Morals Vs. Ethics

[DocOB]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Okay. What is the difference between morals and ethics, more specifically as they pertain to our profession? Is there indeed a difference at all? I thought that I knew, but after doing a little research, I am extremely confused.

My thoughts were that morals were the concrete rights vs. wrongs that are for the most part universal. For example, do not lie cheat or steal.

I then thought that ethics were simply more opinional matters such as let's say, being in favor of physician assisted suicide. This would be morally wrong, but perhaps ethically right if you did indeed believe it to be.

Am I on the right track here, because I've seen so many definitions that my head is spinning? HELP!!!!!

 

[Funky]

Okay. What is the difference between morals and ethics, more specifically as they pertain to our profession? Is there indeed a difference at all? I thought that I knew, but after doing a little research, I am extremely confused.

My thoughts were that morals were the concrete rights vs. wrongs that are for the most part universal. For example, do not lie cheat or steal.

I then thought that ethics were simply more opinional matters such as let's say, being in favor of physician assisted suicide. This would be morally wrong, but perhaps ethically right if you did indeed believe it to be.

Am I on the right track here, because I've seen so many definitions that my head is spinning? HELP!!!!!

morals - principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct
ethics - a system of moral principles

i think they work interchangably according to dictionary.com

 

[Auron]

Okay. What is the difference between morals and ethics, more specifically as they pertain to our profession? Is there indeed a difference at all? I thought that I knew, but after doing a little research, I am extremely confused.

My thoughts were that morals were the concrete rights vs. wrongs that are for the most part universal. For example, do not lie cheat or steal.

I then thought that ethics were simply more opinional matters such as let's say, being in favor of physician assisted suicide. This would be morally wrong, but perhaps ethically right if you did indeed believe it to be.

Am I on the right track here, because I've seen so many definitions that my head is spinning? HELP!!!!!

Morals

Morals have a greater social element to values and tend to have a very broad acceptance. Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.

Dictionary.com defines morals as:
n : motivation based on ideas of right and wrong


Ethics

You can have professional ethics, but you seldom hear about professional morals. Ethics tend to be codified into a formal system or set of rules which are explicitly adopted by a group of people. Thus you have medical ethics. Ethics are thus internally defined and adopted, whilst morals tend to be externally imposed on other people.
If you accuse someone of being unethical, it is equivalent of calling them unprofessional and may well be taken as a significant insult and perceived more personally than if you called them immoral (which of course they may also not like).
Dictionary.com defines ethics as:
A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain"
The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.

 

[Finian]

Morals are based on Biblical/religious concepts while ethics are a more secular approach to decision making. Catholics believe abortion is wrong because they believe the soul exists at the moment of conception. Atheists and others don't buy that argument and favor women's choice.

Morality and ethics are frequently interchanged and it can be confusing.

 

[Quix]

The terms are not synonymous. For instance, something can be immoral, but can be ethical. Morality is generally a question of good/evil; ethics generally concerns itself with right/wrong. Ethics tends to involve more systematized belief sets and an encompassing methodology (i.e., how we arrive at a decision about why something is right or wrong).

In the U.S., ethical standards involve both personal ethics (your particular moral system and ethical practices) as well as professional ethics (the code of conduct established by the AMA).

EDIT:

Wow, that was inaccurate, Finian.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

The terms are not synonymous. For instance, something can be immoral, but can be ethical. Morality is generally a question of good/evil; ethics generally concerns itself with right/wrong. Ethics tends to involve more systematized belief sets and an encompassing methodology (i.e., how we arrive at a decision about why something is right or wrong).

In the U.S., ethical standards involve both personal ethics (your particular moral system and ethical practices) as well as professional ethics (the code of conduct established by the AMA).

EDIT:

Wow, that was inaccurate, Finian.

agree here

 

[Funky]

if something is immoral but ethical, can something be moral and unethical? Or does that case never apply? Something immoral but ethical seems like a Catch-22.

 

[Quix]

if something is immoral but ethical, can something be moral and unethical? Or does that case never apply? Something immoral but ethical seems like a Catch-22.

