A Brief Talk About "ethic" and "moral"

[Shuixiang Weibian] When discussing philosophy with my classmates, I talked about the difference between the English words "ethic" and "moral". Out of curiosity, I checked it out a little, but there are no standard answers.

Looking at its etymology, "ethics" comes from the ancient Greek "ἦθος, ethos", and "morals" comes from the Latin "mos", both referring to customs. Even in modern times, there is no big difference, and the two groups of concepts are often used interchangeably, such as "ethics", also known as "moral philosophy" .

Are those two words completely equivalent? Do a random search and find many people explaining the similarities and differences between the two words. Here are just two for comparison.

In the "Demystified" column of the online "Encyclopedia Britannica", there is an article with a simplified explanation . The author believes that it is generally safe to use the two words interchangeably, with only a few occasional distinctions in academic, judicial or religious occasions. In any case, both sets of concepts are particularly concerned with good and evil. The author points out that "morality" refers to the standards of good and evil held by individuals, while "ethics" refers to the prevailing standards of good and evil in a specific group or situation. [1] If the group you are in acquiesced to the singer to seduce girls, but you are very opposed to it, then your "morality" will conflict with the "ethics" around you.

Although the two words are almost the same in most cases, people in certain fields also have preferences in choosing words. For example, Westerners tend to think of Christianity from the word "morality", because "moral theology" is a prominent study in the Holy See, and the rules of business or medical law are commonly referred to as "ethics". Therefore, "moral" is more transcendent and "ethic" is close to the secular.

But after all, the word "strong" is like a pattern on the sand. The author believes that ethicists may wish to define a new definition according to their own meaning.

In addition, The Conversation, an online media focusing on academic information, also published an article in which two professors of research ethics discussed the similarities and differences between the two groups of concepts. Unexpectedly, the argument of this article is completely different from the previous one.

The two authors believe that "ethics" is a personal judgment and only considers oneself, so ten people can have ten sets of "ethics", while "morals" are group norms, which must be taken into account. It needs to be based on dialogue.

The author also provides examples. If I want to decide the career I want to join at this moment, it can be divided into two aspects: "ethical" and "moral". At the "ethical" level, I will consider my talents, whether I want to balance work and life, etc. At the "moral" level, I will consider whether the chosen career can benefit the family and even the group to which I belong. [2] If different considerations conflict with each other, there is a dilemma. When I fall into "ethical dilemma," it's up to me to decide. When I fall into "moral dilemma," maybe I'm about to talk to someone.

It can be seen by example that when the two authors understand the difference between "ethics" and "morals", they seem to value your scope of consideration more than the subject of judgment. If I think it is better to leave Hong Kong as soon as possible, there is no difference between "ethical" and "moral" in this judgment. And whether I only consider my future life, or whether I also consider my elderly parents who cannot travel far, or even my fellow travelers who are still living in the country, affects my judgment as to whether it is “ethics” or “morals”.

However, based on the supplements of the two authors at the end of the article, they seem to think that the distinction between the two groups of concepts is the subject of judgment, that is, "ethics" is an individual decision, and "morals" is a group decision. [3] If this is the case, only I think it is better to leave Hong Kong as soon as possible, this is "ethics", and everyone feels that they should leave as soon as possible if they are able, then this is "morals". It seems that the two authors have not succeeded in clarifying the distinction between the two groups of concepts, and the descriptions have become increasingly confusing.

Or maybe there is no strict distinction between "ethic" and "moral", and it seems strange to force a solution.

[1] “Many people think of morality as something that's personal and normative, whereas ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting.”

[2] “The moral dimension is added when I recognise my decision affects others – my family, the community in which I live – in terms of being able to serve others, rather than simply earn an income. Thus, I widen my own perspective and discuss with those around me how we should decide.”

[3] “Each may be seen by different observers as a dilemma either for the individual to make a decision about (an ethical dilemma), or for a society to make a decision about (a moral dilemma).”