Ethics vs Morality (Philosophical Distinctions)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- An explication of the common distinction drawn between ethics and morality and the use of these terms in the discipline of philosophy.
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/store/carneade...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more! (#Ethics #Morality)
A lawyer is asked to defend a person. Lawyer finds out that the person is a criminal. Lawyer's morals will tell him not to defend such a person, but the ethics of his profession tell him that he must properly do his job of defending his client.
Fine distinction example!
okay this explains everything
so part of his job is to defend a criminal and hurt the innocent?
@@mzkhan93 conventional
@@kantimmanuel4397 that doesn’t sound “justice” to me.
In sum:
Ethics : External
Morality : Internal
tends to be the other way around.
@@davidsalgado15 how? may i ask?
@@johnclemmy7909 In one of the comments I made here, it is well explained by a reference in philosophy like André-Comte Sponville. But to sum it up, morale is always guided by the question What should I do? It is a question with a historical construction, so it is dictated by the community / country / culture / customs (it depends on how it is taken this way but it is always external to the individual, once you are born you already face a moral that has built your community and what they are going to impose on you ...). On the side of ethics, it is internal because it answers the question, how to live? It is a reflection of an individual or their group, where they will give value to certain things that define how they want to live (it can be based on hypothetical imperatives). Conclusion:
Ethics: Love and do what you want. how to live? Our mused set of desires (inner).
Moral: Act as if you love, and do what you must. What should I do? Our set of duties (outside).
Horizon: Love, or do what you must.
@@davidsalgado15 I see now.. I've been thinking about it and I see ur point thanks for responding
Thnxx
I've often thought Morals- standard of conscience, Ethics- standard of where moral applies
+Ryan Freeman As I note, there are different ways that people define the difference, the key is to be clear about what you mean if you ware making a distinction.
Agreed! I figure that ethics is the process of an action of morality.
ethicality is intellectual conscience
morality is sentimental conscience
Dhanyavad 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
My own personal distinction is that ethics is reasoned morality.
When we _feel_ something's wrong "by gut" (mainly, from deeply ingrained beliefs or faith), like when we are outraged by blasphemy or racism, that would be our morals speaking
When we carefully examine and sceptically deconstruct our moral beliefs, this is ethical thought
Morality is from unquestioned feelings, faith, tradition and internalised social norm
Ethics is from reason, questioning, thinking
I often saw the differences between morals and ethics wrongfully explained, but you hit the nail on the head.
I am glad everytime I meet people that can think for themselves...
Feelings are not tools of cognition.
Interesting, so from what I understood from your post: ethics is perpetual, morality changes depending on social circles and personal beliefs?
@@mrsirman2177 I'd interpret what they say as Ethics would be what you create from Morality. I think of it like extracting a pure element from a composite ore.
So neither is perpetual as Ethics is just refined Morality but because it's refined it is able to be shared more easily and can rebuff crude inarticulate 'gut'/moral arguments better. This doesn't mean that someone in opposition to those Ethics can't devise a refined version of their own Morality and end up superseding the original Ethic value due to being of greater efficiency or some other utility gain.
What happens if two people who share the same moral beliefs apply reason to their beliefs but don't arrive at the same conclusion?
Ok, so...um I noticed some things about this video that I would like to correct (famous last words). I will agree that there is some gray area in defining the difference between ethics and morals in Philosophical writing, however, I believe that most of the confusion comes from videos like this that are not particularly attentive to Philosophical discourse. I would like to add that because these terms are part of a discourse there definitions are some what flexible.
Spinoza and Kant come to mind as Philosophers that layout philosophies that are distinctly ethical and moral. Kant writes moral philosophy and Spinoza writes ethical philosophy. Kant defines a universal law that can be used to determine what is right or wrong. Spinoza is concerned with affect, disposition, or the state that things are in that causes them to act is certain ways. He then tries to determine what is good and bad.
Simply put, the difference between ethics and morals is the difference between right and wrong or good and bad. They are two different types of judgments. When you say the philosophers are talking about absolutes they are talking about morals. When you say that sociologist are interested in what society thinks; I think what you are actually trying to say is that sociologists are actually interested in how good and bad happen. You make the mistake of thinking that social judgment is an ethical judgment and that ethics are external. When a judgments becomes codified to that point it becomes a moral judgment.
Let me give one last example (which I think Deleuze gives in his book on Spinoza). Is salt water good or bad? You can't really know without giving context. For a shark saltwater is good but, pour the same salt water on a rosebush and it is bad. This is an ethical judgment. You could have a law that says salt water is wrong (or bad). Whether or not you follow that law would determine your morality.
I hope I was clear, probably not but, you know a...um I tried well one down twenty to go. OMG why did I write so much so sorry my efforts are futile...nobody cares.
+Nicholas Manta Interesting points, but frankly it seems to me that I am missing the point of what you are saying. The video I have presented here says that currently philosophers, do not generally make a distinction between the words "ethics" and "morals". That is not to say that there are not some philosophers that occasionally make this distinction, but rather to say that if you walk into a philosophy class, ethics and morals are going to be considered co-referring terms.
With that said, I also offer a common place definition in the video, that ethics are concerned with standards of what you should and should not do which are imposed by an external community, while morals are standards that are self imposed and what you personally think about what you should do. I am not saying that this is the only definition, or the correct one, merely that it is a common definition used when people choose to distinguish between these two terms.