Scrubs actually offers an example of this: JD sees a patient's boyfriend, who has contracted an STD by sleeping with *a lot* of women behind her back. JD wants to tell her the truth about her boyfriend (considering gonorrhea is on the mild end of the spectrum of possible outcomes), which would be moral, but he is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, which would make disclosure unethical.

EDIT:

And Catch-22 is the subtitle of medicine. See: Lawsuits, Malingering in psychiatry, EMTALA, third-party billing, etc., etc.

 

[Pharm47]

if something is immoral but ethical, can something be moral and unethical? Or does that case never apply? Something immoral but ethical seems like a Catch-22.

I realize I'm trespassing here...but this might be an example of moral and unethical.

Say you are a pharmacist (my bias🙂) working in a rural location. You consider yourself pro-life and thus morally object to dispensing RU-486 (or even Plan B maybe). A patient comes in with a prescription - you are ethically responsible for filling that script. Pharmacy ethics say the patient has a right to that medication. Since you are out in BFE, they have no way of obtaining those meds without you. Here you could do something you consider moral, but your profession considers unethical, and refuse to fill.

 

[epigastric]

Morals are based on Biblical/religious concepts while ethics are a more secular approach to decision making. Catholics believe abortion is wrong because they believe the soul exists at the moment of conception. Atheists and others don't buy that argument and favor women's choice.

Morality and ethics are frequently interchanged and it can be confusing.

Going to third the sweeping misdefinition of morals as exclusively Christian. And a special bonus 😱 for the brand-new look at the abortion debate.

 

[Funky]

I realize I'm trespassing here...but this might be an example of moral and unethical.

Say you are a pharmacist (my bias🙂) working in a rural location. You consider yourself pro-life and thus morally object to dispensing RU-486 (or even Plan B maybe). A patient comes in with a prescription - you are ethically responsible for filling that script. Pharmacy ethics say the patient has a right to that medication. Since you are out in BFE, they have no way of obtaining those meds without you. Here you could do something you consider moral, but your profession considers unethical, and refuse to fill.

with this example, morals are personal while ethics are occupational

 

[Funky]

Scrubs actually offers an example of this: JD sees a patient's boyfriend, who has contracted an STD by sleeping with *a lot* of women behind her back. JD wants to tell her the truth about her boyfriend (considering gonorrhea is on the mild end of the spectrum of possible outcomes), which would be moral, but he is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, which would make disclosure unethical.

EDIT:

And Catch-22 is the subtitle of medicine. See: Lawsuits, Malingering in psychiatry, EMTALA, third-party billing, etc., etc.

your example is rewarded double the credibility because it's from scrubs. :thumbsup:

 

[graysanatomy]

looks like someone has been reading the tufts interview feedback. i got asked this question. definitely a toughie.

 

[Quix]

looks like someone has been reading the tufts interview feedback. i got asked this question. definitely a toughie.

Only if you weren't a philosophy major... 😉

 

[baylormed]

Moral principles are a component of ethics, in a way.

Ethics is a term for various ways of understanding/thinking about morality. Morality in itself refers to concepts of wrong and right conduct that are shared by a large group and that form some sort of consensus.

 

[Koala 33]

We actually just discussed this in one of my theology classes. 🙂

Morals are more personal. They are the beliefs that one has regarding how he/she should act. Ethics seem to deal more with large groups of people, or society. Morals don't necessarily have to be good - it could be in someone's morals to kill others, for instance. Ethics deal more with deciding what is good and what is not good. So, going by the past example, it could be in someone's morals to kill others, but our society would deem this as ethically unacceptable.

 

[riceman04]

agree here

I second that

 

[TMP-SMX]

We actually just discussed this in one of my theology classes. 🙂

Morals are more personal. They are the beliefs that one has regarding how he/she should act. Ethics seem to deal more with large groups of people, or society. Morals don't necessarily have to be good - it could be in someone's morals to kill others, for instance. Ethics deal more with deciding what is good and what is not good. So, going by the past example, it could be in someone's morals to kill others, but our society would deem this as ethically unacceptable.

