral to not allow them to die.

Marc

 

[Euromutt]

It is a violation of medical ethics to treat a patient against his will, even if it is necessary to save his life. It may, however, be immoral to allow a person to die even if he wants to.

Though I didn't quite agree with your initial categorization (like Marc L, I think you got the objective and subjective mixed up to some extent), I think this last example serves as an excellent illustration of the difference between the two.

(Sets of) Ethics are the province of a specific group of people who perform functions in a particular area, such as law (including judges, lawyers acting as legal representatives of legal persons, paralegal staff, etc.), medicine (including various types of MD, nursing staff, paramedics, etc.), science and academics. Ethics do not only guide what kind of behavior is acceptable between members of the group, but also between members of the group and outsiders who avail themselves of the group's services (such as patients and their next of kin in the case of medicine). They are determined, to a large extent, by consensus among those in the field, and are not held to be (necessarily) applicable to those outside it.

Morals, on the other hand, operate at both a narrower and a wider level than ethics. An individual may determine his own set of morals, but certain individuals may band together and feel their common set of morals may be imposed on society as a whole.

 

[H'ethetheth]

My understanding is that ethics is the study of morals, where morals constitute the rules of what is right and wrong. Ethics is the thoughts behind the rules.
Remember though, I was taught this by other engineers, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Ladewig]

Ethics, to my mind, are those things which affect a person's relationship with other people. ... Like I said, anything you do which negatively affects your relationship with other people is unethical, anything you do which positively affects your relationship with other people is ethical.

So if I am frequently late when showing up to meet friends and that affects my relationship with them, I am acting in an unethical manner? If I suggest that a friend who is 100 pounds overweight should see a doctor and she becomes upset, I am unethical?

Your definition would mean the following activites are ethical:
-telling stupid people that they are smart
-telling dull people that they are clever
-telling hideously-dressed people that they have good taste

 

[hammegk]

IMO, morals are the rules an individual applies to govern private behaviors, with "private" including friends, relatives, and close associates. Any moral framework is clan/group/societal dependent.

Ethics then examines those behaviors in the public and intellectual arena, and attempts to determine universal principles independent of clan/group/society.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

The humanist ethic is to look at what is good for humans, other animals and the enviornment rather than take the morals of the bigoted ignoramuses of yore. When the religious do morals rationally, they borrow, in effect from us rather than as they allege that we live off religious moral capital. Our morality is objective in that we can see that murder , rape and theft harm others .It is provisional like science and like in science there are disagreements .Whether one views ethics as subjective or objective, we have to compromise . Religious ethics are indeed the whims of those men of yore, that is subjective. Ours is contextual.

 

[RandFan]

Our morality is objective in that we can see that murder , rape and theft harm others .

It is true that the observation of cause and effect is objective. That does not make morality objective. So what if murder, rape and theft harm others? You are begging the question.

It is provisional like science and like in science there are disagreements.

I think that you are going a bit far afield.

Whether one views ethics as subjective or objective, we have to compromise.

So, whether or not evolution is subjective or objective we have to compromise?

Religious ethics are indeed the whims of those men of yore, that is subjective. Ours is contextual.

Hold on. Are you saying that there was no observation based morality in times of yore?

I'm all for secular humanist based ethics in preference to religious based ones but I think you need to work on your argument.

 

[RandFan]

The humanist ethic is to look at what is good for humans...

Please forgive my ignorance but who are the gentlemen in the photos?

 

[skeptic griggsy]

I fail to see question begging as Quentin Smith shows in his book on ethics and religion those and other matters are taken for granted. Not to be ad populum,but most atheist philosophers of ethics are objectivists . Those men of yore commanded stoning for working on the sabbath or for chlidren who cheek their parents. So , much of their morality did not refer to what one can discern that helps or hurts people .It was their whims that slavery, misogyny and genocide were right- subjectivistic. As he points out , there are hundreds of matters everyday where we find moral agreement that outweigh disagreements. Bentham was on the right track with his pleasure and pain principle . An article in the last issue of Free Inquiry makes my points . See Paul Kurtz's " Forbidden Fruit," and Michael Martin's "Atheism,Morality and Meaning " and Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil' for further discussion . The pictures are of me at different ages.

 

[RandFan]

I fail to see question begging as Quentin Smith shows in his book on ethics and religion those and other matters are taken for granted.

What you do or do not fail to see is of no consequence. You need to answer the question, why is causing harm immoral? To fail to do is is begging the question.

Not to be ad populum, but most atheist philosophers of ethics are objectivists.

You mean ad numerum. It's similar but not quite the same.

An objectivist is a person who follows the set philosophy of Ayn Rand. I should know. I don't think most are objectivists. They might be empiricists.

Those men of yore commanded stoning for working on the sabbath or for chlidren who cheek their parents. So , much of their morality did not refer to what one can discern that helps or hurts people .It was their whims that slavery, misogyny and genocide were right- subjectivistic.

This does not prove that there were no observation based morals.

As he points out , there are hundreds of matters everyday where we find moral agreement that outweigh disagreements. Bentham was on the right track with his pleasure and pain principle . An article in the last issue of Free Inquiry makes my points . See Paul Kurtz's " Forbidden Fruit," and Michael Martin's "Atheism,Morality and Meaning " and Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil' for further discussion .

I think an argument can be made for objective based morals but you have not made it.

The pictures are of me at different ages.

Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

BTW: Welcome to the fourm lamberthml@comcast.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Each to her own . I disagree as I have made the essentilal argument of the men cited . Rand's ethics were not necessarily objective! Michael Shermer shows her to be irrational in his essay on her in the Skeptical Review . See "The Ayn Rand Cult " for information on her harmful influence to her followers .

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Each to her own . I disagree as I have made the essentilal argument of the men cited . Rand's ethics were not necessarily objective! Michael Shermer shows her to be irrational in his essay on her in the Skeptical Review . See "The Ayn Rand Cult " for information on her harmful influence to her followers .

 

[RandFan]

Each to her own . I disagree as I have made the essentilal argument of the men cited . Rand's ethics were not necessarily objective! Michael Shermer shows her to be irrational in his essay on her in the Skeptical Review . See "The Ayn Rand Cult " for information on her harmful influence to her followers .

I'm not female. I'm not an objectivist. I'm not defending Rand. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that your use of the word "objectivist" was perhaps not what you meant it to be.

FWIW, I'm a huge Shermer fan as well and I will happily look up his review of her. In the end I admire Rand for her contributions to philosophy and I would be very surprised if his end assessment was so negative. I know that both shared many of the same views. But my world wouldn't crumble if he did.

 

[RandFan]

I have found the essay.

THE UNLIKELIEST CULT IN HISTORY By Michael Shermer

Thanks.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Yes, I,didn't mean her objectivism . I was thinking that was your picture. For a while,in my youth , I shared her views . Now I'm for reciprocal altruism and government help to empower everyone .She did affirm some good things. I am with Paul Kurtz on morality and government. Kurtz , Randi and Shermer do help combat the irrational . I am schizotypal and supposed to go in for the supernatural and the paranormal , but I abjure such!