If you want to be clearer with your point, I would love the necessary and sufficient conditions for morals and ethic in your book. (ua-cam.com/video/ibjL90iY1d0/v-deo.html)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene agreed with what you showed in the video.
Correct them and debate it!
Dude. Theres no such thing as nobody cares. Lay out your point and side of argument. Believe it or not,there are people who appreciates more insight.Keep it up.
If "the difference between ethics and morals is the difference between right and wrong or good and bad" then what's the difference between right/wrong and good/bad? Isn't that.. synonymous?
As for which species thrive in a given environment (salt water) I thought that's a matter of empirical fact not morality?
Do not say nobody cares - substantiated philsophical writing on youtube is very welcome .
Great video!!! You really did great in making me understand the difference. Thank you!
I enjoyed this. Im making time for more of this content when I can.
Objective Morality: Create no harm, loss or damage for your fellow Man/WoMan and if you do (life happens, accidents happen), make it right. That covers just about everything and it's simple enough for all humans to comprehend.
thanks for uploading these videos. I can now refresh knowledge on all about moral and ethics
Wow great video help me a lot in a class I’m currently taking!!
Thank you
Thank you for creating this video
+tram ho No problem, thanks for watching!
that seems to be opposite to the psychoanalytic distinction in that ethics are ones own ethical code based on ie the ethics of psychoanalysis is not giving ground to your particular desire, whereas morality is seen as a more foreign, or alienated system given by society.
Which possibly could be squared with Kant's distinction between public and private reason. Private paralleling the videos definition of ethics whereas public reason would be the moral, as stated in the video philosophers generally think of "right or wrong period" so when dealing with our morality it is this public use of reason that informs right and wrong, not the particular ethics of law that would deal with one's private life
Personally, fwiw, I make the distinction that 'ethics' infers a system that emerged from a bottom -up dynamic to create a feed forward set of principles by which a group maintains cohesion whereas 'morality' infers a top-down religious model of objective right & wrong.
Agreed. This is exactly what I added to a discussion with friends the other night.
I was a bit surprised this video backed me up. I tend to think exceedingly unconventionally. For me, simplified:
Ethics: social, reasoning based
Morals: personal, emotion based
Quite different to me.
I'm fairly sure relativism can apply to each individual as well as can apply to each society
Morality and ethics are usually used interchangeably and that's what I understand as well. But even when people do make distinctions in the way that this video does, it is usually between "the normative" and "the ethical" where the former refers to the standard that the society imposes on individuals whereas the latter refers to the LACK of such standard experienced by the individual and thus felt subjectively. So, this video could be further improved by comparing the normative, the ethical and the moral.
What font do you use in this video?
Wonderful video! Thanks a lot!!
+Lina Tillstrom I'm glad you enjoy. Thanks for watching!
who's this during online class
Great info. Thanks.
Bol ne ki tamiz nhi h ....pliz ab se koi vedio mat bana
You've vanished my confusion in both terms. Thank you sir.
I always thought of morality as just a collection of rules or a sense of what is right or wrong while ethics is a logical system of determining what is right or wrong.
thank you such a big help!!
+Sonya Braxton I'm glad I could help. Thanks for watching!
Great video. Third site I visited expecting the Internet to explain to me the distinction between ethics and morals, and one I put "answered" on. First said ethics are externally imposed and morals inner standards of behavior, second said morals are the general principles from which particular ethical guidelines are derived. I think the first is the incoherent rendition of the second, which is at least a coherent distinction, but I got the feeling that for many this is a distinction not understood but made with conviction. This less the understanding the greater the conviction that they have not stopped making sense.
Your video abets me in the belief it might be useful to observe how the words are actually used but not believe there is some kind of absolute archetype of sense which can be discovered in the realm of Platonic forms, as humans do. Morality also seems to have lots to say about sex, drugs and rock and roll, whereas I have never heard these activities described as unethical. Ethics violations are a dull accountant-like kind of wrong which barely get you into the first or second circle. Failed to disclose your hidden financial interests? Evil laughs at you, small fry.
I'm skeptical that there are correct or singular meanings of words like this. Usually these words have different meanings in different disciplines and contexts. Various authors have a variety of opinions of their meaning and so different definitions are propagated. It seems to me that it is more important to define what you mean when you use terms like this than to discover or argue for their true meaning.
Sir, do you have a source unto what you said that in philosophy, generally, there is no distinction between morality and ethics? Thankyou. I need is A.S.A.P. :( (Thesis problems)
+Romnick Nick Here's one: www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/ which simply uses the words interchangably "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy)..." Some philosophers may make a distinction, but there is no agreed upon distinction in the field. The problem is that, if a distinction is made and agreed upon, everyone writes articles on it, but when there is no distinction, there is no need to write an article on nothing.
Thank you. And yes, I used ethics and morality synonymously in my research.
By the way, Can you help me further with the distinction of Subjectivity(Kierkegaard) and subjectivism? Thank you in advance. For the love of philosophy \m/
the way i use these terms, "ethics" is a more "qualified" version of "morality", where you need to be able to explain reasonably why something is morally good, neutral or bad.
morality, alternatively, is simply a "feeling" of what is good, neutral or bad without any reasoning as to why those feelings are justified or not.
basically, "ethics" (IMO) is a morality+reason.