I think you are confused. Morals are actions or behaviors that are avoided due to a group consensus on right and wrong. Ethics are personal in using their values in deciding between two courses of action that are both unattractive. Of course there can be a professional code of ethics that would be group oriented. Therefore, the personal aspect is not part of the definition. It's the values that work across a group of people that control the behaviors and beliefs of that group.

In essence:

Morality= right vs. wrong
Ethics= "wrong" vs. "wrong"

 

[Quix]

You guys seem to be inappropriately hung up on the "individual/social" question - the difference between morality and ethics is not one of numbers, it's in the kind of question asked.

 

[baylormed]

You guys seem to be inappropriately hung up on the "individual/social" question - the difference between morality and ethics is not one of numbers, it's in the kind of question asked.

Correct. 👍

 

[pennybridge]

Ethics= "wrong" vs. "wrong"

then how could something be considered "unethical?" If it is "right?"

 

[Quix]

To expand (a bit, don't be scared), "ethics" is an umbrella term that encompasses both metaethics and methodologies. Metaethics asks questions of relativism, emotivism, absolutism, etc. (i.e., questions like "Can we even know what "right" and "wrong" mean?") - at its heart, metaethics addresses the issue of whether a methodology exists that can produce objective assessment of the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of actions. Ethics proper assumes an absolutist stance (i.e., that the methodology described above does actually exist), and contained within it are methodologies like utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, natural law, casuistry, narrative ethics, care ethics, etc. (i.e., *methodological* approaches to answering the "what is right/wrong?" question) - being a utilitarian, for instance, does not bind you to a specific belief set, but it does constrict you to specific methodologies in deciding right and wrong. Specific belief sets (ethical and moral) contain statements such as "Action X is wrong."

Morality asks different questions (e.g., questions of good and evil, not right and wrong). It is entirely possible for actions to be good/right, good/wrong, evil/right, and evil/wrong.

 

[kevinp2]

To expand (a bit, don't be scared), "ethics" is an umbrella term that encompasses both metaethics and methodologies. Metaethics asks questions of relativism, emotivism, absolutism, etc. (i.e., questions like "Can we even know what "right" and "wrong" mean?") - at its heart, metaethics addresses the issue of whether a methodology exists that can produce objective assessment of the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of actions. Ethics proper assumes an absolutist stance (i.e., that the methodology described above does actually exist), and contained within it are methodologies like utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, natural law, casuistry, narrative ethics, care ethics, etc. (i.e., *methodological* approaches to answering the "what is right/wrong?" question) - being a utilitarian, for instance, does not bind you to a specific belief set, but it does constrict you to specific methodologies in deciding right and wrong. Specific belief sets (ethical and moral) contain statements such as "Action X is wrong."

Morality asks different questions (e.g., questions of good and evil, not right and wrong). It is entirely possible for actions to be good/right, good/wrong, evil/right, and evil/wrong.

Quix, I think the distinction you're making between good and right may depend on (what you're referring to as) the absolutist stance holding (in metaethical terms, being a realist rather than irrealist with respect to the moral good). Can you give an example of an action or an object that intuitively seems good & wrong or evil & right?

 

[Quix]

Quix, I think the distinction you're making between good and right may depend on (what you're referring to as) the absolutist stance holding (in metaethical terms, being a realist rather than irrealist with respect to the moral good). Can you give an example of an action or an object that intuitively seems good & wrong or evil & right?

The Scrubs example above addresses this directly - it would be good and wrong to violate confidentiality to the girlfriend, it would be evil and right to maintain the confidentiality of the cheating boyfriend. Now, this does raise further questions (e.g., what do "good" and "right" mean), but now we're getting into my lecture on virtue ethics.

Just as a thumbnail sketch, because Aristotelian virtue ethics is predicated on the character of the moral agent (which stems from the agent's telos), we must know what is "good" (a proper end for the agent) before we can determine what is "right" conduct (the best means of attaining that end).

