Ethics vs. Morals

whipitgood:

Wilderness restates what I originally believed to be the case (e.g. using hard drugs is not criminal or unethical, but I consider it to be immoral.)

    Maybe it's a semantics game, cause I really didn't try to bring up ethics.  I think ethics and morals are different, but how and to what degree, I think morals are more basic than ethics, yet, I'm personally not going to say I'm completely proficient in using and defining between the two.  I'm reading Geoffery Plauche dissertation at the moment and I find this:

    "It is fundamentally erroneous to assume that abstract ethical principles alone can 

determine the proper course of conduct for any particular individual. Such ethical 

rationalism fails to grasp that ethics is practical and concerned with particular and 

contingent facts – facts that abstract ethical principles cannot explicitly capture. 

Such facts are crucial to determining what ought to be done. Thus, contrary to 

much modern and contemporary ethics, not all morally proper conduct need be 

something everybody should do."

 

     I think ethics are more socially recognized if I go by this definition.  Morals are more individually concerned and morals therefore are more universal and the ultimate moral question is beyond ethics cause that's dealing with 'What is good for human nature?' or 'What is good for the nature of a maple tree?' or even to such questions that are sometimes answerable 'What is good for the nature of all biological life?" and 'What is good for the nature of the universe as is?'.  These are questions that fall in line with Aristotle's thinking.  Natural Law which has particulars such as the nature of humans or the nature of a river, etc...

     More quotes that might help:

    "Flourishing as the ultimate good must be understood in a biocentric context. It is both a way of living and, because flourishing is more than mere survival, a way of living. As Philippa Foot points out: ‘The structure of the derivation is the same whether we derive an evaluation of the roots of a particular tree or the action of a particular human being. The meaning of the words 'good' and 'bad' is not different when used in features of plants on the one hand and humans on the other, but is rather the same applied, in judgments of natural goodness and defect, in the case of all living things.’” (p. 30)

    “For Aristotle, the good is ‘that at which all things aim.’ This is a universal conceptual truth. But he also recognized that the good is different for different things. The natural end of one species is different from that of another.  The natural end or good for a particular profession or pursuit will be different from that of another.  Even at the individual level Aristotle recognizes important differences from one person to another. One specific manifestation of this lies in his discussion of his doctrine of the mean as it pertains to virtue. Virtue is right action, the mean between the two extremes of excess and deficiency (vices), relative to us.” (p. 32)

     

Even though I consider myself to be a layman in these deep philosophical subjects, I'd like to contribute with the following viewpoint:

- "Moral" refers to personal issues which may affect only the person who analyses the fact - for instance, to smoke in one's own property or not, whereas "Ethics" encompasses one's actions and their consequences upon others - e.g. to steal property or to commit some kind of aggression or threat.

Thus from a libertarian perspective, "moral" would be related with strictly individual choices while "ethics" would involve anything  which challenges the non-aggression principle.

In this context, "moral" cannot be enforced by law, but "ethics" might be agreed upon by contract and enforced accordingly within a libertarian environment.

Did I get it right ?

Thanks & regards,

R. Halevy - Rio de Janeiro

nirgrahamUK:

i vote with Juan, ethics and morals are synonymous, though because people often feel personal prefences strongly, and using moral language is attractive because it has moral force (should;shouldnt) people often mistake preferences for moral rules and they consciously or unconsciously muddy the water by saying 'being rude to someone is immoral' 'telling a falsehood is immoral;

 well, no.... if one insists on such a practice one should at least start to make a (false) distinction between objective universal ethics, and a personal/private ethics. but it should be clear that the latter hardly deserves the label ethics, as it is just personal preference and bias.

    It is a definition of virtue which comes from the individual.  It is contextual to define what is vice or virtue.  Being rude could be a virtue, for instance I would find sarcasm towards Obama to his face right now would go a long way for me.  Yet to be rude to somebody that has done nothing to you would be a vice.  A defect in the relationship that the person might be willing to sacrifice or may find to be actually working against him or her being rude to people that have done nothing to the person.