You actually said what I have in mind after watching the video :/
This makes a lot of sense since the words "ethics" and "ethnicity" share a same root source.
Now, if a philosopher does not explicitly make this distinction should I assume the usage of these words are interconvertible?
In Germany, in ethics courses we are taught there is a distinction, as ethics being the science of systems of morality and a morality being a system according to which individuals act. And this is also how we use these words in German. However, we're also taught that in English this distinction isn't made.
Ethik und Moral?
If ethics are the systems of morality, basically applied morality, what makes the distinction meaningful?
When did Kantian Ethics for instance change from Immanuel Kant's personal moral system to an ethics system? Was it when he made it a system for others to follow? In this case isn't ethics just shared morality?
@@Snakeit100 I think you misunderstand. I said we consider ethics to be the science, the field, and morality what it is about.
@@CromCruachTheElderK Oh, so Ethics is akin to Physics and Kantian ethics would be like studying velocity and acceleration then? That's an interesting way to look at it.
Does Germany start teaching ethics at the grade school level or is it more of a post secondary thing like here in Canada?
Can moral person disagree with ethics related to a particular profession??
That's odd, when I took philosophy at university, we were taught that ethics is the larger category, and that morality is about specific normative claims.
+Joe Smith Usually I have heard that ethics breaks down into MetaEthics, Ethical Theory, and Applied Ethics (a video on this distinction is coming soon). But I have not heard of any of them referred to solely as morality.
Joe Smith+ I always took it that "morality" describes the root motive and "ethics" is the reason based exploration of the implications... or to put it another way, "ethics" is the science of morality and morality is our grasp of a very particular scale of quality.
I’m 73. It wasn’t until a few decades ago that I discovered (to my surprise) that dictionaries and thesauruses equated morality and ethics.
So I conducted a little informal survey. It wasn’t “scientific” or “objective” but I didn’t know a better way to ask the question. I asked people whether they thought other people usually make a distinction, i.e. whether most people tend to use the word, “ethics”, when referring to standards of conduct that are generally accepted in a society or subset of society such as medical ethics or judicial ethics AND whether most people tend to use the word, “morality”, when referring to standards of conduct that are--or that are believed to be--handed down from a higher power, i.e. through special revelation. Most people seemed to agree with me that that distinction is the way most people understand those words. But then, maybe the people I asked were just being agreeable.
My point is that miscommunication occurs when the person speaking or writing intends a different definition of a word (or a phrase) than is understood by the person who hears or reads a statement (or a question).
Different societies promote different concepts of “right and wrong”. In some societies, there is general agreement that specific actions are required or prohibited by deity. I other societies, there is sufficient disagreement about the meaning of sacred texts (or even disagreement about which ancient texts are “sacred”) so that civil legislators and civil courts are employed to limit the extent to which “believers” can persecute or prosecute those who disagree with them.
If a person uses the word, “ethics”, and the person hearing or reading that word thinks the meaning implies special revelation from a deity, the response (in some cases) will be different than if the person reading or hearing the statement considers the word to mean only behavior standards of human origin.
Because the majority of the killing of humans by other humans has been over disagreements about moral requirements, I think it is important to at least try to minimize the miscommunication that occurs when people use different definitions.
In order for me to understand you on this subject does not require that I prefer the same definition(s) that you do but it does require that I know what your definition(s) is/are.
I always thought of ethics as a set of guiding principles dictating what is right or wrong. I don't honestly like the implication that it must come from some external source, though there seems to be no reason it can't come from a external source. Morality, on the other hand, has been absorbed into the collective and lacks a rigorous definition in my opinion. Its all about good and bad, but not what makes something good or bad. In my opinion there are a great deal of moral people without the desire of capacity to act ethically. They often prefer the moral high ground too.
I can never take a position on one having a greater value on issues like these. It always comes down to balance.
If you think balance is important in your ethical framework, you might be a virtue ethicist: ua-cam.com/video/JPV2KsWMRfc/v-deo.html
Nice, although I've talked to people who use other definitions, but ultimately it always relates to questions or standards around good and evil or what people should or shouldn't do.
I find it helpful to talk about Morality in regards to behavior; Every action has a moral value, which can be positive (moral), neutral (amoral) or negative (immoral).
Ethics on the other hand can be used to describe moral principles (rules, laws, commandments, etc.). So an action cannot really be described as ethical or not, but a proposition or statement can be.
Another interesting definition views Ethics and Morality in a sort of Hierarchy; So Morality deals with essential things like "You should not murder", "You should not steal", etc. while Ethics deals with specific things that may be limited to a particular field, such as medicine or justice.
Most philosophers probably use the terms interchangeably precisely because there are so many different uses for them. I even heard people who describe their personal views of what is right and wrong as Ethics and the rules of society as Morality, opposite to the definitions presented in the video.
***** I agree. I think as long as you make clear how you are using the words, you will be okay. Debating a distinction that is unclear generally leads to unproductive squabbling, when you could get somewhere if you focused on the actual concepts, not our words for them.
More so right and wrong than good and evil, having morals does not necessarily make you good or lack of them make you inherently evil. being right does not make you good, being wrong does not make you evil. intentions do.
My thoughts are that morality is something objective (objectively wrong to initiate violence against non-violent person who has created no victims), ethics are where people are at subjectively with what they think is right. You can align ethics with morality.
