When you use or hear the words, what do you consider the difference between morality/morals and ethics to be?
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-23 9:21
ethics = what liberals try to guilt trip you into doing
morals = what conservatives try to guilt trip you into doing
Name:
OP2010-01-23 11:15
I think they're fundamentally the same thing. I can't even think of different contexts where one'd be more appropriate
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-23 12:17
Ethics is the bit of philosophy that deals with questions of morality, but I can only think of syntax reasons to use one word over the other.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-23 14:21
Just another distinction that's only important to academics.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-23 18:58
Aristotle
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realizationism." In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. In order to become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents, in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.
Ethics are logical and reasonable. Things are right or wrong for a reason. One can reasonably derive "Thing is wrong" from an accepted basic principle which lends a scientific (or pseudo-scientific) credence to the whole right vs wrong thing.
Morals are not inherently logical or reasonable. They often fall into the "Thing is wrong because it is wrong" trap, and are based more on subjective ideals and personal preferences. Religious laws are often in this category, not so much because the laws are illogical in and of themselves, but because the people who follow them don't care about the logic and only follow them at face value because "it's right".
The two are not mutually exclusive. Something that is 'moral' for one person can be 'ethical' for another. The issue isn't so much the action itself, rather the reasoning behind it. So a religious zealot without two brain cells to rub together would perform actions based on a 'moral' compass, whereas a more scientifically minded individual would perform based on 'ethicality', even if they are fundamentally the same action.
>>8
No can do. As a religious person, providing logical examples to support any of my claims serves to degrade faith in the almighty and is thus inherently unethical and/or immoral.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-24 3:57
>>6
What is meant by "potential"? Net worth? Knowledge? Personality? Skills?
I would have thought sapience was more important.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-24 3:58
>>7 >>9
I thought you said you were against superstition yet here you are acting just like those you criticise. Are you fucking dense?
>>12 >>13
wat, I have no idea what you are trying to say here
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-25 5:10
>>14
I was trying to say that you're a nuisance. Do you need a link, or are you "fucking dense"?
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-25 17:15
Morals are what society prescribes to be right by the masses. Ethics are the principles of these morals, such as do not kill or do not commit "adultery."
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-26 5:47
>>15
Wow, your butthurt is palpable. I'm sorry you can't take criticism, just kill yourself if you can't handle reality. Jeez.
>>17
Sorry nuisance, but once again you're coming from the wrong direction. I'm not >>7 or >>9, and though I did post >>5, I'm more of an observer here. An observer who has recognized you as a nuisance. A mean, negative, nonproductive, narcissistic, arrogant turd, who's online personality is likely the product of some kind of childhood abuse, possibly sexual. And that's reality. So if you were feeling butthurt... you'd better look closer to home for the source of the pain. All you're getting around here is disappointment and pity.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-27 11:34
Ethics is applied morals. Morals are values the values that someone holds, and ethics are the application of those values to the world.
But yes, these terms have been hijacked, and now are ways of advancing political agendas. However, these terms are still not as bad as common sense. Saying something is common sense is just a way of saying that you accept it as it has been spoonfed to you, and you refuse to think for yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2010-02-25 21:39
I think morals are the way we should treat other people and ethics are what we should do to live well ourselves.
For example, burning money isn't immoral (since it isn't harming anyone else), but it is unethical (since it's making oneself worse off).
I'm not sure, tho, and I might have got it the wrong way around.
Name:
Anonymous2010-02-26 1:09
>22
Yeah, this is (unfortunately) how ethics and morality are regarded today. Both are heavily derided by one political faction or the other for the sole purpose of (either political or monetary) gain.
Name:
Dilbert2013-07-25 10:30
DILBERT SCOTT ADAMS
Catbert : "YOU'RE THE FIRST EMPLOYEE IN COMPANY HISTORY TO FAIL THE ONLINE ETHICS COURSE."
Wally : "I PROTEST THE GRADING SYSTEM! ETHICS ARE SUBJECTIVE. THERE ARE NO RIGHT ANSWERS!"
Catbert : "YOU SAID YOU WOULD KILL A CO-WORKER IF YOU KNEW YOU WOULDN'T GET CAUGHT."
Wally : "IT WAS HARD TO KNOW WHAT ANSWER THEY WERE LOOKING FOR."
Morals are for dumb people "I don't like seeing 2 men kiss therefore it's immoral".
Ethics are for smart people "tit for tat violence will only hurt innocents and make things worse in the long run, justice must be dispensed in a precise orderly manner".