Morality and Ethics

[syrakusos]

Over on David Veksler's "Objectivism Online" I started this discussion.

The words "morality" (moral) and "ethics" (ethical) are commonly employed as synonyms, even by philosophers. (See, for example, "Introduction to the Objectivist Ethics," which is in fact an essay on morality.) They are, however, different. Morality is personal. Ethics is (are) social.

For humans, morality is the science of choice. If an ethical problem is not readily solvable within the ethical domain, you can always increase the level of abstraction and seek a moral principle.

It is possible to act unethically, but morally; and immorally, but ethically.

[George H. Smith]

Over on David Veksler's "Objectivism Online" I started this discussion.

The words "morality" (moral) and "ethics" (ethical) are commonly employed as synonyms, even by philosophers. (See, for example, "Introduction to the Objectivist Ethics," which is in fact an essay on morality.) They are, however, different. Morality is personal. Ethics is (are) social.

For humans, morality is the science of choice. If an ethical problem is not readily solvable within the ethical domain, you can always increase the level of abstraction and seek a moral principle.

It is possible to act unethically, but morally; and immorally, but ethically.

The Latin moralis is how Cicero, Seneca, and other Roman philosophers translated the Greek ethikos. The current meaning of "ethics" is largely indebted to the title of Aristotle's major work on the subject, Nicomachean Ethics, which was probably named after Aristotle's son and pupil, Nicomachus

In Book Two of that work, Aristotle writes:

"Moral goodness...is the result of habit, from which it has actually got its name, being a slight modification of the word ethos. (Penguin Classics ed., p. 91). In a footnote to this passage, the translator notes that ethos can mean either "character" or "custom"; both meanings "show different grades of the same root eth-." (In Book One, the translator notes that Aristotle sometimes uses "ethics" to mean "fine and just things.")

I don't recall seeing before the distinction that you draw between "morality" (personal) and "ethics" (social), though I am not opposed to stipulative definitions that help to clarify our thinking, so long as those definitions fall roughly within the parameters of conventional usage.

In English, "morality" and "ethics" are not really parallel terms. Ethics is the study of morality. Hence "ethics" means the same thing as "moral philosophy." and we often use "moral principles" and "ethical principles" to mean the same thing. This usage is consistent with the fact that "morality" derives from the Latin translation of the Greek word for "ethics."

Ghs

[syrakusos]

The Latin moralis ... the Greek ethikos. ... Nicomachean Ethics ... I don't recall seeing before the distinction that you draw between "morality" (personal) and "ethics" (social), though I am not opposed to stipulative definitions that help to clarify our thinking, so long as those definitions fall roughly within the parameters of conventional usage. ... Hence "ethics" means the same thing as "moral philosophy." and we often use "moral principles" and "ethical principles" to mean the same thing.

George, thanks for the replies. The distinction I make is based on my observations. I am not trying to invent new meanings but to find common meanings that explain how morality differs from ethics. I went into the etymology just to underscore what we (you and I and many others) know: that at root, they meant the same thing, but being phonetically different, they sound like different words and have come to acquire different meanings.

I have a specific goal in mind, relative to those codes of ethics. I am investigating my options for earning a doctorate by studying fraud and misconduct in scientific research. When I decided to pursue an associate's in criminal justice, the first class I had was "Ethics for Law Enforcement." As I said before and elsewhere, completing my master's, I had a class in "Ethics in Physics" and a seminar in teaching ethics to students of counseling and as a result, I gathered several Codes of Ethics from professional and technical societies. None was called a Code of Morality. Morality is personal. Ayn Rand finally removed morality from the social sphere by explaining Robinson Crusoe's need for morality. Ethics was irrelevant to his situation.

Eastern Michigan University is special for the "Ethos Week" of its Business College. I do not endorse that program, as it is concrete and altruist. However, the campus culture generates a lot of talking -- and hopefully some thinking -- on this subject. Similarly, if you google "Ethics in Physics" you will find EMU and Marshall Thomsen at or near the pinnacle. Again, as an Objectivist, I have different answers and different questions, but I have been mulling this over for a while now and I am looking for the kind of discussion that I can get only from other Objectivists.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[anthony]

Michael,

Absorbing topic.