My initial assumption was almost the opposite: Morals are social constructs and ethics is the philosophy of what's good. Maybe you could say those line up, but it does seem like there's a reason why philosophers haven't made a distinction. Both amount to [The good thing] based on [reasons].
What about moral realism?
Do you have a academic source for these two distinctions between ethics and morality?
Y
Or here's an idea. You could pay attention to what he said. Since you didn't, I'll repeat it. He said that there was no agreed upon terminology. He said there's a lack of an agreement. He doesn't have to demonstrate said lack of agreement, he's not making a positive claim. If you think there is such an agreed upon term, provide a source.
Can you not just give out definition at random, but please, PLEASE, quote your SOURCE!!!!! Also, can you always put out some references that you might think are useful for people who might be interested in digging this issue further. Thanks!!!
thanks
the key is the etymology of the words
There's a content creator who did a video on this and posited that there are three areas of concern in this field, not just two.
To be fair, he's not a "philosopher" exactly. He makes videos about social reform and political commentary. Arguably, this is a kind of philosophy, or at the least it's somewhat related.
Anyhow, he put forward that there are three different types of "should". That is, the ideas that dictate what you "should" do. And he goes one step further to explain that there's a specific relationship between each type, and that it is a causal relationship, such that each one causes the next one.
First, there is morality, which is personal or internal. This is what you determine for yourself to be right or wrong, good or evil.
In a normal society, most people will end up with similar morality beliefs. There might be small differences, but most of the more central values will be widespread, and these become the Ethics of that society. And so we see that Ethics cones from Morality. Ethics is a function of society. Ideally it is democratically determined as a sort of average taken from each citizen's morality; but in practice it may not be entirely democratic, as the loudest voices often get the most influence.
And then there is the third field, which comes from the codification and enforcement of of the Ethics of a society. And that is how Ethics becomes law. Laws are generally expressed as restrictions, and they represent the bare minimum a person must do to maintain standing in that society.
The idea being that when changes occur in society, those changes begin first at the level of individual morality, then spread to enough people to affect ethics, and then finally become codified into law, and that any lasting change can only happen in that order
I don't know if the settings on this channel allow for links or not. So this might get deleted as spam.
But the person I was talking about goes by "Beau of the Fifth Column". He had more than one vid about this all but one of them is here: ua-cam.com/video/wYCYh6xpxcs/v-deo.html
Great 👍
Nice, now I don't need to waste 4 years of my life and $100,000 on tuition as a Philosophy major. Thanks.
Dude, that's not at all what the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which you were allegedly quoting is saying.
Did you get a better mic? Please let me help you get a better mic.
Better mic or get the spike.
This is ain't related to the video but can someone explain to me what is philosophy according to delueze?? Badly need help :((
Unfortunately Deleuze is a bit too continental (ua-cam.com/video/TJIAZynEuWk/v-deo.html) for us right now and he's the one postmodernist we aren't covering in our current series (ua-cam.com/video/RnXxvfo-jJU/v-deo.html). Maybe in the future, sorry!
Bad choices affect people some choices may cause a lot of harm and damage to others damage that you cannot fix or undo all the judgement that have been rendered are nothing to compared to what will come from this day on
I did meet one man once who I would describe as 'Moral' He wasn't at all well off and swept roads for the Council. All the money he found in the Gutter he gave to Charity in a bag every year - 'It wasn't my money to keep' he said.
In Continental Philosophy there is a stronger distinction between the moral and the ethical.
That's the thing that's annoying about society choosing what words mean. They're not usually right. Morals and ethics are extremely similar, but different, just like fate and destiny and just like crony capitalism and corporatism. People might see them so similar that they say they're the same, but they're not.
Can some answer this for me: If you had to choose someone to die, between your mother and a friend, who would you choose?
As a skeptic, my answer is I don't know. There is an ethical question of who should you choose? Some Deontologists might say you should not choose, some Utilitarians might say that it does not matter.
Carneades.org Thank you for your response!
arriving from struggle of TOK.
Im still puzzled. Trying to understand ethics/morals when it comes to climate change from the perspective of the individual (i.e. everyday life). Could anyone explain this to me with some concrete examples? Thanks
In terms of the common distinction, it might be unethical for a scientist to misreport data on climate change (since that would violate the common rules of the discipline), while it might be immoral for you to drive a big car because it burns more fuel and that violates your own moral code.
In terms of actual philosophical questions of is it moral/ethical (remember philosophers do not generally make a distinction) to misreport data or drive a big car, that will depend on your theory, are you a consequentialist or a deontologist?
Thanks! I am more of a deontologist I guess. What would be unethical from the perspective of an individual in everyday life?
That's interesting, I always thought it was well not quite the opposite, but close. Like this is pretty outdated but a woman might have been called 'immoral' by others I guess in a religious sense because she sleeps around, yet could still consider herself 'ethical' because she is very careful about consent, testing etc. and adheres to personal procedures and standards. But perhaps that's more of a common language distinction, I don't know. Ethics to me has more of a connotation of behaviour guidelines that we hold internally, whether imposed or personal, that direct our behaviour. Morality, on the other hand, feels to me to have a more social, reactive and contextually relative quality. Interesting stuff.
shared.
