The Difference between Morality and Ethics

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.

 

 

 

Be A Moral Judge of Your Action

• 
  

Introduction


The purpose of this simple article is to guide the readers, particularly those who are not studying ethics and those who are interested in it on what to do in certain situation in which one cannot decide what to do. Reading this article will guide you on how to solve your moral dilemma. Mostly of the ideas are influenced by the lectures in the seminary and the book of Articulo (2005) on Moral Philosophy and Agapay (2008) on Ethics.
When we discuss ethics, we need to set aside the concept of ethics that are originated from religion. Ethics that we discuss here is not referring to any religion. The origin of ethics was not from religion but it was originated from philosophers, Greek philosophers who struggled to regulate human behavior of their time. Thus, ethics from the beginning was about human conduct. Since it is about human conduct, then ethics is all about daily life in relation with others, the animals and the environment.      
Since morality is about our daily life, about what we do, about what we think, either it is seen or not seen, however, we need to understand what are the things or what are the acts that are under the scrutiny of morality. The concern here is that not everything we do is subjected to moral evaluation. There are acts that instinctively committed without the participation of reason and there acts that are calculated by reason with certain motives, means and ends.   Therefore we need to identify those acts that are subjected to moral evaluation.
Assumption of Ethics
Assumptions are the things that we take for granted as correct without any further investigation. Now what are the things that we need to accept as correct in order to discuss morality?  This is important for us or reader to know the main qualifiers if we want to evaluate certain act to be moral or not moral. It is the basis for our evaluation. There are the two main important assumptions of ethics:
a. That man is a rational being. It means that man is a thinking being. As a thinking being, man acts with purpose and reasons behind it. He is aware of his intentions as well as the consequences of his actions. He knows whether his actions are right or wrong/good or bad and and if such act will lead to good end or not. In this case, when he/she pursues such act and thus it is intentional. This makes a difference between human and animal and human act and act of man.  
b. That man is a free being. This indicates that man is a free being who acts according to his will and volitions. He has the capacity to exercise his choices and to choose and do what is good.  He acts in a certain way because he wills it, not because of external forces that influence him to act certain way.  
These two assumptions are important to determine the morality of a certain act. To judge an act whether it is immoral or not, the act must be performed by person who is aware of his moral wrongness of his act and freely decide to perform the act even if he knew that it was immoral. If we remove these two elements, it is no longer possible to judge an act to determine its morality.
Human Person and Human Act: Object of Moral Philosophy
Since the object of moral philosophy is the person or moral agent and the act, thus it is important for us to understand who human person is, before we understand or analyze his action. This part will explain human person and what human act.
Human Person
Human Person is a Rational Being.
      Human person is an organism composed of material and spiritual or body and soul. Thus,  he/she is made of biological, psychological and rational power or intellect. His actions are directed by reason. This is important element to be included in the assessment of morality of a certain act. A certain act can be evaluated moral or immoral if the act is based on his/her knowledge. It is only within such requirement we can evaluate the act of a child or a crazy individual to be moral or immoral.   
 Human Person is a Moral Being.
Natural law theory will tell us that any rational adult persons are capable of knowing what is good and bad, right and wrong. It has been built in our mind and heart to know what is good and bad, right and wrong.   As a moral being, a man is able to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral. By his natural insight, a person has an understanding of what is right and wrong, of what is permitted and prohibited behaviour. He/she knows what is good “ought” to be done and what is evil “ought” to be avoided. This theory is contrary to the theory of human nature as a blank sheet (tabula raza) on which cultures writes its text, so that man is merely a product of social interaction and his behaviour is nothing more than a “reflex of social conditioning”.    
Human Person is a Person.
He/she is born as an individual or person. He is unique. One is not the copy of the other. Thus, as a person, he/she exists separately and independently from others, not only in physical terms but also in terms of psychological character, which is capable of knowing in intellectual way and of deciding for himself the purpose or end of his actions. His act is influenced by his own decision, not by the influence of others.  
 Human Act and Act of Man
Not all act can be judged morally. Thus it is important for us know the difference between human act and act of man.
Human acts are actions that are conscious, deliberate, intentional and voluntary. These are products of rationality and freedom of choice like helping the sick, keeping promises, telling the truth, killing, stealing, lying, etc. These are the acts that are subject to moral analysis. They can be either ethical or unethical. These act cannot be done by an animal.   
While Acts of man is a certain type of actions that are exhibited naturally by man such as talking, hearing, eating, snoring, walking, etc. These acts are morally indifferent or neutral because we cannot judge them to be ethical or unethical. Such acts are not really influenced by the intellect but by instinct which can be the same with animal.  These act do not only belong to man but also to animals. They are natural acts that we perform by virtue of our nature as animal beings.
Attributes of Human Acts

An act is done knowingly. The person is conscious and aware of the reason and the consequences of his actions. The person knows all the information about the act if it is good or bad, right or wrong. He knows the consequence of his act. He knows that the consequence of certain act is bad but knowingly he pursue it. 

