Introduction
It has been long time people use the two
terms interchangeably with the same meaning. It means that when we talk ethics,
we actually mean the same as morality.
However, the two words are very much different, and 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 and I
believe, many may not be able to agree with the things presented here.
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 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.
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. Ethics help a person understand why he/she chooses a
certain act and not the other one. 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. But when it applies ethic in the examination of the killing, the
gravity of its morality will be lessened or mitigated or it will be increased
and the sentence might be lessened or increased. Why? 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 in because he was under the influence of liquor, drugs. Drug
testing and liquor testing is required. If it is proven, then it can be said
that his full knowledge and freedom were not present during the act. The
punishment might be lessened. But if the investigation proved otherwise that it
was premeditated that the person really wants to kill his wife because he wants
to marry another one, then the case is completely changed. The full/maximum
sentence can be given to the person.
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.
Morality:
Universal and Relative
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 refers to
some codes of conduct put forward and accepted by a society, some other group, or
a religion, or individual for the guide of behavior. Morality in its normative
sense refers to codes of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put
forward by all rational persons which is not limited to a particular group,
culture or individual (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002). This is
what we call universal morality which is applied to all rational being
everywhere. While relative morality is applied to a specific group, society or
individual.
To take “morality” to refer to an
actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results 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.
When “morality” is used simply to refer to a code
of conduct put forward by any actual group, including a society, or
individuals, it is being understood in the descriptive sense of morality.
Morality” in a normative sense, refers
to a code of conduct that applies to all beyond a cultural boundary. It is
universal. In the normative sense,
morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a
moral prohibition or requirement. All of those who use “morality” normatively hold
that all rational persons should obey it. It is a must.
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. Moral codes are based on value systems that
have been tried and tested.
Conclusion
It is clear that ethics is the philosophy of morality. Morality is
the moral codes of conduct. Ethics is theories or concepts of morality that
explains why a certain act is good or bad. Morality is rules that have been
adopted as code of conducts, either by a society or universally.