It’s always fun to go back and read your own work. I often look back at articles that I have written and wonder “why did I say that?” or “that doesn’t even make sense.” Occasionally, I impress myself, which is fun. And sometimes, I am forced to admit a deficiency in my own writing, in this case the fact that I tend to use the terms “ethics” and “morals” interchangeably, when they are not the same thing. One evening, seeking a deeper level of personal clarity, I dove into the shallow pond of the internet to attempt to solidify this subtle but important distinction in my own mind. The results, presented here, were rather surprising.
According to Dictionary.com, ethics is a system of moral principles, while morals are principles of right and wrong conduct. This seems simple enough. Ethics is a framework, a systemic and reasoned basis for making statements about morality. Morals are simply what we believe to be right and wrong. There appears to be a clear distinction here that ethics are more sophisticated than morals. Morally, one can support almost anything, while ethically we require reason and justification for what we believe. When a doctor violates a certain behavioral standard, this is an ethics violation rather than a moral one. This individual has violated a reason based, systemic code of conduct that is held in mutually high esteem by all physicians. If we were to call this individual’s actions unethical, we are making a statement about his or her conduct relative to the standards of his profession. If we were to call such actions immoral, we are simply saying that we consider this behavior to be wrong.
I thought I had this figured out until I tried to explain it to my wife, who promptly crushed my argument by pointing out that in describing ethics, I was using the word moral and continuing to interchange these terms with no regard for specifics. I was frustrated, upset even. I’m a philosopher by trade, for crying out loud. I should know this, this is easy! In fact it is not so easy and is made more complicated by the context in which the terms are used. But wait, there is more.
As my confusion continued, I dived back into the electronic abyss and typed “morality” and “ethics” into Thesaurus.com. According to this site, morality is beliefs regarding appropriate behavior, while ethics is the formal study of morality. This seemed okay, until I realized that using this definition, unethical would mean un-formal study of morality. Sorry, what? Clearly that won’t work either. I decided to play with this inversion concept, and deduced that when something is unethical, it goes against a system of morality, such as utilitarianism. If something is immoral, it is morally objectionable or simply wrong.
It seems that this distinction is actually made more complicated by referring to linguistics-based references. Both of the above sites, as well as Merriam-Webster.com listed morals and ethics as synonyms for one another, even though their definitions make it clear that they are not the same thing. Further research showed an even greater variety of opinion, often with the consistent theme that ethics are systemic, while morals are simply beliefs about right and wrong. One site went so far as to suggest that morals are subjective while ethics are objective and come from the Christian God. The things we find on Google. In any event, my hope is to find a way to clearly and distinctly designate between ethics and morals without finding myself perched atop a high balcony and considering my own mortality. Here goes nothing….
Morals, quite simply, are beliefs about right and wrong conduct. They are often based on sociological conditions and learned behavior, but not always. They do not require reason, consistency, or thorough analysis in their initial shaping or practical application. One can make a statement about morals without making a statement about ethics. If something is immoral, it may or may not be appropriate to call it unethical. I can believe that lying is wrong because my grandmother told me it was, and that is what I believe. No further justification is required. Ethics, on the other hand, is a reason based, cumulative system of moral decision making. It is built upon one or a few basic principles and requires that we be thorough, honest, and comprehensive in making statements about right and wrong. Ethics is about building the kind of world we want to live in, and developing a consistent process by which to achieve this. Ethics is an advanced expression of morality.
For example, let us say that I believe abortion is wrong because all human life is valuable, but I also believe that we should punish murderers by putting them to death. These points of view could be held simultaneously from a position of simple moral belief, but would at a minimum require additional justification before being accepted as a reasonable ethical position. Morality is simply a statement about right and wrong. Abortion is wrong, the death penalty is right. (This is just an example, I do not really think this.) Moral belief does not require that we are reasonable or justified, but ethics does. An ethicist would have to deal with the contradiction regarding value of human life that is created by holding these positions simultaneously.
Still confused? Join the club.
About the Author
Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Di Amirante // Nov 28, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Finally, I see the footsteps of another traveler searching through the largest accumulated base of human knowledge ever to exist for some definitive comparison between two words; morality and ethics. Some years ago I came to the near same conclusions that you have reached and I must tell you, there seem to be few of us who have done so. If I might make a slight revision and addition to your thoughts as follows:
“Ethics is about building the kind of world we want to live in” is much too subjective a statement, too broad and somewhat inflexible. Ethics just might be comprised of more than one component, let’s try three; human, natural, and civil/societal.
Then we might consider you statement in another way __ Ethics is about the reciprocal fairness and equality between individuals without regard to any internal or external features less than value of the individual as a fellow human. Ethics is about regarding the natural world for the value it provides toward the continuation of our existence. Ethics is about a flexible code of laws from which to maintain equitable, just and humane treatment within the changing cultural tides of a merging global community. Aside from these small adjustments I could not agree with you more.