It probably won't sit comfortably with many Objectivists but I think this one comes under "to each, his own".

After some more consideration, I believe that my development of a 'social' (my half-assed appellation is 'humanist') ethics, was and is, seamlessly integrated with my morality.

A continuum, I suppose, with this 'end' dealing with more day-to-day issues,and minor assessments of people and situations -especially where they differ in morality and knowledge.

Maybe, it's become the practical, as well as, considerate, face of my morality; or at least, I hope so.

On the other hand, I'd have no squabble with those who felt that all Objectivist morality should fall under one roof, with respect, benevolence and honesty, serving exactly the same purpose.

Sometimes, don't you think, perception is all; your ethics is my morality, or visa-versa. Tomato, Tomahto

Must be getting late.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

I have a specific goal in mind, relative to those codes of ethics. I am investigating my options for earning a doctorate by studying fraud and misconduct in scientific research. When I decided to pursue an associate's in criminal justice, the first class I had was "Ethics for Law Enforcement." As I said before and elsewhere, completing my master's, I had a class in "Ethics in Physics" and a seminar in teaching ethics to students of counseling and as a result, I gathered several Codes of Ethics from professional and technical societies. None was called a Code of Morality. Morality is personal. Ayn Rand finally removed morality from the social sphere by explaining Robinson Crusoe's need for morality. Ethics was irrelevant to his situation.

Okay, in that context I have absolutely no problem with your use of the word "ethics." Indeed, one of the definitions of "ethics" is "The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics" (American Heritage).

Ghs

[syrakusos]

Originally posted to Objectivism Online May 28, 2010.

For what follows, I assume Objectivism as defined by the works of Ayn Rand. Therefore, I will not prove what has been established already.

The words "morality" (moral) and "ethics" (ethical) are commonly employed as synonyms, even by philosophers. (See, for example, "Introduction to the Objectivist Ethics," which is in fact an essay on morality.) They are, however, different. Morality is personal. Ethics is (are) social.

Morality is a human problem. Animals typically behave ethically by their nature (and most often can do nothing else) but can within limits make choices that seem unethical, but cannot (by definition) be immoral. For us humans, the individual has no moral obligations toward others, but, by our social nature, as we mature, we acquire ever more ethical obligations.

As contradictions do not exist, there can be no moral dilemmas. However, ethical dilemmas abound and we humans attempt to resolve them by appeal to moral principles. By disintguishing between morality and ethics, we can better understand and solve problems in what is commonly called (as here in this topic space) "Ethics" but which is in fact "Morality."

The words derive from different roots and in their native languages they had similar meanings, as philosophy was not yet well developed. "Ethos" ("ethnos") is a Greek word and refers to the population so that ethical behavior is that which is good within society. Aristotle was not the first or last to use the word in his attempt to define the good life for the individual, as in The Nichomachean Ethics. As Greek philosophy matured and developed from the Ionians through the Peripetitics and further, it became clear that a person could be moral or immoral (ethical or unethical) independent of what happened around him. Morality is a Latin word and means simply manners, again, social custom as the standard for right action.

However, this is not the ancient world. Our vocabulary has greatly expanded to allow us to grasp new concepts. For example, a television is not a telescope, even though the root words are synonyms.

Ethnologists study the social behaviors of people. Ethologists study the behaviors of animals. For examples of animals behaving unethically browse for headlines such as "Dog adopts kittens" and "Cat adopts squirrel." Such actions are outside the normal range of behaviors, but cannot be immoral.

The list of ethical problems in society is endless. We face them every day. Many such challenges can be resolved strictly within the bounds of ethics. A clerk hands you back too much money... You find an extra item in your bag ... A cheaper paint is delivered for a job you bid on... You see a co-worker pilfering... Your shopping cart rolls into a car... Your customer asks for the second-best alternative...

