. Society ... tells you ... to be an ethical moral man ...

. Society ... tells you ... to cultivate morality ... independently ... your inner will ...

. Society ... and it's ethics ... What Nietzsche ... this ... brilliant revolutionary of the 19th century... would call Moral costums of the mob ... tell you ... to be ethical ... to any kind of formality and tradition ... anyway ... to be according to that ... which ... subtly ... divides people ... so you can be an efficent machine for society.

. BUT ... that ... in order to be concretized ... you must be deep asleep. And when you are in a deep sleep ... while in wakefullness ... then ... naturally ... you'll think that ... the respectability and the reputation ... that ... society gives to you ... is Truth ... is the essence of existence ... which is not. It's nothing ... but ... just an autohypnosis ... so ... you can be shut up ... for the rest of your Life ... and live Life ... miserably comfortable ... and ... then Die. Deep inside ... the morality of this social structure ... is based on repression. It is always there ... always ... your shadow ... always ... with you ... always ... controlling you ... always ... manipulating you ...

. If you're watchful ... you'll see that ... the majority of people's Life ... is summed up ... like this: Born, eat, drink, sleep, facing the angry boss ... or ... at least ... be competitive and greedy and a miser to others ... return to home and facing the angry wife ... hang out with friends ... so they can forget for a bit about their misery ... eat, drink, sleep, facing ....................... Ad infinitum ... and ... finally ... the physical Death ...

. There's no reason to Live this Burden ...

. My perspective is similar to Nietzsche perspective ... Ethics and morality support each other ... Both the concepts ... are related to the mob psychology ...

. My proposal to you ... friend ... is ... to become more conscious, and you will be moral. But that morality will have a totally different flavor to it. It will be spontaneous; it will not be ready-made.

. Society ... wants ... ready-made moral and ethics ... but that's impossible ... because ... it kills all the spontaneity ... all the dignity of it ...

. First ... become conscious ... as an individual ... not as a collective mind ... and ... then ... yes ... naturally ... you will become moral ... not vice versa!

. Morality ... follows consciousness ... as ... shadow follows man ...

I always believed ethics to be the purview of society, and morals to be the purview of the individual.

I always believed ethics are something that could be reduced to writing, and to which one could be held, whereas morals are more subjectively an internal guide.

Example: I can violate ethics if I feel justified in doing so; I cannot violate morals without guilt.

I think that I was really trying to speak of the different contexts in which ideas about morality and ethics arose. Morality was often based on ideas of personal duty, while ethics was based more on ideas of larger concerns about effects of action. This was partly based on the shift from a deontological approach to a more utilitarian one,but I think that it was a bit more subtle than this divide. I think that it is about the underlying basis from which ideas stem, but it is also about underlying systems of values.

They're not different. Ethics has a Greek root - ethos - and Morality a latin one - mores. But they're used interchangeably by professional philosophers. Unethical and immoral mean exactly the same - they mean 'wrong'.

Ethics has acquired an additional meaning - it can mean 'the study of morality'. But a course on Ethics and a course on 'Moral Philosophy' will have one and the same subject matter, other things being equal.

Kant's 'Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals' for example is called 'Groundwork of the metaphysics of ethics' in earlier translations. So whether one says 'morals' or 'ethics' or immoral or unethical is really a matter of taste, and in professional articles on ethics you'll find the terms used interchangeably.

Needless to say, a lot of people who lack any credentials in this area will now contradict me.

In some ways, I agree with you that it can be a choice of term, and I am aware of some historical basis of the interchangeable use of the word ethics and morality, such as that of Kant. But, I do believe that there is a certain distinction in the development of the study of ethics. My original studies were in social ethics, and, strangely enough, I can't remember the use of the two terms being really spoken of clearly, but in most aspects of the course the word ethics was used. I do feel that the word moral is generally reserved more for a description of a one specific view of how one should behave, and when I choose to study social ethics, I did so with a view to dialogue and debate about issues.

They mean the same thing. If someone tells you different, I guarantee you that person is not an academic philosopher.

Fromage and Cheese - they mean the same thing. Unethical and immoral - they mean the same.