I have my bachelor in philosophy and have no idea where u got ur definitions from. But if u ever read Kant Hegel scheming Fichte Nietzsche or any philosopher who is actually a philosopher and not just a consequentialist they will tell u ethics is about ones principals while morality moralitat is similar to mores or social rituals
+Mahyar Mohaghegh That might be a translation issue, but also an analytic/continental divide. I am an analytic philosopher, so my work is going to be based in that tradition, which uses those words interchangeably.
Many times I let my morals get in the way of ethics. Morals may be different for every individual, but ethics are true and don't change for anyone.
While I find that all that was said in this video is generally true (at least today), I have come across cases where it is not. For example, one of my Philosophy professors felt it necessary to distinguish between the two terms in almost the opposite manner when talking about Spinoza. For Spinoza, he said, "ethics" (which was also literally the name for his most famous work) was a self-motivated project of achieving maximum freedom in a causally determined world, whereas "morality" was the rules imposed by an outside force. Of course, I don't think Spinoza explicitly made this distinction himself, but it seemed like an apt one to make.
+Scotty Gordon Interesting. That is one of the reasons that this is such a contentious issue, different philosophers use these terms in different ways.
I know this is a bit off topic, and that you are a busy guy, but I greatly respect your grasp of philosophy.
So, I personally think that there is no "right or wrong period. " imo, it is a pipe dream. I believe that all moral and or ethical systems are based in subjective or inter subjective values formed into base axioms, like human life as value or human happiness is paramount or lessoning suffering is paramount etc.. Fundamentally, imo, all morality is based in subjective but not arbitrary (as i believe our basic morals are part of our evolutionary heritage as a social but not eusocial species) values stated as base axioms.
So my question is, if you feel like replying, is, suppose someone forms their moral axioms in a way that they value nature as the standard of what they find moral. Since moral systems can and do have different base axioms, from which their moral oughts derive, why is it a fallacy to use nature as a standard
of what is good or bad if that is the basis of their moral system? i dont personally subscribe to this moral framework but i have encountered people who do and their standard of right and wrong seems to me to be rejected as appeal to nature fallacy when their moral standard, from which their idea of right and wrong derive, is nature. no moral axioms are objectively good or bad, since imo objective good and bad only exist as a consequence of following the axioms of their system to derive oughts.
I know im not good at expressing this stuff, but do you get what i mean? why _can't_ nature be just as valid a base for a moral system as human well being or mitigating suffering or anything else, since all of them depend on subjective or inter subjective valuing of one principle over another?
the problem with subjective or relative morality is that it lacks normative value, it's basically a description of what is, and it's explained in terms of feelings and desires, but it seems to me that's insufficient. Also in this view there is no moral progress, just change. Also if morality is relative to survival, you inherit all the problems of utilitarianism and when in competition with other beings you run into the problems of justification.
I believe morality is objective (I'm not religious), which is based on a simple standard: suffering, the ability to relieve it and the ability to recognize it, which would apply to sentient beings. As an analogy moral reality is like a natural phenomenon and moral theories are like scientific theories, which can be good or bad, but can improve and can help us better understand reality, even though we never get to have an absolute answer. Our subjective perceptions do exist, but this reality is not dependent on them. So for example subjectively valuing that raping is moral, doesn't mean it is.
I like the objective view of morality because it has normative power. I can help shed light on disagreement and It can explain moral progress, like why no slavery is better than slavery for example. It can say what was wrong with the crusades, killing gays, Nazism, etc., and even if God exists, he can be judged under these standards so it can apply to all sentient beings beyond humans.
I have found that many times subjectivity is preferred by many because it seems more tolerant to other cultures present or past, but I would first ask: in that view why does any culture ought to be tolerant?
Carlos Pérez The thing is, suffering may be objective, but to say suffering is bad is a subjective value. All moral systems, including one based on eliminating suffering, is based on some subjective or inter subjective value. Suffering being bad itself is just a value judgement. I don't see how it has any less of a justification problem than any other moral axiom at the bade of any other moral system. Morality _must_ be based on some kind of value judgement, in your case it is suffering is bad, but that doesn't make suffering bad, even if most subjects (or even all of them) agree, it is still a value judgement. Imo, there is no such thing as an objective value judgement.
I always thought that Ethics was set of conduct imposed by the society, to be what is good and bad while Morality was the set of conducts by your own understanding of good and bad, often greatly influenced by one's religion. For example, euthanasia may be ethically right if euthanasia was a law but can be morally wrong because it was a way of killing a person and perceived as bad because it violates the teachings of God.
I somewhat agree. Morality may also be influenced by one’s values and principles and not just religious teachings. For example, euthanasia can be morally wrong because is a way of killing a person and perceived as bad because it violates one’s value of “human life”. If God’s teachings said nothing about killing, it would still be wrong to take a human life. Atheists would probably concur with this.
Is ethic rules like law ? How to differ one to another?
Ethics in the philosophical sense is the same as morality, they describe what is right and wrong. When they are distinguished from each other, ethics is weaker than law and more like an agreed upon code of conduct in a discipline.
UA-cam kept suggesting this video to me and I kept passing it up because "UGH THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE STOP" but hey, turns out, that is the thesis of the video, so congrats *highfive*.
Thanks! I made this video exactly because of this frustration. While some people do make this distinction, philosophers don't, but there were few sources at the time that made that clear. :)
Morals are subjective... ethics are virtues... ethics and virtues are integral and perfect... morals are a fuzzy generalization of lost virtues....