 

[babaghannough]

looks like someone has been reading the tufts interview feedback. i got asked this question. definitely a toughie.

i was asked this question at tufts as well. my improv answer was that morals are what your gut feelings tell you are right or wrong and ethics are what people tell you are right or wrong. he seemed pleased with the answer so i was too. i realize now that i had barely scratched the surface.

 

[Quix]

i was asked this question at tufts as well. my improv answer was that morals are what your gut feelings tell you are right or wrong and ethics are what people tell you are right or wrong. he seemed pleased with the answer so i was too. i realize now that i had barely scratched the surface.

I have an MA in Philosophy, PhD in Medical Ethics, and have been teaching philosophy for four years. Don't sweat it. 😉

 

[baylormed]

😛

I have an MA in Philosophy, PhD in Medical Ethics, and have been teaching philosophy for four years. Don't sweat it. 😉

Nice. Philosophy and Ethics are so complicated. I'd rather retake Chemistry over and over than take another philosophy class.

Therefore people who actually like these subjects are special people to me.

 

[bones11]

From a philological perspective they pretty much mean the same thing: "mores" (from Latin) and "ethos" (Greek) both mean "custom" or "habit". But I guess there might be something to the point that "ethical is more of a society thing", since "ethos" is related to "ethnikos", where we get the word "ethnic" from.

 

[cagey]

without reading any of the other replies (late to class) I'll say that I always felt that morals were universal judgements of right and wrong, and ethics the appliaction of moral to specific professions, etc

 

[Quix]

From a philological perspective they pretty much mean the same thing: "mores" (from Latin) and "ethos" (Greek) both mean "custom" or "habit". But I guess there might be something to the point that "ethical is more of a society thing", since "ethos" is related to "ethnikos", where we get the word "ethnic" from.

Beware of linguistic reductionism; "cultural mores", for instance, refers to cultural expectations of behavior. Within philosophy, these have more specific and delineating definitions (akin to what "theory" means in common parlance versus "theory" in scientific parlance).

 

[Quix]

without reading any of the other replies (late to class) I'll say that I always felt that morals were universal judgements of right and wrong, and ethics the appliaction of moral to specific professions, etc

Read the rest of the thread.

 

[AppleStrudel]

Beware of linguistic reductionism; "cultural mores", for instance, refers to cultural expectations of behavior. Within philosophy, these have more specific and delineating definitions (akin to what "theory" means in common parlance versus "theory" in scientific parlance).

Quix,

No offense intended, i actually quite respect your ability to see things that are so mundane like the word theory and make a philosophical argument out of its various meanings. But somehow i wonder how you philospher types get by everyday life, pondering all these pedestrian words and matters that most people take for granted. Doesn't philosophy make life just a bit too complicated? How'll you survive med school spending time pondering all the subjective moral and ethical issues?

 

[Quix]

Quix,

No offense intended, i actually quite respect your ability to see things that are so mundane like the word theory and make a philosophical argument out of its various meanings. But somehow i wonder how you philospher types get by everyday life, pondering all these pedestrian words and matters that most people take for granted. Doesn't philosophy make life just a bit too complicated? How'll you survive med school spending time pondering all the subjective moral and ethical issues?

By limiting my philosophical waxing. 😉 I only get like this in philosophical discussions (like when I'm teaching), not when I'm talking to a patient, for instance. If someone comes to me with abdominal pain, I don't try to convince them of a dualistic split between mind and body. 😀

The "theory" reference was an allusion to the debate surrounding the "evolution versus creation" debate. I've come across more than one person who has said "Well, they're both theories", which is fine for a metaphysical discussion, but really breaks down if you try to discuss them per scientific criteria of "theory", which creationism demonstrably fails to meet.

And there's a difference between "challenging potentially wrong presuppositions about the world" and "making life complicated". 😉 It's usually not a question of "philosophers versus the rest of the world" - it tends to be more of "have any of us really thought through the mess of knee-jerk, myopic, and potentially conflicting assumptions we have made about the world?" I'll give you a case in point: one of my students last semester was a devout Christian and simultaneously a ethical relativist. She was upholding fundamentally contradictory principles, and had no idea how to respond when I asked her about that.