6 ms·
Can you really explain the difference? Subtle nuances of English words
- irrational 2y agoI don’t think there is a difference. They are about determining what is the right and wrong thing to do. Sometimes people distinguish them as morals has to do with religion and ethics has to do with business/politics, but I think that is an artificial distinction. In other words, I consider the words to be synonymous.
- raitx 2y agoThere is no such thing as morality and ethics, only darwinism. We have made these constructs because it's advantageous. Imo.
- technothrasher 2y agoThis is a strange take. Yes, both morality and ethics are intrinsically tied to there being existing agents interested in them. But once you establish that those agents exist, saying, "there is no such thing as morality and ethics" is nonsensical.
- raitx 2y agoThey are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative. I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.
- mhaberl 2y agoSo you are saying there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it?
- dmd 2y agoThat is like saying "there is no such thing as a hammer, only subatomic particles". It's not even wrong.
- mjw_byrne 2y agoInterpreting the statement charitably, I think they mean "morality and ethics are arbitrary constructs of humankind, not the deep universal principles they are sometimes taken to be".
- dmd 2y agoBut that's so obviously a straw man. Obviously nobody believes that.
- asib 2y agoCould you elaborate? There are people that don't subscribe to moral or ethical absolutism.
- card_zero 2y agoOr objectivism, which is the nice one. It's rejecting absolutism that drives people into the arms of relativism.
- card_zero 2y agoWhat a lovely thought.
- mjw_byrne 2y agoWhat exactly are you saying nobody believes? Moral absolutists, moral relativists and moral nihilists all exist.
- raitx 2y agoThey are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative. I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoThere isn't even darwinism, just atoms doing atom things
- brookst 2y agoAnother shill for Big Atom. Everyone knows it’s all subatomic particles.
- raitx 2y agoDarwinism is self evident. Like the water always flows path of least resistance. Moralism and ethics are ideas ever changning depending on who you ask.
- mistermann 2y agoAlso self-evident: the existence and nonexistence of God.
- brookst 2y agoIsn’t that like saying there’s no such thing as eyelids because they’re a product of Darwinism?
- beardyw 2y agoYou may be interested in Darwin's views on morality here: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2300/pg2300-images.html#link2HCH0004 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2300/pg2300-images.html...
- Qwertious 2y agoIf you could choose between having hot sex without any chance of conception, or instantly producing a child (no sex involved), which scenario would you personally prefer? Most people would enjoy the hot sex more. Some people have this weird misunderstanding of evolution, where they conflate the behavior of genes, of human desires, and sometimes of morality. This is rather nicely debunked in The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.
- raitx 2y agoInteresting idea and question. This reminds of the current trend that the population developed countries are in decline. So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral, but now it's moral.
- Qwertious 2y ago>So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral Where and when are you talking of? In medieval Europe it was considered immoral by the catholic church (and note: basically everyone ignored them in practice, and not everyone agreed with the church), because they explicitly religiously believed that deriving pleasure from sex was only caused by the Original Sin, and that nobody should have sex, ever. They carved out an exception for preventing humanity from going extinct, but otherwise: seeking sexual pleasure is sodomy. Elsewhere: it varies, but sex is fun and most people wouldn't oppose it.
- suyash 2y agoMoral: these are very personal rules and beliefs that we rarely break/change. Ethics: these are societal rules and beliefs that we sometimes disregard depending on context (society/group etc)
- imperio59 2y agoMorals is the code of conduct which a certain group adheres to in principle, without those rules having the force of law. Ethics is about your own conduct or the conduct of a group and whether that conduct leads to survival or improvement for yourself and others. Justice is when a larger group sets some rules (usually laws) because it believes those rules are beneficial to the group. When a member of that larger group fails to follow these rules set by the group, the group comes down on them to force them to apply the rules set out or to punish them for not applying these rules. Morals is rules that can be enforced or not, ethics is about doing the "right thing", justice is about enforcing the laws set out by a larger group (like a city or state or country etc)
- narag 2y agoThe distinction seems useful, but consider that each of both terms have been defined in many different ways by many schools of thought along the milennia. For Aristotle, Ethics was the way your parents raised you and the moral compass that education has provided you, either rational or not. So not what you expect after reading the article.
- sigzero 2y agoEthics – Rules of conduct in a particular culture or group recognized by an external source or social system. For example, a medical code of ethics that medical professionals must follow. Morals – Principles or habits relating to right or wrong conduct, based on an individual's own compass of right and wrong.
- brookst 2y agoReasonable enough, but many people would say eg a ban on drinking is about morality.
- ghumllin 2y agoThe ban is the rule of conduct. The reason someone initiated the ban is based on their principals of right and wrong.
