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 Ann Arbor, Michigan with his wife Laura, his son Brandon, age two and a half, and two cats, both of whom are mentally deranged.
31 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.
9 Telos // Feb 25, 2011 at 10:41 am
I realize that this post is old, but I just stumbled upon it. The morals/ethics confusion reminds me of other notable tensions between related words (race vs. ethnicity comes to mind). I think this debate becomes even more complicated when these ideas intersect with things like political economies (or, heck, political economies of race if we really want to complicate matters). Actually, a political analysis of these ideas within the context of U.S. politics could be very productive. Thanks for the post!
10 Van // Mar 9, 2011 at 11:38 am
I know this is quite old but…
For me I always thought of morals being about
how we treat others and not a simple belief of what is right or wrong.
e.g using drugs is wrong. For me this has nothing to do with morals, ethics or right from wrong but it may be a medical problem for the individual. So I obviously don’t see it as an issue to do with morals.
If you take a similar example make it :Forcing people to do drugs is wrong, is right. Basically because I believe imposing harm on other individuals is wrong and stopping people from making their own choices is also wrong unless those choices involves harming or forcing others (I.e self defence or saving someone).
So I don’t think anything done to yourself (providing the above premises) is a moral issue and that includes killing yourself. Not that it isn’t selfish.
I see this as morals based on uttermost respect and rationality
Would you say this is based on ethics or morals?
11 succinct // Mar 11, 2011 at 5:58 am
∃x (x ∈ X | X = Ethics & x = Morals)
done.
12 Margarita Sanchez // Apr 30, 2011 at 10:00 am
Hi, I enjoyed a lot your article. I am trying to write an essay about Ehics and Morals and I am going to get crazy. I am in your club.
13 The Traveller // May 1, 2011 at 12:48 pm
When asking myself the distinction between morality and ethics I ask myself: “what is the difference between duty and justified duty?”
Working along this basis, an unjustified duty may attain any desired justification without consistency: it is formless and subjective. There is no use in pretending that it is justified - that it has a set form - by appealing to affirmation rather than evidence.
A justified duty has form, and therefore has an obligation to be clear and consistent with itself and reality. This does not make it immune to mass critique; it is through philosophical analysis that we determine that which is supported and justified from that which is not.
Within the scope of one’s own duty (to either themselves, others, or a deity), we can determine that one either has a responsibility to the cause, effect or personal character of their actions. These systems of duty, in general, are not necessarily justified; they are simply applications duty which may or may be rational.
I would submit that because “duty” and “justified duty” may diverge (something could be immoral yet ethical), they are independent concepts and may NOT be interrelated.
I would also propose that since rationality is the drive for objective evidence; ethics possess a quality of objectivity that morality lacks. This does not require a god - indeed we would need an objective god first.
14 Lunatec // May 11, 2011 at 11:10 pm
How can one hold two opposing moral values? It’s easy. I believe that murders, rapists and child molesters should be shot. I am for pro-choice.I am against war and the needless suffering of innocents. These are contradictory in that on one hand that destroying human life can be justified, in the other, that killing is wrong. Ethically, these are in conflict. We will always have these conflicts and this cannot be avoided. It is what defines us as human.
15 Sydney Edmonds // May 13, 2011 at 6:49 am
I really enjoyed your philosophical point of view regarding ethics and morals. It was playful and humorous, and at times, made me say, “Yeah, I’ve often wondered that myself.”
16 Chuck // Oct 11, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Being a life-long Catholic, my perspective on morality vs. ethics is quite different and probably the opposite of what you hold. For all of the religion classes I’ve had through high school, all of the sermons I’ve heard in church, and the bible study courses I’ve taken, I do not recall ever hearing the word “ethics” used to describe God’s notion of right and wrong. It has always been “morality” and “morals.”
Therefore, for me and probably most people with a religious upbringing, morality is more than a code of conduct. It is God’s reasoned system for describing right and wrong. Ethics is an alternate reasoned system devised by men who are either trying to enhance God’s wisdom with their own to clarify issues, or trying to rebel against God.