I agree that they can be used in the same way, even as in a code, such as The Nursing Code of Ethics, which is more of a set of guidelines to be adhered to by all nurses at all times rather than a framework for debate.

However, I still maintain that the choice of the word immoral and unethical are slightly different in connotations. The word immoral is used more with certain views about personal behaviour, such as by those who see certain sexual acts as being not acceptable, and it is more about standards. The emphasis is usually on the nature of acts as the focus. On the other hand, unethical is used far more to point to certain effects of action on a social level, based upon specific arguments, such as acts of war, inequality. Of course, there is a blurring of the use of the word, but they are different in subtle connotations.

I still maintain that the choice of the word immoral and unethical are slightly different in connotations. — Jack Cummins

Why? Can an act be unethical but moral? No.

Look, the experts all use the terms interchangeably. It's not an issue. They just mean the same thing (with Ethics having the additional 'study of morality' meaning).

THe only people - the only people - who'll tell you they have a different meaning are those without any expertise in ethics. I guarantee it.

I think that it is hard to say that an act which is unethical is moral, such as stealing. But, it is not so easy to see all actions which are about personal conduct as being unethical. One aspect of this may be that certain thoughts may be seen as immoral, but it would be extremely difficult to argue that specific thoughts are unethical. The term ethics has more of an emphasis on the outer effects of action, rather than in connection with the intention and goodness of the person.

I think of ethics as more secular and morals more religious. I can ethically have consensual sex with another man where I may not be able to do so morally (it's a sin). Times change: A good many sexual morals have been adapted to secular practice and ethics in the last century.

I definitely agree with you, and think that is probably why Kant's use of the term ethics was different because he was writing in a time when religious thinking was the main framework. I do think that the idea of morality was more related to sinning, such as ideas about adultery, masturbation, or even drinking alcohol.

Very good question. I think we tend to use these terms without thinking too much about any distinctions.

As a tentative/provisional answer, I would say that:

As an adjective, moral (from Latin for “custom”) refers to what is right and what is wrong and to the goodness or badness of human character or behavior.

Morality is the degree of conformity to moral principles, e.g., the morality of an action.

Ethics (from Greek for “character”) is the philosophy that deals with moral principles.

The adjectives "moral" and "ethical" are virtually identical to one another.

Similarly, when used in the sense of philosophy, science, or field of knowledge, morality and ethics are often used interchangeably, although in philosophy ethics is possibly more often used in this sense.

Edit. For example, we talk of "Aristotle's Ethics" or ethical system by which we mean his moral philosophy.

I just began thinking about it while I was reading and writing on the thread about 'wisdom'. It may be that some people see the differentiation as not being important, but I do think that how we use the terms makes a difference to the way we think about morality or ethics. I do believe that a main reason why have moved into the more common usage of the term ethics is related to the secular context of life.

However, I would not go as far as to say that the emphasis on morality, as opposed to ethics only involves whether religion is involved or not. It is partly about ideals and human life. I think that morality is also more closely connected to the idea of sincerity, as involving honesty to the self, whereas ethics is more about authenticity, in which life is seen as involving us as social actors. In some ways, morality seems to involve the mastery of self, while ethics is about trying to perceive the farreaching effects of actions. But, of course they do overlap, because we are both beings with consciences and, with awareness that what we do affects other people and other lifeforms. I think that ethics involves a more analytical stance, or of stepping back from moral feelings.

I really raised the question because I believe that thinking about the two words or ideas is useful for reflection on the way we go about making moral, or ethical, choices.

I really raised the question because I believe that thinking about the two words or ideas is useful for reflection on the way we go about making moral, or ethical, choices. — Jack Cummins

Correct. Ethics was absolutely central to ancient philosophy which is why for Plato political philosophy and ethics were closely related (Republic, Laws) and Aristotle wrote his Nicomachean Ethics.

Basically, ethics revolves around the concept of "justice" (dike) or "righteousness" (dikaiosyne) which is the highest among virtues. Knowing what is right and what is wrong and acting in conformity with right is a defining feature of wisdom (sophia) or being wise (sophos).