I see actions as neither right or wrong, they are just actions we do based on what we think we should do. Therefore there are no true right or wrong actions
If you are curious, here's GE Moore on this idea regarding moral facts: ua-cam.com/video/_GI1KsjBQYs/v-deo.html
I've always considered morals to be the theory and ethics to be the practice.
hey carneades, i have a moral question, if its immoral to put the burden of loosing a loved one on a family, then wouldnt that mean that its immoral to drive without an helmet?
That depends on your view of morality. Utilitarians would say if you get more pleasure from driving without a helmet than you would cause in the unlikely event that you die. The harm might be reduced by the fact that it is unlikely. Kantians might say that so long as everyone not wearing a helmet does not defeat the purpose of driving it would be okay. Virtue Theorists might claim that you need to find a balance between enjoying yourself and being overcautious.
kk thanks!
So basically... You have to define what you mean by both ( or any other ) term/s.
Because ethics and morales could by synonymous.
I disagree. Morals are just the accepted customs and behaviours in a society and are therefore something imposed from without, while ethics are more the internal guidelines a person's or a group goes by to determine one's right conduct and has to do with spiritual integrity.
It may e.g. be considered morally wrong to kill another person, but from an ethical point of view it may be justifiable to kill someone if it prevents harm on a larger scale.
As noted in the video, since there is no agreed upon usage of these terms, and the people that study them make no distinction, there is no right or wrong answer to how the terms are used. You simply need to define how you want to use them before you do.
In that case, I'm going to define "Ethics" as the subjective way I evaluate moral decisions and "Morality" as the objective difference between right and wrong. I see Ethics as a cause for an action and Morality as an effect of an action. In my humble opinion, informationwarfare has it right in the post below.
you are wrong. For some reason you are assuming that morality is relative to culture or society and ethics is some form of moral utilitarianism. However in moral philosophy there is a lot of discussion to weather morality is relative, absolute, subjective or objective. I think making distinctions between morality and ethics just adds confusion, but you need to say what version of morality you accept before assuming others accept it too.
Es así hermano. En el video tiraron cualquier frutilla.
so just a higher level of morality on that given situation?
2:18 -
Philosophers don't differentiate between the two terms
It's the other people(sociologist-society psychologist- individual)
They just talk about
What is right and wrong. Period!
They are not concerned about society countries culture regards something as good or bad
It simply does not stop...
What does not stop?
Ethics = what's best. Morality = whats right. The right thing isn't always the best thing to do.
Jesse. Hi. I believe you have the two switched. Ethics is a process using concepts beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy and justice. Morality is a conclusion. For example if we use an ethical process we come to a moral conclusion a.k.a. the best possible solution using an ethical process. No harm in switching the two as are they mutually obligatory. You can’t have a moral statement without an ethical process. Cheers
This is all opinionated unless it is objective
Ethics refer to rules provided by external sources. Morals refer to individual principles regarding right or wrong.
Its the opposite. He got it wrong.
Yeah that's my understanding too
@@Antibalelas That's not the opposite
@@Rationalist101 , morals are society rules like "You shall not Kill" or "You shall not steal". Ethics is about your personal choices at any given momment. For example, if a burgler enters in your house and tries to kill you, you might have to decide to kill him, thus breaking the Moral Code. If you do so you are exercising ethics. Ethics is about thinking for yourself.
@@Antibalelas Lol, like I said before, you got it backwards... look up the definition of ethics...
what is the paradox between ethics and morality?
I know that there does exist a disagreement over whether morality and ethics are objective or subjective.
It is certainly a question for Meta Ethics. And beyond that you might ask if they are subjective, how so? Are they dependent on culture? On our own personal feelings? What do we mean when we say something is wrong if there is no objective right or wrong? And if they are objective, how so? Is what is good simply what gives the most people the most happiness? What God commands?
Morality transcend humanity.
Outward vs inward ideas on how to behave. Too simple ? Of course it is.
Lmao
Is this you CS Joseph?
I'm going with the main philosophers views of morality and ethics being pretty much the same thing.
But there is another video i watched awhile back which had spiked my attention when mentioning something about ethics as well, so i will watch that too.
In philosophy, it would seem that the intention of discussing morals/ethics would be synonymous with discussing the Golden rule
If each person is free to adopt different definitions of words such as "ethic" and "moral" then how is useful debate possible? There was a time when humans consulted relatively authoritative sources such as dictionaries (yes there have been many) wherein issues and elaboration were subject to scholarly process. Such a standard reference allowed everyone to argue from the same baseline. But why defer to accumulated intellectual capital when I know that my opinion (accumulation of ignorance) is right?
The point is that since many disciplines use the words differently, and often interchangeably, it is not productive to debate which definition is "right." That is like arguing if the word "right" means correct or the direction opposite left. There is no one answer, they are each correct depending on the context. What we should do instead is make it clear how we are using the words before debating, since, as many words do, they have different meanings depending on the discipline, and how you are using them.
Agreed! Even a "dictionary" grants flexibility of definition but responsibility resides with participants to establish a context and the applicable definition. I personally find it frustrating when, having established a context (e.g. your video), spectators will often rant and rail about the context, rather than debate the consequences.
We must have been born on opposite sides of the planet. For me it is the reverse, Ethics is personally motivated conduct while Morality is an agreed upon set of conduct often expected if not imposed by third parties.
