Introduction
It has been long time I struggle to know the
difference between the two. In my lectures to my students, I did not make a
distinction between the two; in fact I use the term interchangeably. It means that when we talk of ethics, we
actually mean the same as morality.
However, it keeps ringing in me that since the two words are very much
different, then there must be different in meaning.
Many books on ethics and on morals are
not pointing out their differences and using the terms interchangeably and it
gives the reader the understanding that the two are the same. In fact, they are
not. But in my first article, I told the reader that I am using the tow terms
for the same thing. My purpose was for the reader not to have the two terms
enter the mind of the reader at the same time. Now I would like to clarify the
two terms. The difference between ethics and
morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit
subtle, difference between the two. The conflict of arguments on the pro and
cons on the two terms have been leading to confusing discussion on ethics and
morals. Up to this moment, many books out there have not pointed clearly the difference;
books
have used the terms interchangeably as I did. John Deigh (1995) in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word
ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with morality…... and sometimes
it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular
tradition, group or individual." Knowing such confusions, we cannot just
let it be but we need to draw the line between the two so that people can
understand and use the terms properly.
This simple article is
really intended to distinguish between the two, for the reader not to be
confused with the two, although they are conveying the same thing
but it might be good to see the
context within which the two may show the difference. Hopefully this article
will help to settle the difference
Ethics
In
my previous article that I posted on the same blog, that when we discuss
ethics, it should be neutral. One should not bring in his mind the ethics that
he gets from his religion class or what he/she gets from his culture. Ethics is
independent concept that cannot be mixed with religion. As it was emphasized by Richard Paul and
Linda Elder (2006) of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, that "most
people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions,
religious beliefs and the law", and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone
concept.
Paul and Elder define ethics as "a set of
concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or
harms sentient creatures". It should be emphasized here that the scope of
ethics is not only a guiding principles in human behavior related to man only
but it is to all creation. The concern here is how human relates to other human
and non human.
Starting from the point of view of Paul and Elder, it can be
argued that ethics is a philosophy of moral. Ethics helps and guides a person
in making a moral decision particularly when a person facing a moral dilemma.
Thus, ethics is about the
philosophical process of answering 'Given what we know, what should we do in a
particular situation and circumstances. It guides moral agent to make a moral
decision. It helps us to examine our choices of action if our choices or
decision are ethically correct and will lead to a more or less moral decision.
I call it more or less moral decision, because there is no such thing as
morally perfect decision when we apply ethics. Circumstances surround the
problem and situations come into play and make it more or less morally
perfect.
In Ethics we discuss human
act and act of man. Human acts mean the act that is purely belonging to man
which is inspired by reason and free will. While the act of man means the acts
that are not purely belonging to man because animal can do the same such as
eating, drinking, sleeping but this act can be subjected to ethical evaluation
depending on the circumstance, situation, motivation or intention and the
purpose and consequence. In this case, not all acts are subjected to evaluation.
Reason and free will is the
starting point in which someone can evaluate a certain act if it is morally
bad/wrong or good. Example is determining the morality of killings. A person
killed his wife on Christmas evening and he was arrested and now he is under
investigation. Killing in full sense is immoral and if there are no
circumstance surround the killing, then the person will be given full sentence.
Ethics' principles come into play to examine the circumstance of the killings. This is to determine the gravity of its
moral blame or burden. Here the circumstance is scrutinized if
the act was really done in full knowledge/reason and no other external factors
or internal factors that forced him to do so. Or the person may have done it because he was under the influence of liquor, drugs. Drug testing and liquor
testing may be required. If it is proven, then it can be said that his full
knowledge and freedom were not present during the act. The punishment/moral blame might be
mitigated or lessened. But if the investigation proved otherwise that it was done in full knowledge and full awareness or premeditated
that the person really wants to kill his wife because he wants to marry another
one, then the case is completely changed. The person is completely morally wrong.
The tools that are being
used by ethics in examining the moral problems are not only reason and freewill
but also intention, means, end and consequence. A student wants to be dean
lister. How is she/he going to achieve such dream? The concern here is the
means to achieve such desire. A moral choice or a good choice would be to study
hard and bad choice would be to cheat.
The student has the choice whether to study hard or to cheat. If he/she
chooses to study hard and achieve his/her purpose, then she/he would be praised
but he/she chooses to cheat and she/he achieved but the consequence is that
she/he might be removed from dean’s lister.
In relation to the case of consequence, let us
take the case of double effect of a pregnant woman. The doctor declared that
the pregnant mother is in risky situation and the family has to choose whether
to save the life of the mother or the son.
The family cannot decide but something has to be done. Not to operate,
both will die. But the operation /cesarean result would be either the mother or
the son is going to be sacrificed. The perfect choice here would be that both
should be saved and the doctor really works to save both human life but as a
consequence of the operation would be either, the son or the mother is
sacrificed. In this case, the intention is good, the means is good and the
purpose is good but the consequence is that the son died. In this case moral
burden to the doctor or the family is perfectly mitigated.
Those examples clearly remind us that ethics
is guiding principles in moral decision or moral choice. In case of moral
dilemma, ethics can guide the moral agent how to make more or less morally
praised decisions under a certain circumstance. Ethics is a philosophy that
questions or explains morality, values and subsequent outcome of certain act. Ethics is the critical reflection on personal and social
morality. Groups and societies have moral expectations just as individuals have
moral judgments. Thus the purpose
of knowing ethics is clear. It is to guide the person or the group on how to
make a moral decision. Ethics is the
science of Morals. It makes sense of moral decisions. It explains why one ought
to do and not to do. Ethics are an integral part
of social laws and politics. In any dichotomy situation, one where two choices
are available, ethics steps in to identify the best action-choice. Ethical
action is defined and questioned within our interactions with people, environment and other non human beings. Ethics is an approach, a method of making decisions. Ethics
is about deciding to the best of our ability, without fear or favor. It is
about being aware of the many aspects of each issue and trying to include them
into the decision making process. It is about being aware of the outcome of our
decisions, good and bad. Ethics is about making a well-considered decision and
having the moral courage to accept the responsibility of our decision. Ethics
is more a way of approaching decisions, ethics is not a set of values but a way
of developing values for a certain situation as it is understood.
