For most people, the two are interchangeable. In anthropology, and some other social sciences, they have distinctly different definitions. Morals are the customs, rules, and social norms considered by a culture to be acceptable. In one culture the morals may be vastly different than another. Ethics are considered to be transcultural. It is the set of values which seem to be agreed to no matter what culture you poll. Basically, for all intents and purposes, without going into the theoretical aspects of it, it is the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Is it harmful, is it helpful?
Okay this is what I found from Refdesk.com and The Dictionary of Philosophy moral / non-moral Distinction between types of value, judgments, or propositions. Although a precise line is difficult to draw, there seems to be a genuine difference between universalizable moral concerns that impinge upon other people and merely personal matters of taste. For example: "Murder is wrong." is a moral assertion, but "This coffee is good." is a non-moral assertion. moral sense A putatively innate human faculty for distinguishing right from wrong. In the moral intuitionism of Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, the moral sense motivates proper conduct by enabling us to perceive the distinctive pleasure of moral rectitude. ethics Branch of philosophy concerned with the evaluation of human conduct. Philosophers commonly distinguish: descriptive ethics Branch of ethics that non-judgmentally examines the moral tenets of a particular society or tradition, analyzing the logical relations among them and observing the extent of their application in practice. normative ethics Branch of philosophical ethics concerned with developing theories that determine which human actions are right and which are wrong. It is useful to distinguish normative theories according to the way in which they derive moral value from duties or rights: deontological theories hold that actions are intrinsically right or wrong, while consequentialist theories evaluate actions by reference to their extrinsic outcomes. Virtue ethics theories locate the highest moral value in the development of persons. applied ethics Branch of ethics that considers the practical application of ethical principles to specific issues of social or personal concern, including medical ethics, professional ethics, and environmental ethics. Thus, applied ethics often tries to provide guidance on specific issues within the context of a consistent notion of the elements of a good life. meta-ethics Branch of philosophical ethics concerned with the meaning of moral propositions and the grounds upon which moral judgments are to be justified. Meta-ethical theories typically offer an account of moral language and its uses together with an explanation of the logical relations between assertions of fact and value. Now I contend that that this is all circular reasoning as we cannot find a meaningful difference, or universal absolute difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong are learned definitions inherent only in human thinking.
Now I contend that that this is all circular reasoning as we cannot find a meaningful difference, or universal absolute difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong are learned definitions inherent only in human thinking. Meagain True, in theory. In the real world, a child knows the difference.
Well Blackie I don't know about that.A child must be taught the difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong, or morals, change as a human being matures and ages, hopefully. A small child is mainly egocentric. Concerned only with his or herself. A small child finds nothing wrong with pushing a smaller child and taking their candy. Candy is good. I believe the only universal morals a small child would subsribe to are ones that are basic to their survival and pleasure...so in that sense you are right. But they will have no problem watching a weaker child die of starvation while they eat as they have no concept of another. They are self-centered.
I agree that there is definitely a stage of early development when that is true. My intended meaning was more the trusting, innocent charity of a child. They also go through a stage where they are very giving, and will share their toys etc. even with others they dislike. The pride they exude when doing this is very beautiful to see. Of course, this giving phase is soon beaten out of them by being forever taken advantage of. This is all regarding a typical child, as well, and in truth there is no such thing. I have met seniors who are still children at heart, some in a good way, and some in a bad way. To me it is the difference between childlike and childish, if you know what I mean.
my boyfriend and i were discussing this over dinner the other night. we were asking the question "how can we know for sure, what is good and what is bad?" in the simplest of terms. the only answer we can come up with is religion, it usually tells you what is good or bad. but, religion is created by us, correct? so we, humans, are creating these "good" and "bad", ethics. so we can not be sure what is good, and what is bad?
I have attempted to define morality in terms of how we as individuals are affected by our actions. Will the action always harm you? then that action is "functionaly immoral" the action is inhibiting your ability to function. Actions that are always beneficial, are therefore functionaly moral. The gray area for this view might arise in the field of medicine, with regards as to what medicines are premissible.