Morals are absolutes from the Ultimate Authority, while ethics are relative statements from men. Whether something is morally right or wrong does demand justification in that we must discern whether or not it is governed by one of God’s teachings (clarify the issue?). Ethics that are contrary to morality cannot be justified by any reasoning because what is logical to one appears flawed to another, and has no ultimate authority to appeal to (except the business end of a gun).
Thanks for reading.
17 Nikola // Nov 6, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Thanks for this, I was googleing this for a college project, and you really nailed it. Great writing, thanks again.
18 Jake // Nov 8, 2011 at 3:31 pm
It appears that what is suggested about morals is that they are a simple subjective emotional opinion of what someone thinks is right or wrong, based on no firm foundation. Ethics would at least hold up to some logical scrutiny or foundation about describing certain behaviour as right or wrong. I’m for having strong foundations when forming opinions about right or wrong. I’m immoral but ethical!
19 mark // Nov 17, 2011 at 10:25 am
Great discussion, and I’m obviously coming in late on this one but here goes. Doesn’t this definition of morality, “moral judgments are uncritical. They need not be supported by arguments” seem both unpractical and so broad as to qualify any decision as “moral.” Unpractical because I don’t believe we make moral decisions without any thought to reason, one always checks a moral decision with some system of beliefs or code of conduct. Second, it doesn’t ring true to me that if I simply state, “I’m going to paint my house red because I believe it’s the right thing to do” has any association with morality. Not all decisions are moral decisions. Moreover, if my belief was some much more grotesque, such as, “I believe all infants should be tattooed” and simply stated (remember, no arguments, that’s ethics) it was my belief. I don’t honestly believe anyone would consider either moral or ethical. In my opinion, morality has to be more than just belief put into action.
20 Tim Mensch // Dec 2, 2011 at 10:49 am
I’ve long considered there to be a distinction between ethics and morals, and I think you’re really on to something.
It’s also frustrating to me that ethics and morals are defined as synonyms in most major sources.
I like the way you came to the conclusions you did, though I was disappointed to not see a reply to Di, above, since his/her opinion is very close to the conclusion that I’ve come to.
I agree that morals are based on belief, and that ethics are a system of values. But that’s a definition from a study-of-philosophy point of view, and I feel there’s a different colloquial definitions.
Namely, that ethics are always about relationships between people; I can’t imagine any native English user saying “it’s unethical for anyone to worship an idol,” as a random example. The only word that works there is “immoral”, and I contend that it’s not only because ethics is a system of values, but that it’s a system of values that governs the relationship between people, or the behaviors of one person as it affects others.
21 paul noeldner // Dec 12, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Agree ethics - and specifically public ethics - can and sometimes should conflict with personal and group centric morals and values. I’d be interested in what you think of my blog entries on this subject
22 Petti Van Rekom // Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 pm
It’s been almost 2 years since the last post, so not sure if anyone’s monitoring this. But here’s my input. I believe that Ethics is more global, universal, effecting all humanity. While Morals are more local and cultural and yes impacted by religious beliefs. That being said, I too am angered at our politicians and corporate leaders not acting “ethically” or “morally” - while apparently not breaking any laws. I wonder if it would be possible to create a “checklist” of ethical principles or code of conduct which we could use to evaluate a proposed action or piece of legislation. Any thoughts?
23 Erick Green // Dec 25, 2011 at 12:39 pm
To me judging something as right or wrong is not only a waste of time but also quite foolish and somewhat arrogrant. There is a rule of the universe that contridicts morals and ethics, which is; Every action have positive and negative consequences. Using your example for killing, you should that there is another rule that contridicts your statement; Life leads to death and death leads to life. To elaborate, humans consume life when they eat food and when they make clothing that needs cotton and other plant material. Thus if someone were to kill he would also save lives, and saving lives would cause lives to be taken. To elaborate even more, Albert Eistein’s theory of of changing the past suggest that chaging past events could lead to great castrophe, like going back in time and prevent 9/11 from happening. You may save 3,000 lives but you would most defintely would cause even more lives to be taken. Well thats all i want to say.
