Ethics and morality

 

 

There are notable differences between ethics and morals, although sometimes people tend to confuse them. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that values and studies what is correct or not. In addition, it emphasizes the correct behavior patterns to be put into practice. Morality is a set of values, norms, and behaviors accepted by a society that serve to correctly structure that particular society and promote balance among the people who make it up.

 

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. It originated in Ancient Greece and focuses on studying the terms of good and evil. It is not framed within any specific culture, but rather seeks to differentiate what is right from what is wrong, along with other similar concepts.

 

Instead, morality encompasses those norms established by a given society and that affect the behavior of its members. These values are related to the social context and traditions of the individuals who belong to that society.

 

In addition, these certain values are usually inherited in order to enhance social stability and maintain an optimal structure for coexistence.

 

In economics, there is also a growing interest in ethics and morals. Especially in relation to the world of company and business.

 

What are the most notable differences between ethics and morals?

These are the most important differences between both concepts:

 

Morality is related to the most appropriate values and behaviors within a given context or society. It is about putting these concepts into practice so that this society is regulated in a balanced way.

Ethics defines the correct behavior or not based on general principles. It does not focus on determining these with respect to a specific society. Ethics is more related to the theoretical part of these types of terms.

Ethics has its origin in individuality. Different individuals reflect on topics such as good and evil. Later, they themselves implement these reflections in their lives. It is not something mandatory that they have to put into practice, it is optional, since they are individual reflections.

Morality is a more widespread, group concept, since they are socially accepted values and influence all the people who make up that specific society to which they belong.

Ethics is an individual value proper to reflection and the person who puts it into practice can apply it to his or her own life. They are rational values or beliefs that can be put into practice or not.

Morality is something that individuals who belong to a society cannot choose. It is something established and socially accepted. Misbehaving can result in punishment.

Ethics is a general principle, a thought, a reflection without application to any specific context. Morals can vary depending on the society in which the individual finds himself.

Example of ethics and morals

Telling the truth in a certain situation would be an example of morality. Helping an elderly man who can barely walk to cross a street would be another example of morality, since honesty is a very important social value.

 

On the other hand, when an individual reflects on what is good or not, based on his own beliefs, he would be included within ethics.

 

 

 

 

Ethics and the Law

 

Every moral decision is preceded by an evaluation of the reasons for the different courses of action. If deliberating  about  different reasons is necessary to make "good decisions," then must we learn about ethics in order to be morally better? In a sense Aristotle believed that ethics is related to learning.

 

What is legal is not necessarily ethical or moral. Therefore, although there is a legal framework, there is also ethics. In fact, laws reflect moral standards, which in some way regulate our conduct. However, these have evolved along with our understanding of what is good or what we understand by a just society. But there are also amoral laws. For example, driving on the right is an amoral law, that is, it has nothing to do with morality. But are there immoral laws? The answer is also yes.

The segregation law in South Africa - apartheid - was clearly immoral. The Greeks, in classical times, allowed infanticide. Although there is certainly a context behind all these laws, we currently consider them immoral. Moreover, it could happen that some behaviors that we accept today are immoral in the future.

 

Facing a bribery case is another example. In the deliberation process we think first of the business; later, legally, and only on a third level will be the apprehension that it is agreeing to pay a bribe. This could be legal, but not necessarily ethical.

 

Every moral decision is preceded by an evaluation of the reasons for the different courses of action. If deliberating reasons is necessary to make "good decisions," then must we learn about ethics in order to be morally better? In a sense Aristotle believed that ethics is related to learning, as already stated. Therefore, let's see what the ethics of Aristotle's on virtues says.

 

Ethics of virtues

 

In his great book "Nicomachean Ethics", Aristotle says that "we study ethics not to know what virtue is, but to be good." But studying ethics from a theoretical perspective does not necessarily make us better. In fact, someone with multiple PhDs in ethics will not necessarily be better.

 

 

Here Aristotle is inviting us to study ethics from a practical perspective. For this he asks himself: how do we become good home builders? "Very simple", he replies, "we become good house builders, building houses." Experience is essential to learn a trade. The same thing happens with ethics. According to Aristotle, by practicing justice we make ourselves more just and by practicing honesty, we make ourselves more honest. The practice of all the virtues brings us closer to a kind of optimal balance that is virtuous behavior.

