clarify the difference between ethics and morals for me?

Hmmm... The two are related terms but I've always seen them expressed as as "morals" being the view on a given topic and "ethics" being the combined veiws on multiple topics. Ergo, ethics would be the totality of a collection of morals.

There are several overlapping definitions for both words so things get mudled pretty easily.

You might find your answer in the philosophy games from this thread.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=439029#439029

The first game focuses in on what you are trying to define for yourself.

I like that golf stuff.

I don't especially think your definitions work.

I SUSPECT morals require the existence (or supposed existence) of a god -- who dictates what pleases or offends his/her/it.

Any thought, word, or deed that pleases the god is moral -- any thought, word, or deed that offends the god is immoral.

Ethics are a product of humanity -- and may contain matter supposedly stolen from moral fabric -- although it can be argued that everything that pleases or offends the gods is more than likely the product of humans also.

I think an argument can be made that some things can be moral, but not ethical -- and somethings can be ethical, but not moral.

i understood everthing u said

the existance of morals requires that mankind be created rather than evolved by accident, implying anything geos.

ethics id the creation of man but but is based on religion

... i agree but it still hasnt answered my question

Morality: concerns universal standards for determining what is right and wrong, good and bad.

Ethics: concerns determination of how one should conduct oneself, given the standards imposed by morality (that's why professions have "codes of ethics" rather than "codes of morality").

Thus: "theft is wrong" is a moral principle, "I should not steal this loaf of bread to feed my starving family" is an ethical obligation.

The confusion is understandable, because philosophers tend to use "ethics" to mean both things (the distinction, then, would be between "normative ethics" and "practical" or "applied ethics").

I'm pretty much together with your first post, skotup1, in that morals come from within and ethics are external. I don't see morals implying the devine.

Joe you are excellent at this stuff -- so a question, if I may:



You wrote:




But since I am sure we could both agree that a person could decide, "I CAN steal this loaf of bread to feed my starving family" -- and in fact, could conceivably come to the conclusion, "If the only way I can reasonably get bread to feed my starving family is to steal it -- I MUST steal it"...

...wouldn't stealing it become an ethical obligation?

If you understood it -- I'm not sure why it hasn't answered your question.

Frank: If someone adheres to the moral principle that "theft is wrong" and yet steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, then that person has committed an immoral act unless he has a higher-order moral principle that says "feeding my starving family is always right." On the other hand, if there is no countervailing moral principle (i.e. if theft is wrong in all circumstances -- as Kant would certainly say), then no amount of rationalization can make stealing that loaf of bread "right."

Compare it to a situation where you have a moral principle that "killing is wrong," and another that holds "preserving my own life is right." If self-preservation is a higher-order moral principle, then killing someone in self-defense is morally justifiable (indeed, it may be a moral duty), whereas if the prohibition against killing is a higher-order principle, then one is obligated to refrain from killing even a murderer. And (to anticipate your next question) if both principles are equal, you are entitled to follow either one (in a system with no "tie-breakers").

According to Merriam-Webster:

MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>.

ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity <committed to the highest ethical principles>

Slavery, wars of conquest, torture, social castes, confiscatory taxation, subjugating women, beating children, and killing animals were considered to be moral by some communities. Whether they were ever ethical is debatable.

truth
Since we are discussing definitions, it is not so much a question of who is right--unless the question is the empirical one of what is the most widely used linguistic convention? I have generally thought of morals as being something like frozen ethics, insofar as they are seen as universal and fixed. They are like THINGS, whereas ethics refer more to PROCESSES, i.e., decisions and actions people make regarding behavior. These ethical decisions can, of course, have reference to conventional morals--customary prescriptions and proscriptions--mores, or values. Morals tell us what to do or not do, ethics refer to how we actually decide what to do. Sometimes our ethical decisions go against moral convention, as when Tom Sawyer (or was it Huck Finn) decided not to turn in the run-a-way slave, Jim. Sawyer believed he was doing something immoral yet right.

Morals has value whereas ethics has process.

Knowledge of morals and science of ethics
As one and only moral counselor on this matter, I subscribe to the definitions and views of Mrs Frank Apisa and joefromchicago.

While morality is the ultimate metaphysical knowledge to be sought, or to be believed in its existence beyond reason, what someone calls "moral values" are already discounted as human interpretations and definitions of what is moral. It is just as different as the difference between "I Am Who I Am" and your naming of your own god.

Ethics is both a science and a custom of studying what is moral, and a collection of particular value sets can be incorporated into your institution's code of conduct, or your society's common sense. This could be either personal or collective, or both, but either way ethics needs a sense of direction towards morality and the sense of connectedness in every person to achieve the level of knowlege that morality holds.

I was taught that morals are applicable to a societies view on the world and what is proper. Which lends credit to the belief that morals change with the times?

Ethics are applicable to the Universe as a whole. They are to be considered Universal truths such as mathematics. One plus one always equals two, which is a Universal truth that transcends time and environment. Ethics are the same way. They will exist even when you no longer do. However, morals tend to die with the individual or with a society. As long as you understand the fundamental differences you can branch out from there and expand on the ideas.

Again, that's what I was taught. Was I taught wrong?

I personally think your were taught wrong on this issue Yattos.

Morals pretty much demand a god telling humans what offends (the god) and/or what the god expects of humans.

Morals are dictated by gods.

Ethics are primarily decisions of conduct.

I know that morals and ethics get mixed together and are often considered as synonyms. They ain't.

Fact is, a thing can be morally correct -- and ethically wrong.

Conversely, a thing can be ethically correct -- and morally wrong.

Gods come and go with the societies that worship them and new societies are built upon new Gods, so morals change with the advent of Gods.



Which are intended to be universal "decisions of conduct," which transcend societies and religion. They are intended to be applicable to all people, no matter their morals.

Morals are not held to be the same in [Insert Country] as they are in [Insert Country]. However, ethics are intended to transcend boundaries and countries. Ethics aren't malleable, they are eternal and inherent.

Moral and ethics mixed up
Yottos,

Switch morals and ethics and replace it with the other. Then you'll know all that you wrote still makes sense. Whoever taught you what you're writing, that was incorrect. Just change your definition so that everything'll be clear.

In school, nobody teaches "moral" but "ethics," which IS a study of morality. Morality is the universal knowledge and studying it is called ethics.

I'm an author of books on morality and ethics and I know many scholars still get mixed up about the definition of morality and ethics. Let's just lump it and make a new start.

Well then...

Thanks metaethics, Frank Apisa.