- yashap 2y agoI wonder if “universality” is also a difference? For example, a medical doctor’s code of ethics might say something like “AS A DOCTOR, always consider the patient’s wellbeing first.” But this is specific to doctors. While a religious person might morally feel that “drinking is wrong,” but they don’t mean that it’s only wrong for people of their religion, they think it’s wrong for everyone. In most cases I can think of, ethics are a code only for people of the group to follow, while morals are beliefs about inherent rightness and wrongness, that are thought to apply to everyone.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- williamcotton 2y agoMost of the similarities or difference between any two words comes from the surrounding context. Once "immoral" is set next to "unethical" along with some usage examples then the reader can begin to taste the difference.
- vimax 2y agoI like to look at inverses. Give me an example of something that is moral and unethical, and example of something that is immoral and ethical. Once you do that, we can get to the real difference.
- williamcotton 2y agoJust for fun, Moral and unethical: a prosecutor purposefully crafts a poor argument against someone he knows is innocent but has awful legal representation. Immoral and ethical: a prosecutor purposefully crafts an amazing argument against someone he knows is innocent but has awful legal representation. I'm sure these fall apart under only minor inspection!
- euroderf 2y agoI had the same examples in mind. Funny innit how prosecutors can't seem to reconcile morals and ethics.
- saghm 2y agoIs this really specific to prosecutors? I feel like it would work in reverse with an incompetent prosecutor and a defense lawyer who knows his client is actually guilty. What stands out to me in those examples is that the difference is occurring because of a conflict between an explicit, codified set of rules (the code of ethics that lawyers operate under) and a perceived greater good that isn't being enforced or codified. To me, this makes it seem like the difference between ethics and morals is that ethics are codified and enforced in some sense (i.e. there's some authority with the ability to mete out punishments for violations), whereas morality covers right and wrong independent of consequences. I think in a moral context, the intent of an ethical code is to define the morality of various actions, but the question of whether something abides by those ethics is orthogonal to whether the action is moral or not; people might agree that a code of ethics says something but disagree whether what it says is moral or not.
- lnxg33k1 2y agoI have an anecdotal about ethics and is the reason why now I consider it a word that managers use to exploit, I don’t reply to weekends work messages and so I was told that I have poor work ethics
- kwhitefoot 2y agoIt's you managers who have a poor work ethic. They are unable or unwilling to distinguish between work and rest, between what you are paid to do and what you are not. I'm glad that this sort of thing has never been a problem in my working life here in Norway. And I feel sympathy for those in the US for whom it seems to be a continual problem
- hexage1814 2y ago[flagged]
- GeoAtreides 2y agoInteresting how all comments are about the question in the title, and not about the post itself, which is more about the subtle nuances of English words. In my opinion, maze vs. labyrinth was way more interesting than morals vs ethics. Also, read the article, please, makes discussion better than just limiting oneself to the title only.
- ckcheng 2y ago> maze vs. labyrinth was way more interesting The article says the Minotaur myth’s labyrinth was “obviously a maze”, but I doubt it. In the myth, Ariadne gave Theseus a ball of thread (a clew) on the advice of Daedalus, the creator of the labyrinth [1]. And “Theseus followed Daedalus' instructions given to Ariadne: go forwards, always down, and never left or right” [3] "till he found the Minotaur asleep in the inmost recess" [2]. Getting a "clew" instead of a map from the labyrinth's creator makes me think it's likely symbolic... or that Daedalus expected Theseus to do a DFS search? Plus the “clew” wasn't strictly needed, since reversing those instructions for finding the Minotaur would've got him out again. That makes me think the Minotaur was trapped in a proper single-path labyrinth. Of course it’s just interpretation, and some think differently [4], which makes this way more interesting! [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus#Theseus_and_the_Minotaur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus#Theseus_and_the_Minota... [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0022:text=Epitome:book=E:chapter=1&highlight=daedalus#note9 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:19... [3]: https://www.hellenic.org.au/post/theseus-and-the-minotaur-the-man-the-myth-and-the-science https://www.hellenic.org.au/post/theseus-and-the-minotaur-th... [4]: Like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#cite_ref-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#cite_ref-5 . But note the book it cites, from my reading of it, actually says something more nuanced and subject to interpretation.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoGood point and I think we can mitigate it by taking both morals and ethics out of the title above. Thanks!
- humanrebar 2y agoThere is nuance in the difference between the word "morals" and the word "ethics". The problem is that there are a variety of viewpoints on the distinction. Many of the viewpoints are contradictory or otherwise incompatible. That's why I think the words are effectively ambiguous. I don't communicate in a way that assumes my audience members have a shared and coherent understanding of the distinction. As an aside, to pick nits on Bernstein's definition of morality: > Morality refers to right and wrong as a felt sense. Many people wouldn't self-describe as having moralities that rely on "felt sense". They might even bristle that morality operates in some of the ways that food preferences do. In particular, a lot of moral systems have a notion of self-evident and universal truths. The Declaration of Independence prefaces itself from that perspective, for instance.
