Ethics and Morals

OK, so what are ethics and morals?

Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based.
Ethics are principles of right conduct.

So the two are closely related and are often used interchangeably – and I admit I am guilty of this. However they aren’t interchangeable because:

Ethics refer to rules provided by an external source (eg. codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions).
Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

Morals are essentially personal, and thus my personal morals are an expression of a personal opinion. But ethics are collective, in that society comes to some “compromise” (collective, if you prefer) ethical view. That allows, indeed some people’s morals would demand, that I dispute with others as a part of reaching that collective ethical view. Such discussion and dispute in many fields of knowledge and belief, it seems to me, is exactly what has allowed us to escape the Stone Age.

This allows me to disagree with society’s collective ethical view. As with all things each of us has to come to our own conclusion, for each and every moral dilemma, on where the line should be drawn for us. But this does not allow me to apply my morals, rather than my society’s ethics, to anyone other than myself; for if I do so then I walk outside the bounds of what society’s legal system (ie. codified ethics) will permit and I will surely face certain punishment.

We could, thus, have a moral argument about belief in God, hanging for murder, organ transplants, blood transfusion, fertility treatment, contraception, abortion, gun ownership, playing football on Sunday, the use of cannabis or alcohol, or indeed the preferred colour for the rabbi’s socks. At the end of the day they are all matters of personal choice and conscience. And there will be a variety of personal choices (morals), which collectively will make up society’s overall “compromise” view (society’s imposed ethics). Only by such debate do we move knowledge forward!

But it isn’t quite that simple!

Morals are also about emotions. My morals are a reflection of my emotional reactions to, and feelings about, the particular subject. Society’s ethics are the consensus, or mean, of the morals of the individuals making up that society (or at least the way they are perceived and interpreted by those in whom the power to fix the ethics is vested – be they members of parliament or priests). If you will, ethics is the integration (over all people) of morals.

So why do different people have different views of the world, and thus, different morals and ethical viewpoints?

The easy answer would be to say it’s because God gave us free will. But as I don’t do deities, my real answer has to be that I don’t know. It could be something to do with evolution: by having a variety of views the fittest (ie. those views which best suit our survival as individuals or as a species, at that time) will survive and progress will be made. This is essentially what Richard Dawkins is talking about when he talks of memes.

However the latest thinking is that we each of us (and I suspect this applies collectively to societies as well as to each of us individually) acts essentially in one of four fundamental ways: Fatalist, Individualist, Egalitarian, Hierarchist. We may move between modes at different times, but when pushed will always want to return to our underlying mode. These four modes are defined as:

Fatalist: Why bother? Anything can happen. When they call your number that’s it. So what’s the point of worrying about anything?
Nature commands me. The risk owns me.

Individualist: The world is here for me to use as I need it. No risk, no reward. Each person has to decide how to act for themselves.
Nature is mine to command. I own the risk.

Egalitarian: Nature must be interfered with as little as possible. There are no safe limits so we must always show caution.
Nature is fragile. Any risk is unacceptable.

Hierarchist: All things are robust within limits, so we must understand the limits and regulate to ensure they’re obeyed.
Nature is a management problem. Risk is controlled.

When I was young, I was probably close to having an Individualist, or maybe a Fatalist, moral view. But as I have got older I find I am now more definitely an Egalitarian.

British society, it seems to me, is Hierarchist but currently tending very much towards Individualist. By contrast American society is very definitely Individualist, but Bhutanese society (where they measure Gross National Happiness rather than Gross Domestic Product) is more Fatalist tending towards Egalitarian.

Confused? No-one ever pretended this was easy!

Zen Mischief

Other Sites of Interest

Eccentric looks at life through the thoughts of a retired working thinker