Using the tools that are
given or provided by ethics, a person can make a better choice of actions that
will be morally acceptable. However, experience would tell us that there is no
such perfect moral decision. Either one or more of the rules are violated.
Seldom we find that the intention is good, the means is good, the end is good
and the consequence is good. If such happen, then it is morally perfect. Often
time, a person emphasizes more on the ends or the consequence, and then she/he
ignores the motives and the means. That is the case of consequentialism ethics
which emphasizes on the consequence or the ends. As long as the ends or the
consequence is good, then the motives, the means do not matter. The ends
justify the means. Whatever means, either good or bad, as long as the result is
good, then it is moral. Often time people prioritize the intention or the
motives and ignoring the ends or consequence and so it is morally acceptable.
Therefore, people are choosing the lesser evil, meaning the decision is still
immoral but to a lesser extent.
In summary, we can say that ethics is not
sets of values and to be applied in our lives but ethics is a philosophy of
moral. Ethics is a way of reaching an
answer in any situation. The aim is to reach the best answer. But all problems
are complicated. The more we learn about a problem, the more complicated it
becomes and I believe, many may not be able to agree
with the things presented here.
Morality
Many have tried to define
morality but these definitions bring more confusions and lead to uncertainty. Often
morality is defined as ethics and ethics is defined as morality. Leaving behind
all those kinds of definition, now let us put forward the definition that we
would like to adopt.
Morality can be
defined in its descriptive and normative sense. Morality in its descriptive
sense refer to some codes of conduct put
forward by a society, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an
individual for her own behavior. Normatively to refer to a code of conduct
that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons
(Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002). These two definitions can bring
some conflicts and cannot be reconciled.
When morality is defined as code
of conduct put forward by a society, groups or even individuals will result in
a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human
beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists
when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. “Morality”
has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group
takes as most important (Baier, Kurt, 1958,). In the descriptive concept of
morality may also include important attitude
of individuals that are regarded as important. Often time in its descriptive
sense, morality cannot be distinguished from etiquette. People usually refer etiquette
as part of morality but it applies to norms that are considered less serious
than the kinds of norms for behavior that are part of morality in the basic
sense.
When “morality” is used in
these descriptive senses, moralities can differ from each other quite
extensively in their content and in the foundation that members of the society
claim their morality to have. A society might have a moral code that regards
practices as necessary for purity or sanctity as more important than practices
related to whether other persons are harmed. A society may take as morally most
important that certain rituals are performed or that certain sexual practice.
Consequently practicing descriptive sense of morality will result to conflicts
because different societies and even different individuals can claim their
morality as more important than the others or higher than the others.
Morality” normatively, all hold
that “morality” refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can
understand it and can govern their behavior by it. In the normative sense,
morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a
moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who
use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified
conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code.
The normative sense of morality
is adopted by all adult rational persons beyond culture, society. It means that
all adult rational being adopt the same code of conduct that guide their
behavior in relation to others, society and environment. However, this kind of
morality may not be necessarily put forward by society but it is already built
in the human person. The normative concept of morality is based on the Natural
law theory which says that all adult rational people are capable of knowing
what is good and bad which is endowed through reason as Thomas Aquinas put it that
this is because God implanted this knowledge in the reason of all persons or
Thomas Hobbes argued that natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational
persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. However, those who
recognized normative morality may not claim with certainty that all rational
persons know what natural moral law prohibits.
Upon the discussion on descriptive
and normative morality, we can conclude that both, descriptive and normative, have in common that they refer to
guides of behavior that involve, at least in part, avoiding and preventing harm
to some others. The contexts and the application may not be the same, one is
limited and one is universal. Possibly morality in descriptive sense may be
written and may not be written but definitely normative ethics is not written,
it is written in the mind or reason of the person.
Morality is a set of values that are applied or lived in our
lives and therefore it is more
personal in nature.
It refers to
personal sets of belief, values about what is right and wrong. In short, morality refers to an adopted code of conduct within an environment
and a set of agreed upon rules for what is 'right' and 'wrong'. Morals have
formed the spine of modern society, religion and every individual's conscience.
The main objective of morality is to be able to
highlight 'right' and 'wrong'. As a code of conduct, moral
codes define 'appropriate' and 'expected' behavior. Community morality is
usually defined via commentaries and codes of authority. Morality is better
understood as an assimilation of beliefs about the essentials to lead a 'good'
life. It is not to be confused with religious or fanatic or political
perception. Moral codes are based on value systems that have been tried and
tested. The best examples of moral codes include the Eightfold Path of Buddhism
and the Ten commandments. It is believed that all of us, throughout our lives,
act from a developing moral core.
Conclusion
After long discussion on ethics and
morality, we have a clear conclusion that both are different. Ethics refers to philosophy
of morals or theories and principles that guide a person to make a moral
decision. Ethics is not a code of conduct that guides the behavior of a person
to make moral decision. But morality is a set of believes or code of conduct
put forward and may not be put forward by society to guide the behavior of the
human person to live a good life and attain happiness. It helps the person to know what are the things to be done and not to be done or avoided.
References
1.
Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The
Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning.
United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press
2.
John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), 1995. The
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
3.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2011. The Definition of Morality.
4.
Baier, Kurt, 1958, The
Moral Point of View, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.