The Act is done freely. The person acts by his own initiative and choice without being forced to do so by other people. The person knows the consequence and he freely decided to pursue it.

The act is done wilfully. The doer consent to the act, accepting it as his own and assume accountability for its consent. 

Forms of Human Act
When we judge the morality of certain act, judgment may also include the act that cannot be seen.  Human acts are not only acts that we observe everyday but we can observe them by our eyes such as a guy who is stealing fried chicken, or kissing under the mango tree. But there are also acts that we cannot observe by our naked eyes. For instance the bad desires to steal fried chicken or adulterous thought of a person who is looking at a beautiful lady cannot be seen but they deserve to be judge morally. Thus, there are two forms of human acts and these are external and internal acts.
a. External Acts. External acts are acts that are externalized or manifested. (Agapay, as cited by Articulo, 2004). They also called elicited acts. These acts are overt and thus physically are observable by others.
b. Internal Acts.
Internal acts are acts that are not bodily manifested. These acts are hidden, within a person and very subjective or personal. It is impossible for other person to know them, unless the person reveals his adulterous thought to his drinking mates. As a consequence of internal acts, then we have internal acts and personal ethics.  This is due to the fact that not all acts are to be judged by simply looking at them from the outside. What the eyes cannot see is also worthy of moral praise or blame. But this is the domain of a very subjective moral assessment. We alone can judge the content of our thoughts as either ethically appropriate or not because alone know what we are thinking
Classification of Human Acts
Human acts are usually judged based on their moral worth. If these acts are to be moral, they should conform to standards of morality. Thus, acts are classified into three categories:

Ethical or moral acts. There are human acts that may be in conformity to norm of morality such as helping others in need, telling the truth, keeping a promise, etc.

Unethical or immoral acts. These acts are in violation of norms of morality. These may include spreading gossip about other people, cheating in examination, telling lies and stealing, etc.    

Amoral Acts. These acts are without moral content. These acts are also called neutral acts because they are neither moral nor immoral. These acts may either be moral or immoral depending the circumstances. These acts include sleeping, walking, smiling, laughing, etc. Sleeping may be immoral act if it is done during office hour or in violation of duty.  But basically sleeping alone is amoral act

 Elements of Human Acts
There are four elements of human acts and they are the intention of the act, the means of the act, the end of the act and the consequence of the act.
a. The intention of the act. It is the reason or motive why the act is done. Intention is the end of the act. A moral agent acts for a particular end or result. Ex: telling the truth is to set us free.
b. The means of the act. The object employed or the medium used to carry out the intention of the act. Ex: the act of exercise daily is a means to stay fit.
c. The end of the act. The intention of the act is directed toward a desired end or a perceived good such as living a healthy life. The end of the act is the inspiration behind the intention of the act.
d. The consequences of the act. It is about the result or the outcome of the act. This is to determine whether the intention of the act was carried out or the end of the act was successfully realized.
Human Acts and Human Will.
Human acts stem from the human will. It is the will than influence the internal and external action of man. The will stirs a person to act or to refrain from acting.  Articulo (2004) as cited from Glenn (1965) cited the following motivations that proceed from the will:
Wish: the tendency of the will toward something whether this is attainable or not. Example: A teacher wishes to be an international writer.  
Intention is the tendency of the will toward something attainable but without necessarily committing oneself to attain it. Ex:  a student who intends to become international writer.
Consent is the acceptance of the will of what is needed to carry out the intention. It is the determination of the alternative means necessary to realize the intentions. Consent of the teacher is to devote her life in research or just copy the research of other researchers.
Election is the selection of the will of those effective means to carry out the intention. This includes reading a lot of books and not to copy the research of others.  
 Use is the command of the will to make use of those means selected to carry out the intention.  Thus spending time to read books and conducting a research are the means to be used to carry out the intention.  
 Fruition is the enjoyment of the will derived from the attainment of the thing desired. The joy of the teacher after publishing her/his research in international journal.   
Thus the will is a potential force for both good and bad. The strength and the weakness of the will determine the strength and the weakness of the human character and it determines the outcome of the act. 
Conclusion
From the discussion, we can conclude that not all acts are subjected to moral judgment. It is only human act and not acts of man that can be assessed morally. Definitely the main characteristics of human act are reason and free will. From such requirement, an act can be evaluated based on the intention, the means, the ends and its consequences.  Thus when one evaluates certain act, the first question to be raised is: Does reason involve in the act? This question points out that when the act is committed by irrational person, crazy person or a child, such act cannot be solved morally.  Second question is: Is free will present in the act? This question makes it clear that for certain act to be considered immoral or moral, such act has to be acted out of free will, not because of force or intimidation.