Another way I define these terms (and include obedience in there):
Ethics is doing what is right regardless of what we are told.
Morality is doing what we are told is right.
Obedience is doing what we are told regardless of what is right.
Historically, Ancient Greeks were know to be Ethical, while Romans Moral in their world views.
As the video notes, with no set, agreed upon definition, and for philosophers they are interchangeable. As for obedience, you might be interested in my video on Philosophical Anarchism (publishing in 2 minutes!) ua-cam.com/video/L22O_Vqbb5Y/v-deo.html
By the way, sorry to ask, and I know this is a painful topic for a lot of people, but I was briefly wondering, will r@pe culture EVER cease to exist, as in, disappear, in our humanity, so that such a term, like say for OTHER examples, like murder and other forms of violence, for which actually does NOT exist, i.e. there is no "murder culture" out there (or is there?), basically loses its centrality, strength and power to exist?
Or will it sadly, NEVER happen, and that as painful and frustrating as it is for all of us, it will likely exist and operate for as long as humanity exists?
In addition to this, because I have grown to REALLY despite and feel utter contempt towards the actual offenders and perpetrators of sexual violence, the fact that we have a CULTURE that is somehow on THEIR side, makes me feel very irritated and bad about humanity in general. And yet, even if SOME people may even QUESTION if such a culture even exists in the first place, many people without blinking an eye or thinking twice will answer without hesitation, yes it DOES, and what's worse, it seems like there is almost little to nothing we can do to make it go away like that.
But then also - did such culture ALWAYS exist in our humanity, as in, hundreds of years ago too, and how come prior to 2010 or so I have never even HEARD that phrase used?
Somebody PLEASE improve our world, thank you!
Interesting question. In philosophy there is a question of whether or not we make "moral progress". I think there is a case for the claim that in some things we have made moral progress of some sort. Slavery, something that was omnipresent only a few hundred years ago, has almost completely disappeared. While movements for racial justice show that we have yet to achieve an ideal, that does not mean we should discount how far we have come. It can be challenging to hold both the idea that we have come so far, but we still have so far to go, but there is strong evidence that is where we stand.
As for your specific question, I think a similar situation holds, we have come far, but we still have far to go. Only a few decades ago, domestic violence and spousal rape was widely accepted if not legal in many places. It is still accepted as a normal part of life in some countries, but has been deeply stigmatized and prosecuted in others, and progress is being made to push against it. That said, past actions do not predict future behavior. Society has slid back in the past and may slide back again. I don't know if we will ever reach a place where we feel that our society is fully ethical and does everything correctly, but it seems to me that, at least in some ways, in the last 70 years we have moved in that direction.
In my philosophy ethics immediately follows epistemology. I reverse the terms. I consider ethics to be the rules one establishes for individual actions within existential reality and developing rules to prescribe them. The next pillar is politics, and I contain morality within that sphere because it determines how we deal with one another. Ethics guides agreement with reality, while morality guides agreement with other minds. The goal then is to minimize contradictions with reality, so we agree on the phenomenon of reality wherein symbiotic cooperation is possible towards the good life. This is my untraditional approach. It works for me.
Kantian ethics. What makes it ethical and what makes it moral
Ethics: The study of morality
Morality: Maxims that constitutes what is right and wrong
Ethics concerns the normative definitions of subjective duty and obligation whereas morality concerns the personal understanding of good and evil (subjective or somehow objective)
Subjective understanding of good and evil is just personal ethics (kinda couse personal means created by the prism of personality and personality is most of the time created by the priosm of society around). Morality must be objective the same as math for example. Most peopel doesn't have hard time to create to logical categories and put moral or immoral behaviours in them. Of course immoral people will argue that their doings aren't bad.
so the christian sexual ethic is given in a top down kinda way from nominaly at least the christ. for to maximise human florishing, at least within the context of biblical times. and someone who chooses that ethic can/ought to further follow their personal morals. this was nice and simple, I was wondering about these two words.
I support what @Nicholas Manta quoted. The video is misstating the concepts. And on the basis of what Nicholas explained, I quote two paragraphs from André Comte-Sponville:
“By moral, I understand the normative and imperative discourse that results from the opposition of Good and Evil, considered as absolute or transcendent values: that is, the set of our duties. Morality answers the question "What should I do?" One and universal is intended. It tends to virtue and culminates in holiness (in Kant's sense: in the sense that a holy will is a will that is fully compliant with the moral law). And by ethics, I understand all normative discourse -but not imperative, or without other imperatives than the hypothetical ones- that results from the opposition of good and bad, considered as relative values: that is, the thought set of our desires. An ethic responds to the question "How to live?" It is always particular to an individual or a group. It is an art of living: it often tends towards well-being and culminates in wisdom" [1].
"I understand by moral everything that is done out of duty (as seen in Kant), in other words, submitting to a norm that is experienced as a coercion or mandate; and by ethics, everything that is done by desire or by love (as seen in Spinoza), in other words, spontaneously and without any other compulsion than to adapt to reality. Morality orders, ethics advises. Morality answers the question, what should I do? " [2].
Moral: it is not our own sense of good and evil (individually) it is a historical and cultural construction of humanity.
Ethics: they are not imposed standards, they are based on relative ones and belong to the reflection of the individual or groups, they do not tend to be universal.
