Morals vs. Ethics

I generally thought morals and ethics were interchangeable, and in some instances they are. But like rectangles and squares, it's only in certain circumstances. All squares are rectangles because they all have four 90° angles. Not all rectangles are squares because not all of them have four equal sides.

Morals are personal. Let's get that right straight out of the gate: Morals are PERSONAL. They're something you grow up learning, applying, sometimes changing because you find that one isn't as right as you thought. Your own sense of right and wrong are your morals. They may copy or follow someone else's morals, but they are yours. Morals are generally associated with organized religions, despite being personal.

Ethics are much more social. They are debated, refined, and applied over systems. Ethics may conflict directly with morals or work perfectly aside them. Ethics tend to develop over time and only end up really changing when they are found not to be practical.

This is really a big difference. Morals are personal, simple, and easily changeable. Ethics are social, complex, and difficult to change. The bigger difference is ethics can become laws much easier.

In order for a law to have some bearing, it has to at least pass general consent. A wide variety of morals by their nature disagree with one another because each moral identifies what is good by only a personal point of view. Say a local council is deciding whether to make fishing in the local streams legal or illegal. You can have morals go like this:

• Good: Fishing is relaxing
• Bad: Fishing kills animals
• Bad: Fishing wastes time
• Good: I like to eat fish
• Bad: Fishing is boring
• Good: Some fishing will get me away from the family

Ethics, on the other hand, tackle it from a different point of view:

• Good: It doesn't hurt other people
• Good: it doesn't encroach on others rights
• OK: It would have minor environmental impact
• Good: It could encourage business in the area
• Good: Licenses can be sold, generating revenue and reducing over-fishing

The ethics would say that fishing should be made legal. Is it snubbing those who think fishing is bad? No, because they decide for themselves that fishing is bad.

In my opinion, one of the more famous examples of recognizing morals vs. ethics comes from the Book of Matthew

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - Matthew 22:21, Christian bible

This has been interpreted many ways, not the least of which is "You can't say you don't have to pay taxes because of religious reasons." For me, it's puts morals and ethics is the spotlight as well.  A little back story for the quote, Jesus is approached and asked if people should pay taxes. The question was a trap because if he said no, they would turn him over for defying the government. His statement did more than just say "yes", however.

By ethical standards, paying the taxes was the right thing to do because it was the law. From a moral standard, you don't want to give up your money so you think it's a bad thing, thus it's immoral to impose taxes on you. Here's where the disconnect happens: Because you're attempting to apply your moral to someone else's behavior, it's no longer your moral; it is now an ethic, and the ethical thing to do would be to pay your taxes. In this way, Jesus was teaching that it was possible to be ethical and moral at the same time.

Where I've seen a lot of people improperly apply their morals is when dictating how other people should behave. Once you try to apply a moral standard to someone else, it's no longer your moral, it becomes part of an ethic. If there's an ethic in place already, your moral is automatically... I'm not sure what the right word for this is. Vetoed? Trumped? Ignored? In any case, it becomes unimportant.

In that vein, it's impossible to say someone is immoral. If they're doing something, they believe it is moral to do it. On the other hand, if someone is unethical, they're either rude or breaking the law. That sounds about right. Have fun!