- denton-scratch 2y agoI agree. I think of morality as a code - a set of rules that varies from one social group to another. Morality is loaded with judgementalism. In particular, "morality" to me bespeaks religious rules of conduct. I think of ethics as a topic of discourse and study, e.g. Aristotle's Ethics. I have a rebellious temperament, and don't have a lot of time for social rules; I make my own rules, which I hope are respectful and kind.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zarzavat 2y agoMoreover there are many attempts to codify morality: religions. We would not describe religions as systems of ethics, even though they involve thinking about morality just as much as feeling. For me, morals are axioms. Ethics are the theorems built on top of those axioms. For example, moral: do no harm, the Hippocratic oath. Ethics: a surgeon should wash his hands before he operates. If you’re a soldier then “do no harm” isn’t going to work as an axiom so you need something else. Every system of ethics relies on a basis of axiomatic morality.
- 1970-01-01 2y agoNow contrast them with etiquette, decorum, and grace. English is not easy.
- markhahn 2y agoNone of those have to do with values, just practice or protocol.
- 1970-01-01 2y agoOK, what about decency?
- RecycledEle 2y agoMorals = doing the right thing, greatest good for the greatest number, increase the size if the lie through cooperation, treat people the way you want to be treated Ethics = follow the law and company policy, regardless of whether it is right or wrong
- somenameforme 2y agoI have a simple definition, but one that generally works well enough. Ethics are 'facts', morals are 'opinions.' Ethic = do not kill. Moral = do not covet your neighbor's wife. It is plainly falsifiable whether somebody does or does not violate an ethic, whereas morals tend to be much more ambiguous and are generally unfalsifiable.
- ta8645 2y agoExcept there are clearly times when "do not kill" is a horrible strategy, and the wrong way to proceed.
- somenameforme 2y agoI am using "fact" in the most technical sense. For instance, horses have 5 legs is a fact, while elephants are large is an opinion. The difference between a fact and an opinion is falsifiability. It's not like a fact is the irrefutable "truth" - it's simply something that can be demonstrated, irrefutably, to be true or false.
- mistermann 2y agoCan you prove out "do not kill" as necessarily true?
- somenameforme 2y agoThat's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "do not kill" is falsifiable. "Do not covet the neighbor's wife" is not.
- mistermann 2y ago> I'm saying that "do not kill" is falsifiable. I sincerely do not understand what you mean by this. Are you talking about whether the phrase exists? I also just noticed this from above: > The difference between a fact and an opinion is falsifiability. The technical, most essential difference is whether the related proposition is true, is it not? Falsifiability is a requirement to have a chance to reach truth, but it does not guarantee it can be reached, and it does not upgrade an opinion to truth.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoMy cynical take: ethics are morals that someone is trying to impose upon society or specific people, often through institutions (like code of ethics for a profession). Not calling it “morals” gives it a different perception or legitimacy that it isn’t based on political choices or biases.
- falcor84 2y ago"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Asimov, Foundation #1
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ta8645 2y agoBoth the words "morals" and "ethics" have always bothered me. I feel like they attempt to give an air of absolute authority, that is undeserved. In most cases, using the word "strategies", is much more humble and appropriate.
- ordu 2y agoWhy strategies? Ethics for example is taught as a bunch of rules or constraints to consider in decision making. It is mostly to control undesireable side effects of your actions. It doesn't look for me as a strategy.
- ta8645 2y agoWebsters definition of strategy: a careful plan or method And in practice, a strategy can be expressed as a bunch of rules or guidelines to follow. Which I believe fits nicely, with what you've described.
- ordu 2y agoI see, there are similarities. But on the other hand engineerings ethics doesn't say how to achieve engineering goals, it says mostly how to avoid anti-goals. So it is a part of a strategy but not a strategy itself.
- ta8645 2y agoAny group of rules/guidelines/rules-of-thumb can be described as a strategy; even if their goals are stated in the negative. And by my definition, the justifications for those strategies, amount to a meta strategy. To me, it's strategies, all the way down.
- markhahn 2y agoEthics/morals as a strategy to achieve your values, sure. The plan is the uninteresting part - people are interested in the values.
