This is a trend I have been seeing lately even among my fellow anarchist types. I think a clarification within our imaginery community need's to be made on which terminology best fit's the role of describing whether a choice of action is the correct path to take or the wrong one. I'm a firm believer in that it is our language that gives way to corruption through unclear rationalism.
First to ground this topic in a logical manner, we have to bring up the term's and their etymology . The root word for both has to be used to give a pseudo-definitive meaning behind them, and how they are perceived when spoken. The root for ethical is the Greek "ethos," meaning "character." The root for Moral is Latin "mos," meaning "custom." Now these are clearly left open to interpretation as neither of these languages were as definitive as the modern Germanic languages we are using to describe them.
Ethics were traditionally the methodology by which logic is used to establish right from action's that are not right. Right as in preservation of Right's as they were considered at that time.
Morals are the usage of defined right and wrong typically based on public perception and emotional outlines. Which directly implies a social boundry, and a thought of being a part of something.
As you can see from the way they are defined in modern times the push to make both terms to mean for the good of the group, society, and collective whole. However when the use of one word over the other is used, the connotation's implied are vastly different.
Examples:
He was an ethical man.
He was a moral man.
As a typical person reading this, one would gather the opinion of a justice and fair person from the first. The second example dennotes connotation's of being morally reposnsible for his fellow man within society. One states that he treated everyone as equals, and lived by principles. The other gives the impression of a man bound by guilt of obligation to responsibility for other's.
Now this is not a typical topic in these forum's, but after seeing curious attempt's at moral justification to blame citizens of a country for the acts of aggression committed by the Government of a arbitrary region it needed clarification.
The only response I have to offer any other person whom decides to blame me for action's of the Government, is that as an Individual, I can not presume to control what the statist people do. There are no rational arguments that define their action's. There is only clear disregard for their own safety, and lack of any real ethical structure involved. Morality is meager and weak attempt at trying to replace ethical principles of any one person. More often than not, Morals are preached about and Ethics are principles that are lived by.
I have many arguments against morality, and it's usage as justification. I have enough argument's on this topic that even invalidates Justification and Justice itself on ground's of moral emotive reasoning.
"The world is cold, ugly, and often violent place. The best that you can do is prepare yourself to handle the challenges that lie ahead, and remain grounded in your principles." SFC Henning.
(Enjoy my poor grammar and spelling error's. I'm an Engineer, and I reject Latin grammar rules on my Germanic language.)
There's a certain nobility to seeking out clarity in language, but the venture can also be foolhardy, particularly where a formal language is sought. I don't deny that there can be a science of morals, as it were, and I'm not suggesting that formal language should be fully abandoned. Shared understanding though formal definitions is a noble cause that science seeks. I just think that this goal must always be subservient to the more practical goal of seeking a common language with shared meanings, which may be, for example, more situational than eduring.
I've often seen ethics defined in terms of prudential or practical concerns, while morality is defined in terms of norms and social interaction, so that is where my understanding is at the moment. Personally, I think that ethics and morality are inextricably linked because happiness must most typically be defined socially with respect for other people, and because respect for others must be defined individually with regard to happiness. http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24094.aspx Perhaps more on that later . . .
Anyway, you inspired the following post,
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24251.aspx
thank you :)
I define morals as those actions, which are objectively legitimate or illegitimate. Ethics are just social norms, preferences, cultural values etc... Anything "bellow" so to speak.
Again, that's how I use these words myself.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Synopsis of the difference between ethical and moral discourse, from James Gordon Finlayson, Habermas: A Very Short Introduction.
Ethics
Morality
Basic concept
good/bad
right/wrong
Basic unit
values
norms
Basic question
What is good for me or for us?
What is just?
Validity
relative and conditional
absolute and unconditional
Type of theory
prudential, teleological
deontological
Aims
advice; judgment; preference ranking
establishing valid norms
To this I would add:
Principle
Individuation
Liberalization
One should respect oneself as one who should actively seek happiness.
One should respect every other as one who should actively seek happiness.
Every person should respect every person as one who should actively seek happiness.
See more . . .
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24094.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24096.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24214.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24111.aspx
I would add . . .
^ that's awesome.
I'm with MaikU, except I'd add that I don't consider objective (il)legitimacy to exist. My distinction between morality and ethics is as follows: morality is negative in the sense that it concerns things which (IMO) one must never do; ethics is positive in the sense that it concerns things which (again IMO) are good for one to do. In this vein, morality concerns things which cause harm if done, while ethics concerns things which don't cause harm if not done.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: My distinction between morality and ethics is as follows: morality is negative in the sense that it concerns things which (IMO) one must never do; ethics is positive in the sense that it concerns things which (again IMO) are good for one to do. In this vein, morality concerns things which cause harm if done, while ethics concerns things which don't cause harm if not done.
That reminds me of Isaiah Berlin's notion of positive and negative freedom, which Rothbard critiques in The Ethics of Liberty, Ch. 27. http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyseven.asp
So I suppose we could further add to the grid :)
Freedom
Positive
Negative
Although I haven't read The Ethics of Liberty, I believe I can anticipate Rothbard's critique - namely, that "positive freedom" and "negative freedom" contradict one another. So to define "freedom" in such a way as to make both "positive" and "negative" applicable as adjectives is to engage in direct equivocation.
Anyway, you inspired the following post, http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24251.aspx thank you :)
You are welcome. My entire goal was to open this discussion to promote a clarity of the terminology we are using. Word's are merely tool's we have developed for communication and to conveigh thought's in a clear and concise manner that all can understand. This is why I'm firmly in the belief that it's something that should be held in a high standard of definitive clarity of the concept's involved. The only way our Individual messages can be promoted and shared is through this principled approach in my point of view.
Our Statist opponent's are firmly grounded in the usage of Hegelian Dialectic's, and Orwellian Doublespeak. This is the difficulty that I have seen when we as Individual's have gone out to share our message with the rest of the world. By allowing the collectivist to pollute the message by muttling the language we use, they have promoted their message of Moral Relativism through the confusion offered by this lack of clarity.
Autolykos: I'm with MaikU, except I'd add that I don't consider objective (il)legitimacy to exist. My distinction between morality and ethics is as follows: morality is negative in the sense that it concerns things which (IMO) one must never do; ethics is positive in the sense that it concerns things which (again IMO) are good for one to do. In this vein, morality concerns things which cause harm if done, while ethics concerns things which don't cause harm if not done.
I agree, just worded it poorly myself :)