Morality Versus Ethics

A partial list to suggest the distinction

Aaron Ross Powell recently posted on how he thinks ethics and morality are distinct. I've always thought they are distinct but not in the framework that he suggest.

My conception can be understood using the following expository. The bullet points are examples under each. They are not intended to be fully definitional nor exhaustive otherwise.

Ethical (binding without moral conflict)

• Don't steal

• Don't initiate physical harm

Ethical (binding with potential moral conflict)

• Don't intrude upon the activities of consenting adults

• Tolerate spiritual beliefs and peaceful practices of others

• Before life begins - generally a Pro-Choice position

• After life begins - generally a Pro-Life position

• Defend against the forces of ethical evil

• Freedom of speech

Moral (in congruence with ethics)

• Don't possess or exhibit hateful thoughts

• Love thy neighbor

• Golden rule¹

• See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil - as in the Buddhist rather than western tradition²

Moral (in conflict with ethics)*

• Don't worship any gods before [me] (e.g., Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma, Great Spirit, etc.)

• Help thy neighbor³

• Don't engage in forbidden practices or behavior (homosexuality, charging interest, sex before marriage, ingesting forbidden substances like mind-altering drugs and chemicals, gambling, etc.)

• Before life begins - a Pro-Life or a Pro-Choice position

• Fight against (figuratively or literally) the forces of moral evil

  * The conflict is reconciled by understanding that while we can adhere to our own personal morality, preach and advocate that morality, and even (peacefully) condemn those practices and behaviors that our personal morality forbids, we cannot forcibly make others hold or follow that morality. It is ethical to use persuasion but not coercion to bring about moral change in others.

Ethics are hard rules where ultimately reasonable minds cannot disagree. Morals are personal rules where reasonable minds can disagree.

Note that this does not imply moral relativism. There can be a true answer in pursuit of a moral position, but this position cannot be unarguably known much less justifiably imposed upon others.

Government in all of its many forms should be bound only by ethics. What's more, the government should usually refrain entirely and otherwise very reluctantly and selectively engage in moral suasion.

I would extend this framework generally to corporations as well. In other forms of organization it is a cautionary guideline too. Even for those entities designed specifically for various and specific advocacy, they should always strive to keep their scope limited—stay on task within a focused mission statement.

While this is not a complete argument or description of my framework (after all, it is a partial list), I do think it gets to the heart of how I see it.

1. Admittedly this one can creep into ethical conflict.

2. It is certainly possible that my understanding of this proverb is mistaken such that it should fall into the next category—in conflict with ethics.

3. Consider the opposing philosophies of Peter Singer and Ayn Rand.