- barfbagginus 2y agoMorals are principles of what is wrong and right. These can be virtues, like honesty, integrity, and reliability. They can also be duties, like telling the truth, keeping promises, and following the law. They can be individual beliefs, or principles shared among groups of people. And they differ across individuals, groups, societies, and periods of history. Ethics is the formal study of moral principles. It includes descriptive ethics - exploring and understanding the morals of an individual, group, society, or period in history. It includes virtue ethics, which theorizes that morality is based on virtues, and deontological ethics, which theorizes that morals are derived from duties. It includes moral realism, which argues that some morals are true and universal - as well as moral anti realism, which argues that morals are determined by individuals and groups. It also includes professional ethics, which attempts to design morals suited to specific professions, like medicine, law, business, and technology. To summarize, morals are the actual principles of what is right and wrong, while ethics is the study and development of morals.
- j7ake 2y agoThanks for the description. So are people wrong in using “ethics” when they meant “morals”? Eg “this company has bad ethics”: they mean this company has bad morals? Also what does a “good work ethic” mean if ethics is mainly concerned with study and development?
- barfbagginus 2y agoYes, people are generally talking about morals in our sense when they talk about eg, business or work ethics. But I would not say that's wrong, because there are three common senses for the words: 1) Morals are principles, while ethics is the philosophy of how we develop them 2) Ethics and Morals are synonyms for principles 3) Morals are principles for individuals, and ethics are principles for groups Professional and work ethics are most in line with sense 3, because they are about groups. Sense 2 is also consistent and probably what most people actually mean. However, professional ethics ethics can also be seen as an example of our sense 1. It's a field of applied ethical philosophy, where we engineer codes of morals fit to a specific profession's needs. Business ethics fail when they end up choosing bad morals. So we can call the ethics themselves bad. And work ethic is not just a set of good morals, but also the ability to spontaneously reflect and improve on our own morals as workers. This gives it some of sense 1 as well. However it would be a stretch to say this is what people really mean, since most people subscribe to senses 2 or 3. Sense 1 is mainly useful for people interested in systematically developing morals.
- hermannj314 2y agoThe beauty of the English language is that the act of participating in this question shapes the correct answer to it. It is literally ironic.
- timnetworks 2y ago"A person who writes fables is a fabulist." That's fabulous.
- euroderf 2y agoIt's superlative - it's the fabuloust.
- yau8edq12i 2y agoOthers have commented on ethics vs morality. As for maze vs labyrinth... These are synonymous words. One comes from Greek, the other is Germanic. I wasn't able to find a single dictionary that defines a labyrinth as having a single path that draws towards the center. Where did the author pick up that from? Doesn't the author find it strange that the example from Greek mythology (the word labyrinth is Greek...) is already a counterexample?
- kwhitefoot 2y ago> defines a labyrinth as having a single path that draws towards the center. Celtic labyrinths are just like this. See, for instance, Solsbury Hill: https://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2455/little_solsbury_hill.html https://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2455/little_solsbu...
- yau8edq12i 2y agoOkay? Not what I asked, though.
- smitty1e 2y ago> Ethics vs. Morality This is external vs. internal. It is certainly the case that these words are used interchangeably. However, one would argue that this is both intellectually weak and symptomatic of a spectrum of other issues. One can rationalize much evil along various utilitarian lines. Whether the Creator buys off on one's moral lapses remains to be seen.
- _wire_ 2y agoYes I can explain and it's not big deal: Morals are tenets of right and wrong. (Grace) Ethics is conduct judged under moral principle. (Law) Morals are truisms of the human disposition towards goodness. Ethics guide conduct towards just ends where situations may be morally uncertain or ambiguous. Morals are what we instinctively know about goodness, while ethics are the rules by which we collectively govern conduct to goodness. — Lorenzo's Oil (1992) https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0104756/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0104756/ Augusto Odone: When we first went to the Comoros, what did we do? We got to know the country, right? Michaela Odone: Yes Augusto Odone: We studied, we got to know the language, resources, its law. We studied, right? We should threat Lorenzo's illness like another country. Michaela Odone: I don't quite see the analogy. Augusto Odone: All right, all right. ALD has many dimensions, right? Michaela Odone: Yes Augusto Odone: So, in order to understand it, we need to command genetics, biochemistry, microbiology, neurology, ology-ology. Michaela Odone: Augusto, we don't have time to go to medical school. Augusto Odone: Michaela, the doctors are in the dark. They're groping in the dark. The've got Lorenzo on a turvy-topsy diet. And that bloody immunosuppression is brutal and useless. Michaela, we should not have consigned him blindly into their hands. He should not suffer by our ignorance. We take responsibility. So... we read a little. And we go out and inform ourselves. Michaela Odone: But... to miss time with him while he can still speak to us... Augusto Odone: Yes, I know, I know. But he expects it of us.
- tzs 2y agoThe image of the cover of the book the article is based on has "venomous" vs "poisonous", but the article doesn't cover that one. If anyone is curious: • poisonous: you get sick if you bite it • venomous: you get sick if it bites you