Attempting to resolve every ethical problem as if it were a moral problem limits our choices. Solving a problem within its ethical domain reduces effort and reduces risks.

For humans, morality is the science of choice. If an ethical problem is not readily solvable within the ethical domain, you can always increase the level of abstraction and seek a moral principle.

It is possible to act unethically, but morally; and immorally, but ethically.

I investigated several codes of ethics for national and international professional societies. They are called "Codes of Ethics." I found no Code of Morality. Ethics are specific social actions and it seems that what is ethical or unethical for a geographer is not what matters for good conduct among physicists or counselors.

I also just checked the words in German, my second language; I know several others. I choose German because it is Indo-European, culturally very close to us and not given so readily to Latin. There, "die Sitte" (plural: die Sitten) ambiguously means morals, ethics, or customs. Thus, at that level, when the primitives toss the virgin into the volcano, they are behaving morally. I trust that you would disagree.

In English -- the common second language of our planet -- we have two different words. They sound different. We lost their roots over time. Yet, we use them interchangeably... except when we do not: no "Codes of Morals" for geographers. Even Ayn Rand used the words ambiguously... except when she did not.

My purpose in discussing animal behavior was only to show that ethnologists and ethologists describe behavior without needing to consider its morality. According to Objectivism, animals are incapable of moral choices. However, I showed that they do make unethical decisions, as when a cat adopts a squirrel. I am not interested in discussing animals here, only to show that descriptions of behavior are not prescriptions of right action.

Over on RoR, I gave the example of coming to a theater and finding a long line. You have many options that are fully moral, but unethical. You can just take the first place. There is nothing inherent in the nature of human action that mandates time-preference as the only standard of economic choice. We might as readily reorganize ourselves as people arrive better or less dressed-up. (If you did not care to dress up, then getting in must not be important to you.) You might pay the first person in line to step in front. You might pay off anyone else who complains. You might offer the cashier $100 to take you first. In many clubs, hoi poloi wait in line while VIPs get special treatment. Standing in line at the movie theater is the ethical action, even though for you and me as Objectivists, creative solutions would not be immoral.

Attempting to do business with Japanese or Greeks, pressing them for decisions while socializing is unethical, though fully moral for an Objectivist. Conversely, forcing an American to string along for dinner after dinner until you sign or until you allow them to, just so you can get to know them is unethical, but may be moral if you have a rational self interest to pursue by this.

Again, tipping: If you don't like the waitress, don't tip her. It would not be immoral. She did not meet your expectations. That is your right. However, that is unethical. Even if I am dissatisfied, a modest 10% tip meets my obligations and sends the message I intend. You might feel differently. We have different ethics. I trust that we have the same morality. By our shared standards, we arrive at different solutions, thus ethics is different from morality.

I think that by recognizing this distinction between morality and ethics, it is possible to reduce the rampant fraud and misconduct in scientific research. The same would apply to corporate culture. Objectivism aside, the first college class I had in ethics was for law enforcement and it is peculiar that police departments have 40-page applications, background checks and psychological evaluations, and still have so much corruption that we no longer speak of rotten apples, but of rotten barrels. The problems of morality and ethics are deeper than the abject inabilities of Sunday schools to make altruisms work.

[Matt Faherty]

Over on David Veksler's "Objectivism Online" I started this discussion.

The words "morality" (moral) and "ethics" (ethical) are commonly employed as synonyms, even by philosophers. (See, for example, "Introduction to the Objectivist Ethics," which is in fact an essay on morality.) They are, however, different. Morality is personal. Ethics is (are) social.

For humans, morality is the science of choice. If an ethical problem is not readily solvable within the ethical domain, you can always increase the level of abstraction and seek a moral principle.

It is possible to act unethically, but morally; and immorally, but ethically.

I think you have set up a false dichotomy.

Where do you draw the line between "personal" (morality) and "social" (ethics)? Does morality only concern people living on deserted islands? Surely my interactions with other people are "personal choices." Or as I understand what you are saying, is ethics an exclusively altruistic field?