24 How do you know when it's over? - Page 2 // Dec 27, 2011 at 8:39 pm
[...] don’t really understand what you mean about him caring enough about his lack of ethics? I mean ethics in the sense of how he deals with [...]
25 Atom // Jan 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Words are tools and only mean what we say they mean (i.e. how we use them). As with any specialized tool, we may fashion our own, hoping others may find them useful for a similar purpose.
In the case of morals/ethics, I personally find the following definitions could be worthwhile (of course, whether anyone agrees will determine the extent of their usefulness. And I am not saying this is what they DO mean in current usage, I am only suggesting this is what they possibly SHOULD mean):
MORALS are abstract belief statements about right and wrong. (i.e. “Killing is wrong.”)
ETHICS are morals in action. (i.e. “Is it ethical to kill in self-defense?” Any ethic — “moral action” — which contravenes an overarching moral requires a justification based on the broader thrust of the morality in question.)
In this construct, if we didn’t have morals, we would have no ethical dilemmas. Again, a moral dilemma would be, “Is killing right or wrong?”; an ethical dilemma would be, “Having already said killing is wrong, what possible justification could there be for killing in this situation?” In other words, ethics are the practical application of abstract morals.
26 anonymous // Jan 17, 2012 at 12:27 pm
“I emphasize here and throughout the book the distinction between ethics, which is the study of how to live well, and morality, which is the study of how we must treat other people.”
R. Dworkin, Justice for Hedgehogs (2011), p. 13.
27 Brian Miller // Jan 19, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Great question: the distinction between morality and ethics. Ethics comes from the Greek ethike, meaning character; morality comes from the word mos (mores). I saw a distinction in an Ethics text that stated that ethical issues dealt with actions that dealt with lying, cheating, stealing, etc. that did not involve life or death questions nor sexual issues. Morals dealt with these life and death issues such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, death penalty, incest, sex before marriage, etc. This distinction has never really been fully justified to my satisfaction, but it sounds intriguing. I would argue that ethics is a systematic analysis of normative or value claims. Morality is the value claim of an individual or group.
28 Elijah Weber // Jan 20, 2012 at 11:07 am
Brian,
Great point, always a good idea to look at the root of a word to try to figure out what it actually means. The way you’ve described the distinction closely matches the quote from Ronald Dworkin that someone provided in an earlier comment. It also roughly tracks the way Bernard Williams puts the distinction. For Willliams, ethics is about the question of how we ought to live, while morality concerns our obligations to other people. By stating what our obligations to others are, we may or may not (Williams thinks not) have an answer to the question of how we ought to live. While I like Williams’s way of putting it, I think, as others clearly seem to given the thread of the comments here, that ethics has a systematic quality that morals need not have in order to count as morals.
Thanks for reading.
29 Richard Rowe // Jan 22, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Elijah - many thanks for this thought-provoking essay. As a rank amateur in the field of philosophy (although with a keen interest in it) I took a short course in Philosophy some time back. Below is one of a series of emails I exchanged with my tutor - I hope the rankness doesn’t put you off too much.
Cheers, Richard.
Hi Douglas –
It’s a shame the Wednesday evening course is coming to a close – I have been thoroughly enjoying it – even if we have been disagreeing on some issues.
Speaking of which, after researching the (many) definitions of “morality” and “ethics” I’m forced to the conclusion that you are right – they can, under the current definitions, be used synonymously, even if they do, in fact, approach the subject of “lifestyle paradigm” from different directions. And this is a great shame, and an opportunity lost.