One notion by which ethics differs conceptually from morality:

“....Natural and moral philosophy, on the contrary, can each have their empirical part, since the former has to determine the laws of nature as an object of experience; the latter the laws of the human will, so far as it is affected by nature: the former, however, being laws according to which everything does happen; the latter, laws according to which everything ought to happen. Ethics, however, must also consider the conditions under which what ought to happen frequently does not. (...) In this way there arises the idea of a twofold metaphysic- a metaphysic of nature and a metaphysic of morals. Physics will thus have an empirical and also a rational part. It is the same with Ethics; but here the empirical part might have the special name of practical anthropology, the name morality being appropriated to the rational part....”

This reduces....eventually.....to morality being a philosophy for individual determinations of conduct in particular, ethics being the science of the consequences of the application of them, in general.

Yes, I think that this question about wisdom and ethics is interrelated with wisdom, and my own threads are almost like tangled wires really. But, I guess that so many of the threads on the forum are exploring ideas which branch off from one another, rather like a tree.

I do believe that ethics was a central concept going back to the Greeks. Perhaps, it went a bit differently in the West as a result of Kant. He did stress the categorical imperative, which focuses on universalisation, but, in some ways his system and some other moral systems could be interpreted as being rather insular. Wisdom is important but, it is possible that when the emphasis is upon righteousness it can lead to self righteousness.

I am not saying that thinking about the outcome of actions alone is the only thing that matters, but thinking about consequences does mean that more thought is put into decisions. After all, choices in life often involve conflict. I think that the thinking about decisions is a way in which people may go beyond the surface. Rather than just sit back feeling comfortable, and righteous, the conflicts of life may be less focused on self and about higher priorities of reason.

I would have been interested to know where your quotation came from. But, yes, it is interesting to think about whether morality, or ethics can become based on empirical principles. Of course, to some extent, the basis of morality is central to legal systems, and other aspects of the social system, even involving political ideals. For example, ideas such as the welfare state come from underlying principles of morality and ethics, with a focus upon the outer conditions of human life.

Wisdom is important but, it is possible that when the emphasis is upon righteousness it can lead to self righteousness. — Jack Cummins

It can in theory if misunderstood. However, when correctly understood, knowledge of right and wrong cannot be limited to right and wrong for oneself. It must take into consideration right and wrong for society at large. Otherwise, it is not righteousness but selfishness which is the antithesis of righteousness. The whole point of righteousness and of moral virtues in general was to serve as the basis for civilized conduct resulting in a peaceful, harmonious and just society. Hence to be righteous (dikaios) was to be a civilized citizen of the city-state. This is why Plato coined the phrase "good and wise" (agathos kai sophos) to describe the perfect citizen. This would positively rule out self-righteousness.

I am sure that the ideals about right and wrong should be able to be about establishing a just social order, but I don't think that it always works that way in practice. We only have to think about the Biblical remarks about the hollow morality of the Pharisees. That showed how much hypocrisy there can be.

And, our own times are so much more complicated because we are seeing the collapse of many systems of thought. We are in the fragmented world of post truth and postmodernism. Or, it is probably not that clearcut. If anything, we are in a cut and paste philosophy era, trying to put the fragments together. In some ways, morality or ethics can be a bit of make it up as you go. It seems to be that in many ways, even those who read philosophy, are improvising, and probably struggling.

it is interesting to think about whether morality, or ethics can become based on empirical principles. — Jack Cummins

Maybe this is why morality is a philosophy, and ethics is a science, in that morals can have no empirical principles whatsoever, while ethics is in fact, predicated on them. This follows if it be granted ethics concerns itself with an object, in the form of community, or society, with behaviors relative to its constituency, but morality, on the other hand, does not have an object, it being nothing but a method by which any behavior of a single individual is to become justified by himself alone.

An ethical community implies a voluntary bonding among individuals, but morality determines the conditions under which an individual member determines himself bondable. Ethics authorizes a welfare state, but my moral disposition may very well disavow my participation in it.

One way to look at it, anyway.

It seems to be that in many ways, even those who read philosophy, are improvising, and probably struggling. — Jack Cummins

That shouldn't be the case if philosophy, at least as expounded by Plato and other Platonists, is correctly understood and practiced.