    Being moral is a virtuous event.  Morality or what is good and can be a valuation process.  It might not be if there is conflict.  I value or prefer not to pay my taxes, but I value my current situation to not change (don't want to go to jail).  So I'm going against (thus conflict) between what I really value (no taxes) and what I find to be moral (not supporting the State).  If my values and morals all line up, then it becomes more difficult, near, maybe impossible to distinguish between the two.  And if my values, morals, and law all line up, then it becomes difficult, near, maybe impossible, to distinguish between the three.  Of course each of "lining up" occurrences are contextual.  I value not murdering, I find this to be moral (a virtue to not murder), and it is against the law.  All three line up so not murdering is value, is moral, is law. 

Halevy:

Even though I consider myself to be a layman in these deep philosophical subjects, I'd like to contribute with the following viewpoint:

- "Moral" refers to personal issues which may affect only the person who analyses the fact - for instance, to smoke in one's own property or not, whereas "Ethics" encompasses one's actions and their consequences upon others - e.g. to steal property or to commit some kind of aggression or threat.

Thus from a libertarian perspective, "moral" would be related with strictly individual choices while "ethics" would involve anything  which challenges the non-aggression principle.

In this context, "moral" cannot be enforced by law, but "ethics" might be agreed upon by contract and enforced accordingly within a libertarian environment.

Did I get it right ?

Thanks & regards,

R. Halevy - Rio de Janeiro

    That's how I'm inclined to view this.  I agree.  I don't think I could have said it better myself.  Thanks.

     And if the morals, ethics, and law line up (touch the sweet spot; anybody that has played baseball or tennis or basketball, etc... might know what I mean here) then the law is ethic is moral to a particular individual quite possibly.  And what that law is, is also ethical, is moral, and is the preference (value) of that person.  No difference.  Doesn't necessarily have to be a question of no difference, for sometimes the law, ethic, morality, and value may not line-up and thus it could be good or bad for the individual.

Thanks again. 

[the sweet spot can also mean harmony(ize), the beauty in the event, etc...]

you seem to have started using the language of Virtue Ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics  

this is a case in point. it should be fairly obvious that it is merely a confusion/conflation of subjective preferences that might concern general universal things (or not) dressed up in properly moral terms.

 

@ Wilderness,

Thanks for your kind words...

My analysis of the subject is rather intuitive, but for my personal "use" it has obtained quite consistent results.

As you wrote, the ideal situation would be when the individual values match the laws of the "society" (if such thing does exist...), however I'm quite pessimistic about the actual possibilities of this event - except in case of an "atomized" social organization where individuals voluntarily associate and secede from.

I've been reading quite a lot on Libertarianism & Austrian economics @ Mises.org for ca. 5 years, and my worldview has significantly changed since then, however I haven't been able yet to reconcile 100% the Rothbardian concept, i.e. to envisage a "society" fully detached from moral (and therefore personal) restrain.

IMHO the average man needs a higher source to answer to basic questions - such as "what's right vs. wrong", some kind of foundation that cannot be totally granted by reason.

In my case, I'm able to find some missing answers in my faith, and I don't try to convert others nor bother to boast on a suppposed "superiority" of my faith with respect to others (if someone asks me, I'm glad to explain the fundamentals, and why it looks consistent to me) but I'm also fully aware on the negative outcomes of misdirected faith throughout the world...

Regards from Rio,

R. Halevy.

Halevy:

I've been reading quite a lot on Libertarianism & Austrian economics @ Mises.org for ca. 5 years, and my worldview has significantly changed since then, however I haven't been able yet to reconcile 100% the Rothbardian concept, i.e. to envisage a "society" fully detached from moral (and therefore personal) restrain.

What do you mean to envisage a "society" fully detached....?  In the libertarian society I don't see how an individual's morals need be detached for as long as those morals are not being coerced upon another isn't that a libertarian society?  Now if you mean will it ever happen?  I don't have that answer, but if you mean otherwise please explain.