Having thought about the three main subjects we have been discussing (free will, morality and mind and body), it seems obvious that there is an elephant in the room we have only just touched on. That is, of course, the “Divine Command” – or religion in general. Religion influences all of our discussion points and directly or indirectly influences our approach to them. Yet in all our discussions this rates only one paragraph. Oddly enough, while theism rates the one paragraph directly, the “humanist” approach (consideration of these issues from a purely logical angle) illuminates the rest of the discussion. For the purposes of the course I can understand why (time available being the main consideration), but it seems to me that by ignoring religion we are missing one of the most important dimensions of the problem
I’m not going to argue from either a theistic or humanist angle, but point out that since these two points of view can lead to two completely different outcomes, there should be a way of easily differentiating the two, instead of simply lumping the two together under the heading of “morality/ethics”. This is also true of the different approaches to free will and the mind/body problem. This is important, especially when it comes to considering the effect of morality/ethics on the civil law. When a lawmaker says that this law, or that one, comes from a “moral” perspective, what does he mean? Is he one of the “God said it, I believe it” crowd or does he have a carefully reasoned humanist standpoint? Separating the two approaches with different words could/would have a more illuminating effect, not only on the source of the civil law, but on many other aspects of society.
It might seem to be a very small niggle, but words have power – power to shape our thoughts and our actions. Consider the following. Would you be in favour of banning a sect that indulged in ritual pseudo-cannibalism? I have asked a few people this and without exception they would – admittedly a very small sample. When it’s pointed out to them that this is no more than a clinical description of the Christian Mass, they just look confused, and then try to argue that this is an unfair description (it isn’t) and it wasn’t a real question anyway. So – words have power.
It might be unfair at this point to also point out that people are easily confused and can take a certain position even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is right under their noses. Consider this case – how long did Jesus spend in the tomb (i.e. dead) after his crucifixion? 9 out of 10 people will say “3 days”. Rubbish. From 6 o’clock on Friday evening to first thing Sunday morning? I make that about 36 hours – a day and a half tops. So where does 3 days come from? And I say “tops” advisedly. There is nothing in the Bible to say that he rose from the dead a couple of minutes before the women turned up. It could have been any time from when he was buried and the stone rolled across the face of the tomb. Remember, the angel said “He is risen” – it didn’t say “You just missed him”. There’s more illogicality in the story, but I wont go into it here. (Do I hear you say “Thank heavens”? ).
Anyway, this is a plea to differentiate the theistic from the humanistic when it comes to things such as questions of morality. I can think of no better method than to redefine the theistic approach as “morality” and the humanistic approach as “ethics”.
And if you say this is unlikely ever to happen, I would have to sadly agree. There are too many people with a vested interest in keeping the confusion going.
Thank you for reading this rant/waffle.
Cheers, Richard.
30 Elijah Weber // Jan 25, 2012 at 8:07 am
Richard,
Thanks. This is an interesting suggestion, to make “ethics” refer to a humanistic approach to ethics, while “morality” refers to a theistic approach.
Here are a couple of concerns I’d have with such an approach. First, it implies that theistic approaches don’t have the systematic features typically associated with ethics, which I don’t think is true in all cases. Many theists attempt to give systematic accounts of ethics, and divine command theory is clearly an ethical theory. Also, theistic approaches are clearly interested in questions like “how we ought to live,” a question that is thought to reside in the realm of ethics, rather than morality.
On the other side, we shouldn’t assume that non-theistic approaches to ethical questions don’t involve moral “0ughts.” I can be a humanist about ethics, but still think that there are things that I owe to others, and that I am obligated, morally, to do. So I worry that dividing the landscape along these lines blurs some important distinctions, and perhaps unfairly characterizes both approaches to these sorts of questions.
In any event, I enjoyed reading your comment, and I thank you for reading.
31 Socrates, Media Ethics and Case Studies – 25JAN12 « sonofaud // Jan 26, 2012 at 7:18 pm
[...] http://everyday-ethics.org/2008/11/ethics-vs-morals-not-as-easy-as-it-seems/ [...]
Leave a Comment