2 ms·

There 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. Ma

There 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 ago
I 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 ago
Moreover 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.

denton-scratch 2y ago

I 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 ago

Moreover 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.