People confuse morals with ethics. It can be perfectly acceptable, ethically, to do something that is morally reprehensible.
back
1 comments
How are you distinguishing them?
I had the impression they were essentially synonyms, and this was borne out by two university courses in philosophy which I took. That said, googling "morals vs ethics" turns up quite an interesting mess. A variety of contrasting perspectives showed up:
- Ethics come from an external source, whereas morals come from within
- Ethics are rational and structured, whereas morals are more emotional
- Ethics is a philosophy or code of behavior, whereas morals refers to beliefs and conduct
- Ethics and morals are used interchangeably
It seems nobody agrees on what the words mean. Which, on reflection, tracks. For me, the idea of an HR training session on ethics is laughable, but for someone who thinks of the word differently it could certainly make sense.
Yeah it's interesting how in some contexts they're interchangeable yet, culturally we very often use the words differently.
Personally I tend to feel like your second bullet - ethics are based on rules whereas morals are based on emotions.
Guess I got spoiled by reading Kant in one of my college classes. He was all about trying to describe morals based on rules.
That said, picture someone killing a kitten and someone else killing a cockroach. One could prevaricate all day with highbrow reasons for why the first is monstrous and the second is perfectly moral -- but honestly, for most people, I suspect it comes down to the fact that kittens are cute and cockroaches aren't.
Kant would say that the moral harm there isn't to the animal, which isn't a moral subject, but to you since you may be undermining your instinct not to hurt things that look like you (big eyed kittens), making it easier to hurt people. Possibly indulging in your instinct to destroy things which disgust you (skittering cockroaches) also makes it easier to hurt people. So best not to do either unless you have a pretty good reason.