Ethics versus moral

Ethics versus moral

If the question is “is the action moral?” it still does not change the way I address the various ethics in question. One can say your morality comes from religion or wherever else, but for most people, it just comes down to well-being. Whether actions bring about positive or negative net well-being determines the morality/immorality of the action. You can think about well-being roughly as happiness, but it’s a bit more nuanced than that, encompassing a wider range of human values. Every action (or inaction), no matter how seemingly inconsequential, has an effect that can be measured by the amount of well-being it produces. This is obvious on the macro level, but maybe not as obvious in day-to-day decisions. Kant focuses on deontological thinking, where morality is based on the means of an action, not the consequences. By focusing on both individual autonomy and respect for other’s will, Kant’s Categorical Imperative sets up a universal code for which we all must use to decide if our actions or the actions of others are moral (universality and impartiality). He admits that although it is natural for us to consider others a means to an end, an action cannot be deemed moral if committed for such purposes. In other words, thinking purely in terms of consequences is always a plain disregard for the will of others.

The debate of morals versus ethics currently has gained momentum since the two are different in meaning and measure. Morals are what you have been taught, so they are passed down from one generation to another. One person’s morals may differ from another as parents taught differently. For example, if you are taught as a youngster that it is proper to steal from those that have to help those that do not have, then your morals develop to aid the poor by robbing the richer ones. If you were taught that stealing is wrong, then your morals would not allow you to aid the poor by robbing the richer ones.

Ethics, on the other hand, is what you derive for yourself that is right and good and benefits all people involved when you are living to the highest that you know and doing the most honorable thing. So, let us say you were taught not to steal. So you go into a bookstore and read a magazine while standing up, and left the magazine there when you left the store. Morally, you did nothing wrong as you did not steal the magazine. Ethically, this is wrong; as you read the magazine without paying for the information contained in the magazine and thereby deprived the store of one sale. Also, the magazine is technically not now new, as you read it, and so now the store is selling a used magazine but charging the next customer a price for a new magazine. Ethically, you stole from the store and the person who ends up purchasing the magazine. So, morally it is not wrong, but ethically it is. The meanings overlap to some extent. But in general, “moral” refers to principles of good behavior, and “ethical” refers to more clearly defined rules, especially in a profession. A businessman or a politician can get into trouble for ethical violations for not following specific rules or laws. This would include things like bribery or price-fixing.