The only difficulty would be the dichotomy of private and public life. In private or personal matters you act according to the principle of righteousness. But in public life this may not always be possible. The struggle then does not consists in not knowing what is right and what is wrong (not in my case at least) but in how to reconcile right conduct with socially acceptable conduct. And that is something that everyone has to work out for themselves according to their abilities and circumstances.

For example, if you happen to live in a country where manifesting your religion is not socially accepted, then you act according to the principles of your faith in your private sphere and do the same in the public sphere as far as possible without unnecessarily exposing yourself to personal harm.

I can see your idea of morality being a philosophy and ethics as science as useful in some ways. However, they probably cannot be polarised, but it does seem that ethics may be so much more than personal feeling, and based more on rational thought and knowledge drawn from sciences.

I think that it is not that simple, because we have imperfections. I believe that it is important to have principles, but I would not say that I feel that I am righteous. In particular, life throws so much stress and horrible things at us, and it is sometimes hard to just keep together in some kind of balanced way. I do focus more on thinking about the consequences of actions rather than on a sense of being morally good. I think that I never felt 'good' because I have inherited a big Catholic guilt complex.

I am not really against religion, or in favour of it, but I did feel that the whole emphasis on sin was stressful. When I was 13 I read the passage in the Bible about the unforgivable sin and became convinced that I had committed it. I spent about 6 months worrying about it. Also, I have known so many people who have experienced difficulties with religious beliefs affecting their mental health. But, really, I keep an open mind towards so many ideas generally, and in making informed ethical choices.

My own experience is that often life circumstances involve so many competing factors, so I apply reason to be best of my ability. I make mistakes, but I try to learn from them, and I do believe that life is about learning through trial and error.

I think that I never felt 'good' because I have inherited a big Catholic guilt complex. — Jack Cummins

Well, I know many Catholics who don't have that problem, not consciously or obviously, in any case.

What you seem to be saying is probably more to do with psychology than with ethics.

But I agree that life can be difficult and some people can have more complex personalities (and lives) than others.

I try to use "ethics" and "morality" in the following ways with respect to one another:

Ethics, from ethos (habitat, or commons) and ethikos (of habits, or character), is the study of how one cultivates habits that sustain the habitat.

Morality, from mores (customs, or norms), is the collection (or code) with which one cultivates one's character by (A) exercising judgments and actions that sustains the commons and (B) avoiding judgments and actions which fail to sustain the commons.

In these terms, I conceive that – having learned from Laozi, Buddha, Hillel the Elder, Epicurus, Spinoza, Kropotkin, Peirce-Popper, Zapffe-Camus, Buber-Levinas, P. Foot, I. Murdoch, Nussbaum-Sen – reducing one's own misery (ethics (self-care / agency)) is the intrinsic benefit of working to reduce the miseries of others (morality (others-care / social justice)). Want to feel better about yourself – make your life significant? Care for others, not just yourself, in effective ways.

I agree with you, and that was the kind of way I was thinking about when I wrote the thread. I think that morality and ethics are slightly differently angles but closely interconnected. Of course, people use the terms as identical at times, but I just think it is worth being aware of the subtlies of the ideas, for clarity of thought.

Ethics, from ethos (habitat, or commons) and ethikos (habits, or character), — 180 Proof

Just one correction:

ἠθικός ēthikós is not "habits, or character" because it isn't a noun.

It's an adjective meaning “of habits/character" or "expressing habits/character”.

ἠθικός - Wiktionary

:ok:

Like I say, anyone who thinks unethical and immoral have different meanings lacks expertise in ethics.
For instance, you are insisting there is a subtle difference. Do you have expertise in ethics? No.

Now go and find the journal 'Ethics'. Read it and notice the terms being used interchangeably.

I remember a linguist colleague came up to me once and asked me what the difference is between the terms. I said what I said here. She then did what you did - she said 'oh I think there's a slight difference'. Well why ask then? Why ask an expert and then just ignore the answer?

I will look it up, but I am wondering is that the Chicago journal? I am not trying to argue definitively, and if it is that they really are identical, surely it is worthwhile that I have raised the debate because it does appear that some other people use the two terms slightly differently. I will try to research the matter a bit further because it may be that even academics are not in complete agreement.