Clarify ethics vs morality

[pawn002]

Words are often used interchangeably

[pawn002]

Morality, by its very nature, makes it hard to study morality. It binds people together into teams that seek victory, not truth. It closes hearts and minds to opponents even as it makes cooperation and decency possible within groups.

from: Jonathan Haidt, NYU Professor, ethical systems design

[pawn002]

Typically, ethical acts fall somewhere along a grey scale – the space between black & white. Right and wrong seem like relative terms when incorrectly applied to a grey world. Better or worse is sometime the best approximation to truth we can obtain.

from: Lawrence Sheraton, ethicsdefined.org,

NOTE: Quick research on this author, highlights that while the author is capable of of intriguing ideas, can come off as condescending, immature and lacking suitable rigor is framing arguments.

[pawn002]

TODO: research Judith Butler

[pawn002]

[LonnyGomes]

@pawn002 To build on this, I've heard it explained that the source of ethics is "society" and the source of "morals" is self. So one may find the death penalty immoral yet society has deemed it ethical. Given this definition, this might mean that morality may not always exist within the circle of ethics. For instance, one may believe abortion is moral but the society in which they live has deemed it unethical and in turn illegal.

I appreciate the comments about right and wrong versus better or worse. Are you getting at the idea of consensus versus individual belief?

[pawn002]

I appreciate the comments about right and wrong versus better or worse. Are you getting at the idea of consensus versus individual belief?

Great comment!

I think you may be referring to the individual as the source of truth whereas society modifies truth.

In this regard I would say the blue sky is that truth is beyond the individual and society therefore societal consensus is more or less of the same quality as individual opinion. i.e. there is little difference between society and the individual as both are just opinions.

It is with this in mind that both an individual and a society have personal moralities that are always a take on or a subset of the ethics.

Going back to your example of the differences between society and the individual, you can say the simply have a difference of moral opinion that still is child to all ethics.

Am I understanding you or were you going for how morality can actually be completely outside of what is ideally ethical for all? @LonnyGomes

[pawn002]

@LonnyGomes figure A or B?

[LonnyGomes]

I think you may be referring to the individual as the source of truth whereas society modifies truth.

I would argue that truth exists outside of both the individual and society. It is a universal truth that 2+2 = 4. It so happens that most of society also believes this. If an individual posits that 2+2 = 5, it is an opinion that they are entitled to, but an option in and of it self is not truth. It sounds as if the business of ethics isn't really about truth but more about consensus and I think that's what I'm getting at. Truth is black and white where as consensus by definition operates in the grays? Does that track with you?

@LonnyGomes figure A or B?

@pawn002 I would say both depending on the context?? Someone could be morally compelled to lower their environmental footprint and their county supports programs that help them do so (Figure A) and at the same time be for a large social safety but live in a more conservative state (Figure B).

I think Figure A represents the comfortable state in which one's morals are inline with the society they exist in, or is it the society that has subversively influenced the persons morals such that they align 🤯

[pawn002]

It sounds as if the business of ethics isn't really about truth but more about consensus and I think that's what I'm getting at.

The word "sounds" is throwing me off a bit, otherwise I think I am following you @LonnyGomes .

Do you mind giving me a bit more on what makes up your take on ethics as consensus, particularly the "sounds" part. As per the rules of the road in the readme:

Words should not change meaning to avoid misunderstanding as it is too common for a word to have multiple meanings in the same conversation.

Feel free to establish whatever meaning you like and I will hold you to that meaning until you decide to change if necessary. With a common understanding as to what "sounds like" means, I feel I can be even more accurate in responding.

[LonnyGomes]

@pawn002 sure! I definitely could have been clearer in what I was going for. Spelling mistakes an everything! Essentially what I meant by that was "in my opinion".

Let me try this again. Rather then saying "it sounds as if", allow me to rephrase that to say "Based on what the Lawrence Sheraton excerpt provided above, ...".

I will repost it below so you don't have to scroll up:

Typically, ethical acts fall somewhere along a grey scale – the space between black & white. Right and wrong seem like relative terms when incorrectly applied to a grey world. Better or worse is sometime the best approximation to truth we can obtain.

I interpret this quote to mean that ethics and morality are subjective judgements and perhaps it is a fallacy to attempt to assign objective valuations of truth to issues that by nature are not absolutes. Perhaps that's what you were getting at when you said:

... societal consensus is more or less of the same quality as individual opinion. i.e. there is little difference between society and the individual as both are just opinions.

If not, could you expound upon that a bit more?

Sorry @pawn002 and @coreygearhart, I know I've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole. It just so happens that I've been thinking a bit about these very topics as of late.

[LonnyGomes]

Throwing this reference into the mix: Diffen: Morals vs Ethics. This link as a high-level comparison between the two of which you may or may not agree with. At any rate, I think it could help argument the convo.

[coreygearhart]

To build on this, I've heard it explained that the source of ethics is "society" and the source of "morals" is self.

@LonnyGomes I can rally around this simple definition, and around the idea that both can be separate from truth. Both the macro and micro society define rules for society (national, local, family) and all can and often are separate from truth.

The above article stipulates "Morality transcends cultural norms". Not always! as someone with a background in a very close nit religious community, I would say that morality can be stifled and trapped within cultural norms.

[pawn002]

@coreygearhart @LonnyGomes Amazing stuff, I am loving the depth of thought and precision we are using in this thread!

I think we are starting to form our definitions of morality and ethics—especially as they relate to truth. How about we give this a try?

Truth (as it relates to right and wrong): Aspirational objectively good thing that is more or less impossible for us to get to.

Ethical: What we have agreed as society as right.

Moral: Individual sense of right and wrong.

[LonnyGomes]

Truth (as it relates to right and wrong): Aspirational objectively good thing that is more or less impossible for us to get to.

Ethical: What we have agreed as society as right.

Moral: Individual sense of right and wrong.

Great synopsis 😂

The above article stipulates "Morality transcends cultural norms". Not always! as someone with a background in a very close nit religious community, I would say that morality can be stifled and trapped within cultural norms.

@coreygearhart I do believe there is a chicken or the egg predicament in terms of ethics vs morals. Do the ethics of the group definite the morals of a person or is do a person's morals exist outside of any societal ethical constructs? That's yet another rabbit hole, but for this convo I really like @pawn002's summary.