EthicsVsMorals

Is it in any way useful to draw a distinction between Ethics and Morals? Are they not, after all, synonymous? Doesn't one pretty much imply the other? Let us answer the three foregoing questions, "Yes, No, and No" respectively and see whether such a position is defensible.

The root word for Ethical is the Greek "ethos," meaning "character." The root word for Moral is Latin "mos," meaning "custom."

Both words are broadly defined in contemporary English as having to do with right and wrong conduct. Character and custom, however, provide two very different standards for defining what is right and what is wrong. Character would seem to be a personal attribute, while custom is defined by a group over time. People have character. Societies have custom. To violate either can be said to be wrong, within its appropriate frame of reference.

It is possible to draw an objective distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, which does not depend on context for a measuring stick. Let us say that good, or right, would be the quality of those things which tend toward the greatest survival for the greatest cross-section of life and bad, or wrong, would apply to those things which tend away from that greatest survival. This is a standard which can be objectively tested for, in theory.

While an objective standard of right and wrong may be desirable, this is not to say that objective standards and subjective standards are complete strangers to each other, necessarily. After all, social mores are seldom entirely arbitrary. They are adopted by societies during the natural course of events because at one time or another this or that rule is seen as beneficial to the survival of the group as a group. Members who subscribe to the rules of the society arguably see survival potential in them.

One might take Jewish dietary laws as an example of a subjective standard, in that compliance with them is rooted in faith rather than having been arrived at through research. Empirical observation in biblical and pre-biblical times, however, provided objective evidence aplenty for the necessity of dietary rules in the absence of such recent advancements as antibiotics and refrigeration. In early times, then, violation of dietary law may well have been "bad" or "wrong" by any standard. Nonetheless, obedience to such dietary law now may safely be classed as an issue of custom more than character.

While those of faith will argue that their custom is dictated by the Supreme Authority and as such establishes an asolute standard for both a morals and ethics (making them indistiguishable within that milleu), we may still discuss how what is "moral" may not be "right" by objective criteria, and vice-versa.

Consider: It is moral, within the context of their society, for native African cannibals to eat their enemies. Judeo-Christian morality declares this practice sinful. One may argue on one hand that such practice is harmless in the context of a hunter-gatherer economy which relies on scarce resources and to which overpopulation is anathema. On closer inspection, however, we find that a neurologic disorder, possibly of genetic (or viral?) origin literally causes the physical deterioration of the brains of some mammals, including humans, who practice cannibalism. This has been responsible for destructive epidemics among cannibalistic tribes, and so unqualifiedly militates against their survival. By objective standards, then, we might find that cannibalism is "bad." And not because this or that social standard says so, but because it is insidiously destroying populations who practice it. But one discovers this only by moving outside of the social structure of cannibalism and applying some science.

Note that governmental bodies and professions such as medicine and the law have developed codes of conduct for their members. These are called ethical codes, and not moral codes. Morality, being custom-based, relies heavily on the mores of the society - which tend to have religious origins. Therefore, in the field of morals, one talks of such things as "sin" and "virtue". In the field of professional ethics, the discussion tends to revolve around responsibility, duty, and benefit vs negligence, betrayal and harm. There is an obvious effort in the field of civic and professional ethics to establish and follow an objective standard based upon the concrete consequences of one's acts.

The founder (and to a lesser degree, subsequent leaders) of a social grouping may see a necessity for a given type of behavior in a purely ethical sense. "We must do this or perish." He may attempt to educate others as to the necessity of the behavior which he prescribes. How likely is it, though, that the followers, adherents, members or what-have-you will share their leader's insights and understanding? One of the reasons they are sheep instead of shepherds is that they sense a superior ability to survive in the guy holding the staff. So, when education fails, when personal wisdom and responsibility are inadequate, rules, threats and punishments are established. Now we have moved from the field of ethics, founded in personal character - and into the field of morals, founded in approval by authority.

Ethically, there may be such things as neutral-value activities. Walking around naked, using profanity, painting one's car fuscia - all may have no innate implications as to survivability in and of themselves. However, one may quickly find that one's activites have impact on the sensory and emotional states of others. As such, violating a social more or "good taste," even if it carries no penalty, interferes with the smooth passage of others through life and in such a miniscule fashion reduces the general survival. This fact can make the violation of moral standards an unethical act because of the turmoil created.

So - things can be innately good or bad, all social standards aside. A person of character might learn what he can about the world around him; determine what will positively or negatively impact it; resolve to support the former, and strive against the latter. Such a person by any standard would probably have to be classified as ethical. Some social groups might find his actions offensive or sinful, but if he is honest about his observations, possesses personal integrity, and is true to values which embrace working maximum benefit and minimum harm - for their own sake - we could not but call him ethical.

Ralph Waldo Emerson almost grasped this fully over two hundred years ago in his essay, "Self-Reliance." He railed against the political sycophants and religious hypocrites of his day, pointing out that their values obtained to self-aggrandizement and social popularity, but not to the general good. Therefore, they were untrue to themselves.

EthicalRelativism holds that good and bad exist only by reference to human social standards. I believe it can be successfully argued that while moral behavior must needs be so referenced, ethical behavior can be determined on its own merit, relative only to its bare consequences as, like ripples from a pebble tossed into a pond, they travel out into the universe. The only limitation which would exist, therefore, on the ability of a person to be ethical would be the breadth and depth of his vision.