(I have faith too, and haven't found any conflict with this and non-coercion.)

nirgrahamUK:

you seem to have started using the language of Virtue Ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics  

this is a case in point. it should be fairly obvious that it is merely a confusion/conflation of subjective preferences that might concern general universal things (or not) dressed up in properly moral terms.

    I browsed the "Virtue Ethics" wiki, and it seems on the surface of it, that is something I've been trying to explain for some time now.   Human flourishing/happiness [eudaimonia] and quality [arete] have to do with the inalienable right pursuit of happiness.

    I'm not quite sure what your driving at after, "it should be fairly obvious...".  I've re-read it few times and maybe you could explain.

    If I were to guess, my comment would be:  The subjective preferences can match universal things hinged on free choice.  But I'm only guessing what you mean here.

Perhaps I wasn't objective enough in my statement.

What I've tried to say is that I wouldn't feel quite comfortable in a 100% Rothbardian environment whenever facing situations where my personal "moral" beliefs could impell me towards transgressing the NAP such as, for instance:

"My" faith code states that "you should put no stumbling block ahead of the blind" (meaning: not to place, and also the obligation to remove, obstacles that could induce a fellow man to suffer imminent risk) - well-known example: should I see a fellow man taking heavy drugs, I'd be obliged to respectfully rebuke him, teach him the "right ways" and help him out of the life-risk situation - based upon the moral code I endorse.

In a libertarian society, I would require to "have my HD formatted" to accept all potential moral conflict situations which might arise, even those deemed most critical, in order not to transgress the NAP.

That's, basically, what I meant...

 

Halevy:

Perhaps I wasn't objective enough in my statement.

What I've tried to say is that I wouldn't feel quite comfortable in a 100% Rothbardian environment whenever facing situations where my personal "moral" beliefs could impell me towards transgressing the NAP such as, for instance:

"My" faith code states that "you should put no stumbling block ahead of the blind" (meaning: not to place, and also the obligation to remove, obstacles that could induce a fellow man to suffer imminent risk) - well-known example: should I see a fellow man taking heavy drugs, I'd be obliged to respectfully rebuke him, teach him the "right ways" and help him out of the life-risk situation - based upon the moral code I endorse.

In a libertarian society, I would require to "have my HD formatted" to accept all potential moral conflict situations which might arise, even those deemed most critical, in order not to transgress the NAP.

That's, basically, what I meant...

    How would you coerce the blind?  It looks like you would be helping them.  Unless you mean you want to help them even against their own choice/free-will.  I would have them sign a contract ahead of time before their treatment that as long as you are providing treatment that gets them off drugs no matter what they say they have to stay in treatment.  I know during the treatment process almost any person coming off drugs would probably have moments in which they want everybody to leave them alone.  That's part of the treatment and the weaning process.  Is that what you mean?  

     If you rebuke the person, meaning, you speak out against him/her, I wouldn't see a problem with that as long as you are not coercing or forcing yourself upon that person.

    I apologize for my persistence.  I'm not being rhetorical at all.  I'm seriously trying and thus curious to find out what you mean.

@ Wilderness,

"The blind", in addition to its literal meaning, refers to those who can't see - or don't fully understand - the risk they're facing.

This includes the positive obligation to rescue the endangered fellow, even in case he does not consciously want to be rescued (you may wish to check a recent thread in Mises Forum on this subject).

If I understood correctly from Rothbard's readings, the libertarian worldview precludes positive obligations, and exactly here resides the main source of conflict between the libertarian and religious ways of thinking.

In summary, after my Mises.org study, I had no difficulties in embracing the free market concept, understanding that government = evil, tax = theft & most of the valuable libertarian ideas, but the conflict between the positive obligations commanded by faith vs. the non-intervention axiom seems to remain unsolved to me.

P/S: no apologies required at all !! I understand your intention to clarify things - I'm no scholar anyway - LOL!!

 

whipitgood:

Seems like a semantics game to me. Which is it?

Not so much a game, but the fact that the word 'morals' (and 'ethics') have a couple of different meanings attached to them ?