[1] André Comte-Sponville, Valeur et vérité (Études cyniques). Paris, PUF, 1994, 191-192.
[2] André Comte-Sponville - Luc Ferry, La sagesse des Modernes. Paris, Ed. Robert Laffont, 1998, 274-275.
As I said to Nicholas Manta, simply because one philosopher makes a distinction between ethics and morality it does not follow that this distinction is common in philosophy. One of the reasons that philosophy writ large does not make such a distinction is because so many philosophers have attempted to draw their own lines between the concepts, and while such lines have been drawn, none are authoritative or broadly accepted within the philosophical community. As this article (plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/) discusses, there are many ways that morality can be defined, some distinct from ethics (the article notes only one), but based on the clear interchangeability of terms like "ethical theory" and "moral theory" in the article, this is a minority viewpoint in philosophy writ large. If you go into a philosophy class in the English speaking world, you should expect these terms to be used interchangeably, even if some philosophers think they should not be.
However, within the professional and legal world, ethics has a clear meaning which is distinct from morality. It has to do with an externally imposed code of conduct. If you work as a lawyer, a doctor, or a public servant, you will have a "code of ethics" which in this context is used to refer to an external set of rules imposed by your profession or employer. These are distinct from your own personal beliefs about what is right or wrong. Both of these in turn are distinct from the fact of the matter about what is right and wrong (though they may match up). Philosophy studies the third category, the fact of the matter. It does not care what most people think or what a professional community imposes, it cares about what is right and wrong. A philosopher might claim that right and wrong is nothing more than personal morality or professional ethics, but they are making a meaningful statement when they say such a thing.
Regardless, so long as you define your terms, feel free to use them to mean specific but distinct things. Just don't expect philosophers to know or use them in the particular way that you want to make such a distinction without being explicit because such a distinction is not used in the majority of philosophy (and even if it was, there is no harm in clearly defining your terms :) ).
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Just because the "majority" of philosophers do not make the distinction in their works does not mean that they commonly lack a distinction or limits on such concepts. Commonly for people who are not immersed in this philosophical field it can generate misunderstandings, and that does not mean that then the two concepts are interchangeable (as it can be in other areas of knowledge where they use them indifferently). In the article you shared again, it support André-Comte Sponville's views and embrace an ambiguity within the concept but not an ambiguity between the two concepts.
My Morals (within me) are that of more strict than my countries ethics.
I feel like that might be the case for alot of people , (especially those morally conscious) because ethics, at least those that related to actual laws, have to be tolerable for the majority of the population. While morals are just for that one person and so they can be more complex.
Ethics is best understood as formalized morality.
Malpractice is a technical term requiring understanding surely which in the case of what possibly is behind something as impure, if that is the creed of a people believing in sin as a nature other than to be celebrated, demands that ethics be limited to the cap as moral, more purely so, than developed systems, let alone cults.
In a cleaner ethics, costs are balanced to - any reward, the least - penny - that anything matters, justified as good, not ALL, to hate.
I'm very confused.
So therefore every action is moral, so we can just say that eating an apple or a pie is a very moral decision because I think that it is a great and moral thing to do, in this definition you describe a meaningless word because any action I commit I think is right and just for why else would I do that.
It almost seems you are trying to discriminate against Reliogns, for in most uses of the tence "morality" is very often referred to Religious or spiritual groups, in which most non radical groups have a very similar idea of morality. So why would you say it is just what ever actin you do is moral?
Max Lavoie First, the definition does not belong to me or philosophy, so if you have any qualms with it you need not lay them at my doorstep. Second, clearly not everything is moral on that stance unless you think it is. You can judge as moral or not the actions of others, from your perspective those actions might be immoral, but from their perspective they might be moral. By this definition morality is dependent on perspective, so no action is moral or immoral in isolation, only moral or immoral in someone's opinion.
Max Lavoie To the second point, once again, this is not my definition, but it is one in common language. The kind of morality you are referring to references a philosophical morality or ethics, one that people believe is right regardless of what people or societies believe about it. In philosophy that is the only kind of morality that we talk about, and religious theories, (such as divine command theory) are discussed.
So what your saying that unless you use the word "Morality" in a religious context, it has no greater meaning than "opinion"?
💗
I'm such a sucker for subscribing based on blind bias, fiendishly favouring adoring, alluring alliteration.
This didn't make it clearer. I'd say that the ethics is a discipline or a study, and the morality is the object of this study. What do ethics study? It studies morality. What is morality? It is the answers to why you chose or prefer this action (or the chose) to the rest. In other words, why do you do this, not that.
Morals equate with the super-ego, in other words the influence of one's culture.
Point of order:
Philosophers do not necessarily study Ethics. In point fact, Ethics is often it's own field of study, and not all philosophers give a crap about it.
The good place
Have you ever thought that karma could be based on those personal little morals one keeps rather than this big law that is accepted as _it._ The Big E(thics). Is there one thing I am or am not allowed to do that is different for someone else? Because I feel a certain way that someone else doesn't. To society I could be a devil incarnate, yet in my mind I could be the most innocent person. Or I could be an angel but feel like I belong in hell, and therefore make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ah, whatever. Maat's feather or not, we'll see how it plays out...
*Karma, of course, is being used as a pretty broad term. Maybe you believe karma affects you physically, maybe it decides where you're going when you die, or (and probably most importantly) it affects how you feel about yourself (integrity and all that).