Message 1 of 30 (585714) 10-09-2010 12:34 PM

My friend just recently said he believes the difference between an ethical man and a moral man is that an ethical man will know an action might be wrong but still might do it anyway, but a moral man will not do the action if he believes it is wrong.

Here's an example: adultery.

An ethical man would know adultery is wrong, but would go ahead and cheat on his wife anyway because there are just some things that are just too good to pass up.

A moral man would not cheat on his wife even though he might want to, because he believes it's wrong to do so.

So what do you think, is this correct? Is there really a difference between morality and ethics or are they actually one and the same?

Message 3 of 30 (585725) 10-09-2010 1:27 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law 10-09-2010 12:34 PM

One is more closely tied to philosophy, and the other to religion.

Apart from that, they are similar.

An ethical man might choose against adultery, because his ethics cause him to respect his wife. A moral man might choose against adultery because his priest says so. However, I think even that is a bit of a simplistic distinction.

Message 4 of 30 (585726) 10-09-2010 1:28 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law 10-09-2010 12:34 PM

This suggests that the man’s thoughts may be immoral or amoral but the resulting action or inaction may be consistant with the prevailing moral code.

The question is: Should you give equal weight to the man’s thoughts and to his actions to determine weather he is a moral man or not? Was his reasoning ethical?

Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

Message 5 of 30 (585728) 10-09-2010 1:45 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law 10-09-2010 12:34 PM

Of course, that isn't the only sense in which the words are used but it's a distinction that I find useful.

Message 6 of 30 (585729) 10-09-2010 1:46 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law 10-09-2010 12:34 PM

If your friend said to a hundred people "John Smith is ethical but not moral" would even one of them know what he meant?

Now if he said "John Smith is immoral but not amoral" then this would actually describe the position of the man who "would know adultery is wrong, but would go ahead and cheat on his wife anyway".

"Ethical" doesn't cut it. For example Collin's dictionary defines it as "in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct". How would that cover adultery?

Message 7 of 30 (585730) 10-09-2010 1:47 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law 10-09-2010 12:34 PM

In business, I would consider legality and ethical to be largely but certainly not absolutely equivalent. But many of the recent high finance actions, while legal and thus at least sort of ethical, were certainly acts of gross greed and disregard of the larger implications, and thus were immoral acts.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix an "an" into an "and". Need to proofread more carefully when I preview. Upon further preview, also changed "lead" to "led" in first sentence

Message 9 of 30 (585734) 10-09-2010 2:14 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law 10-09-2010 12:34 PM

"I will never use the word metropolis when I get paid the same for city."

for extra points, the source of that quotation.

Message 10 of 30 (585735) 10-09-2010 2:17 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law 10-09-2010 12:34 PM

The only real difference is that "morality" has slightly more of a religious connotation. But only slightly, there's not much in it.

To demonstrate this, here's some hit numbers from Google:

"Catholic morality": 45,800
"Catholic ethics": 20,900
"Humanist morality": 8,300
"Humanist ethics": 11,500

The distinction, then, is not absolute.

One thing seems certain: when Catholics or humanists write about Catholic ethics or humanist ethics respectively, they are not using the word "ethics" to mean "those principles which we acknowledge in principle but ignore in practice".

Message 11 of 30 (585736) 10-09-2010 2:19 PM

Reply to: Message 8 by seanfhear 10-09-2010 2:06 PM

If I heard that famous scientist was unethical, I would be wondering if he had fudged his data, while if I heard that he was immoral, I would wonder who he had been sleeping with.

Message 12 of 30 (585737) 10-09-2010 2:29 PM

Reply to: Message 9 by jar 10-09-2010 2:14 PM

Mark Twain?

Message 15 of 30 (585743) 10-09-2010 2:54 PM

Reply to: Message 11 by nwr 10-09-2010 2:19 PM

True, but that's a matter of connotation.

If I told you that he was a "very ethical person" you would not take that merely as a tribute to the integrity of his data, would you? You'd take that to include not committing adultery.

But you are right, in those circumstances "unethical" is more likely to suggest a professional lapse, because the codes of conduct specific to a profession are almost always called ethics and not morals.

Professional ethics: 1,550,000 Google hits.
Professional morality: 19,300 Google hits.
Professional morals: 7,910 Google hits.

That's a big ratio.

---

We may note again that, pace Tram law's friend, a professional code of ethics does not consist of those moral strictures that that profession ignores.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.