 

Now, this process to achieve virtue has a certain peculiarity. Aristotle says that all virtues have an excess or a defect, that is, the virtues are like a pendulum that oscillates from the extremes towards a point at rest. For example, studying the virtue of courage, which is at the midpoint of equilibrium, one realizes that at one extreme there is "the one who throws himself into all dangers, the reckless one" and at the other extreme is "the who runs away from everything and is afraid, the coward ”. Virtue is in the middle of these extremes.

 

The ethics of virtues focuses on the formation of moral character. Through experience we learn to be virtuous or good. This way of looking at ethics has several interesting assumptions. For the time being, Aristotle believes that man is a social animal. That is, there is no ethics without society. In other words, if you are born alone on an island, you will not have moral notions, because ethics is a social issue. Thus, the process of learning virtue occurs in a social context. Aristotle would say that in business terms, the organizational culture in your work influences your behavior. The family and how you were  brought up, too.

 

So if ethics is social, will different societies have different moral norms? The answer of the ethics of virtues would be yes. Different cultures or communities develop different ethical codes. Different companies, NGOs or state agencies also develop from  diverse cultures that are associated with a long process of ethical learning.

 

But what is really important in virtue ethics is that custom (the ƐƮOS), forges our character . In other words, we are not born virtuous, but we become virtuous by practice.}

 

What is legal is not necessarily ethical or moral. While the laws reflect moral norms, there are also amoral laws, and even some that have been immoral.

 

The ethics of virtues is based on practice. More than a theoretical approach, to know what virtues are, the important thing for Aristotle is to be virtuous, and for this, experience is required.

 

For Aristotle, man is a social animal, and therefore there is no ethics without society. This principle would accept that different societies have different moral standards.

 

BUT,

Is it acceptable to conceive that different cultures may have different ethical standards? Would it be the same then that atrocities were committed in neighboring societies if they are accepted as a society?

 

 

Kantian ethics

 Kantian ethics is a deontological ethical theory formulated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Developed as a product of enlightened rationalism, it is based on the position that the only intrinsic positive thing is goodwill; therefore an action can only be good if its maxim — the underlying principle — obeys the ethical law. Central to the Kantian construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which acts on all people, regardless of their interests or desires. Kant formulated it in various ways. The principle of its universality requires that, for an action to be permissible, it must be possible to apply it to all people without being contradictory. His formulation of humanity as an end in itself demands that humans are never treated as a mere means to an end, but an end in itself. The autonomy formulation concludes that rational agents are bound to the ethical law by their will, while Kant's concept of the Kingdom of Ends demands that people act as if the principles of their own actions, could be established a law for a kingdom.  Kant distinguished between perfect and imperfect duties. A perfect duty, like not lying, is always true; an imperfect one, such as donating to charity, can be made flexible and applied in a particular time and space. Kant believed that the progress of enlightened reason would lead to ethical progress.

 

The American philosopher Louis Pojman has cited Pietism as an influence in the development of Kantian ethics, while the political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau points to the contemporary debate between rationalism and empiricism and the influence of natural law. Other philosophers argue that Kant's parents and his teacher, Martin Knutzen, influenced his ethics. Those influenced by Kantian ethics include the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, the political philosopher John Rawls, and the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.

 

The German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel criticized Kant for not providing enough concrete details in his moral theory to affect decision-making and for denying human nature. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that ethics should attempt to describe how people behave and criticized Kant for being normative. John Stuart Mill argued that Kantian moral laws are justified on utilitarian principles. Similarly, Bertrand Russell pointed out that some actions cannot be shown to be illegal according to Kant's principles without appealing their consequences, which Kantian ethical deontology emphatically rejects. Michael Stocker has argued that acting out of duty can diminish other moral motivations such as friendship, while Marcia Baron has defended the theory by arguing that it does not. Michel Onfray maintains that the Kantian philosophy does not allow in any case the disobedience of duty, thus being compatible with the blind obedience of a genocide and Nazi soldier. The Catholic priest Servais Pinckaers considers that Christian ethics are more compatible with the ethics of virtues than with Kantian ethics. Alan Soble pointed out that Kant's ethical studies have not reached a universal morality, as "they are full of comparable absurdities" and that "it seems that he has not become more empathetic towards the human condition or that he has not progressed morally".