Most Sincerely, Your Fellow Traveler,
just di
2 jack // Jul 20, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Thank you for committing these thoughts to print.
I’m curious about a certain possible follow-up: how does one propose an ethicist begin to deal with the contradiction (between 2 ethically-opposing morals, per the last-mentioned example).
Of course, let me know if this has been directly or indirectly addressed in a separate post.
I too “hold” a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, but in not pursuing beyond that (chosen instead a path of collecting Art degrees and their ensuing debt)… holding on tends to be a heavier weight of unresolved doubt than, perhaps, letting go (?).
Best of Luck!
3 Elijah Weber // Jul 26, 2009 at 2:51 pm
So the question is how an ethicist can try to resolve the holding of two contradictory ethical positions. That’s a tough question, but for the philosopher, the presence of contradiction is an indicator of faulty reasoning. The ethicist has a few options.
1. Clarify concepts, in order to demonstrate that the apparent contradiction isn’t actually contradictory. For example, I might clarify the position that murderers should be put to death by arguing that although all human life is valuable, the importance of punishing murderers to the maximum extent possible outweighs the value of human life.
2. Change something, in order to eliminate the contradiction. The ethicist might have to acknowledge that if abortion is wrong because all human life is valuable, it doesn’t really make sense to also think murderers should be put to death. If one’s ethical views are contradictory, the easiest solution is to find some consistency.
I’m sure this doesn’t fully resolve your question, but that’s where I’d tend to start.
Thanks for reading.
4 Cash // Oct 8, 2009 at 12:19 am
I too have found the definitions of these two words interchangeable. Some one told me once the best definition of ethics and morals are as follows, “ethics—knowing something is wrong, but tends to do it anyway, for example, J knows that sleeping with his friends wife is wrong, but does it anyway and morals—knowing something is wrong and does not do it, J knows sleeping with his friends wife is wrong and does not do it.” I am not sure if these simple definitions really tackle the definition of these words but thanks for reading.
5 Steve // Nov 7, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I’m not a philosopher, but the reasoning here trips me up:
“For example, let us say that I believe abortion is wrong because all human life is valuable, but I also believe that we should punish murderers by putting them to death. These points of view could be held simultaneously from a position of simple moral belief, but would at a minimum require additional justification before being accepted as a reasonable ethical position. Morality is simply a statement about right and wrong. Abortion is wrong, the death penalty is right.”
Morally, how could one believe all human life is valuable but then advocate the taking of it in some situations?
It seems to me the moral issue is actually the former — that all life is valuable (or, perhaps, that killing is wrong) — but the ethical issue is that in some cases, the taking of a life is “within the rules” of justice because some crimes justify the punishment.
I realize the moral concern you raised was specific to abortion being wrong, and I’m not a pro-lifer with an ax to grind or anything, but I’m still confused on the distinction between a moral judgement and an ethical expression of it.
6 Elijah Weber // Nov 13, 2009 at 10:20 am
Let me try to simplify. When I say “Abortion is wrong,” that is simply a statement of what I believe. I need not offer support or an argument, it’s just what I think about that issue.
Ethics is more systematic. If I say “abortion is wrong”, and then give you an argument for that position, with some theoretical support, now I’m doing ethics.
As for your example, I think the question of whether capital punishment is justified in some cases might be a political question as much as an ethical one.
The distinction I’m making is that moral judgments are uncritical. They need not be supported by arguments, and one can hold contradictory moral views without much difficulty. People do it all the time.
Ethics, on the other hand, is a critical taks. It relies on theory, reasons, and arguments. Contradiction would be a huge problem in ethics, but it’s not for morality, because our standards are different. Ethics is a kind of specialty that requires skill and background knowledge. Anyone can have moral opinions.
I hope that helps some. If not, let me know and I’ll see what I can do.
Thanks for reading.
7 Branden // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:50 am
I’ve contemplated this a bit too lately and I’ve come to a simple answer that I like for myself, and maybe some of you will enjoy it too:
Ethics eliminate morals by using the scientific method, in hopes of finding universally accepted morals, which result in ethics.
8 Jay Dillon // Jan 1, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Personally,I use the word Ethics to mean a system or process for the resolving of differences of opinion.Qualities of Ethical behaviour, include equality,fairness,and respect.
Morality is a code of conduct that may have antecedents in religious teachings.
More Importantly,how do we as constituents of any city or county in the US help and direct our elected officials and Corp. heads to use and live by More Ethical standards than last exhibited by the greed and mismanagement of our banking and investment industries…We the peole must show and direct them.
Leave a Comment