Take for instance "Humans are moral agents". That means humans are free to choose between good and evil. That definitely does not mean "Humans are good". "Moral agent" is a technical term used in philosophical investigations about good and bad actions.

However, one of the accepted uses of the word "moral" seem to be "right". For instance, according to some people prostitution is immoral - is not the right thing to do. But of course prostitution violates no rights and is a free contract. And meddling with people who engage in free contracts is not the right thing to do...

Also, morals/ethics deal with interpersonal issues. On the other hand if somebody wants to drink whiskey or take any other drug, that's a personal issue. You may believe that drugs are not good for his health or for his 'flourishing' as a human being, but that's more your opinion than fact.

I don't think there's a category for actions you think should be universally condemned but don't entail rights violations.

eudaimonia is utilitarianism by another name, and quality are just statements of preference ; pretending that either are the same as natural law, based on property, to avoid agent conflict over scarce goods, is simply wrong.

Juan:

I don't think there's a category for actions you think should be universally condemned but don't entail rights violations.

how about Bigotric Actions (from the word, bigotry)

how about Bigotric Actions (from the word, bigotry)

. Ha! That made me laugh out loud =]

nirgrahamUK:

eudaimonia is utilitarianism by another name, and quality are just statements of preference ; pretending that either are the same as natural law, based on property, to avoid agent conflict over scarce goods, is simply wrong.

I'm sorry, but this statement is false. Virtue ethics may be a form of consequentialism, but it is not utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is only one form of consequentialism, usually with collectivist connotations ("the greatest good for the greatest number"). Strictly speaking, virtue ethics falls outside of the traditional deontology vs. utilitarianism gap (or it could be said to bridge it). And deontology vs. utilitarianism is indeed a false dillema in meta-ethical philosophy.

Furthermore, the notion of "natural law" is in fact heavily intertwined with Aristotileanism. Rothbard's main citation for "natural law" is Thomas Aquinas, who borrowed heavily from Aristotle in the attempt to fuse it with Christianity (in this effort, he failed in my view, but that's another question).

question difference between consequentialist tradition that concerns itself with measuring pleasure and arrives at utilitarianism (Mills , Bentham etc)

and that between consequentialist tradition that concerns itself with measuring happiness and gets something different. (Aristotle)

(Note: Damnit, I accidentally wrote over your post instead of replying to it).

To answer your statement about happiness that I accidentally completely wrote over:

The Aristotilean notion of "happiness" is not the same thing as how the term "happiness" is normally used. It does not refer to pleasure or a mere positive psychological state of experience. I personally dislike the appeal to happiness for precisely this reason, since what's actually invoked is "flourishing" (particularly long-term vs. short term), not the psychological definition of "happiness". The use of the term "happiness" in this context is in some sense independant of psychological states - it refers to what actually benefits you, not a mere sensation of pleasure or short-term appeasement. Also, in both traditional deontology and utilitarianism, there is an assumed gap between morality and self-interest, while virtue ethics (which is a form of egoism) bridges that gap.

well, the more 'sophisticated' utilitarians distinguish the 'pleasures' and they end up with your same 'happiness' /psychological states.

I dont see how one can bridge a gap, if one of ones foundations is beyond repair, i.e. the utilitarian side.

nirgrahamUK:

well, the more 'sophisticated' utilitarians distinguish the 'pleasures' and they end up with your same 'happiness' /psychological states.

I dont see how one can bridge a gap, if one of ones foundations is beyond repair, i.e. the utilitarian side.

Balancing long-term vs. short-term self-interest is not hedonism (which is what utilitarianism often devolves into). Virtue ethics does not distinguish between pleasures - it does not use pleasure as a criteria at all. That's why it is highly misleading to lump it in with utilitarianism, which tends to be based on a pleasure/pain principle.

Again, there is no such utilitarian foundation. I think you are partially misunderstanding what utilitarianism is (as in: anything that's not explicitly deontological is being thrown in with utilitarianism, which is fallacious).