Ethics, Legality and Morality - Which Is the Superior Standard?

[MineralMan]

Ethics, by my definition, defines what is right to do and wrong to do, based on social standards and philosophy.

Legality is an official definition of what is legal and illegal to do. It is a function of government to set those standards.

Morality defines what is good and what is evil, depending primarily on religious principles.

Those are my definitions, based on my opinion.

For me, ethics are the highest standard, since they are more universal and are not dependent on a religion or government. Ethics cross those boundaries and are based on what causes good and bad effects as they relate to others, generally.

Laws are an attempt to codify ethical behavior, but are generally incomplete and subject to interpretation by governments.

Morality is the narrowest of standards and is based on religious principles which may not be shared by all in any society.

As an example, I will use the institution of slavery. It has been permitted by law and by various religions at one time or another. I maintain that an ethical person would never enslave another person, and one who would enslave another person is not an ethical person. I believe that slavery is universally unethical.


Again, my opinion. Let's hear yours.

[Voltaire2]

1. Your separation of morality and ethics is wrong.

The terms can be used interchangeably.

Religion is just one method people have used to determine what is ethical behavior. For most religious believers ethics is whatever their gods say it is. If their gods tell them that they ought to slaughter all non-believers, that is what they should do, and doing so is "ethical.

[MineralMan]

2. I don't think so at all.

Non-believers also have ethics. Those ethics are not based on religious principles in any way, but on common social standards.

Ethics are about wrong and right actions.

Morality is based on good and evil standards.

As an example, the Roman Catholic Church considers contraception to be immoral. It has sought to enforce that moral standard through support of laws that affect everyone, rather than just its members. In the United States, contraception is not illegal. Most people also do not feel that using contraceptive methods is unethical. Other denominations of Christianity do not consider contraception to be immoral. And yet, one religious group calls it immoral and wishes to impose that moral judgment on everyone, regardless of their beliefs. I consider that to be unethical on the part of the RCC. The RCC may believe that it's moral code is ethical, but the RCC is wrong.

There is a great difference between ethics and morality.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I completely concur with your definition and also believe ethics

come first.

[Voltaire2]

4. Ok you can continue to misuse the terms

and think that somehow morality and ethics are separate, but the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with ethics disagrees. You should probably write a book setting them straight.

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The term ethics derives from Ancient Greek ἠθικός (ethikos), from ἦθος (ethos), meaning 'habit, custom'. The branch of philosophy axiology comprises the sub-branches of ethics and aesthetics, each concerned with values.[2]

Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

[MineralMan]

5. Thank you for your permission.

I will continue to define those terms as I understand them, and will provide examples where appropriate. Perhaps you can explain how slavery, when considered to be moral by religions and legal by law, is ethical. I look forward to that explanation from you.

Wikipedia is not the last word in such things, by the way. Citing Wikipedia is evidence of incomplete research.

[Voltaire2]

8. By your definition atheists are amoral or depend on religion for morality.

I reject that conception of morality as it "defines what is good and what is evil, depending primarily on religious principles. " I do not depend on religion or religious principles to inform me what is good or evil. In fact I reject many of the religious edicts on these issues. For example many religions have determined that homosexuality is evil. To put it bluntly: fuck that noise.

It is in fact insulting to all secular people to decree them lacking any moral sense independent of religion.

[MineralMan]

10. I do not use the words moral and immoral.

I use the words ethical and unethical, instead. I have a solid ethical compass and also apply the same ethics to my judgments of others' behavior. I leave morals to religion completely.

My ethics have a very simple basis that involves not causing harm to others. Every atheist I count as a friend applies the same basis to his or her ethical compass, as well. I have, of course, encountered people who do not have any such ethical compass. Some may be atheists, while others consider themselves to be moral, religious people. I do not maintain continuing relationships with such people.


I try, in everything I do, to cause no actual physical or emotional harm to others through my behavior. I find that covers just about every interaction I have. That ethical basis does not require any religious belief or even any laws to follow. It is based on not doing things that I would consider harmful if done to me, on any real level.

That does not mean that I am unwilling to cause offense in another person. Being offended is not being harmed. It does not mean that I will not try to prevent someone else from causing harm to another person, either. It just means that I will try not to cause harm to others, and my definition of harm is quite broad.

For example, I will not answer or use my cell phone while driving. While that probably would not cause harm to others, it certainly could, based on the number of vehicle accidents caused by inattention. I consider it unethical to use cell phones while driving. I will also observe speed limits and other traffic laws, because others are depending on me to drive safely and predictably, not because I think those speed limits and other traffic laws necessarily make sense.

I strive to maintain ethical behavior in all of my activities, not for fear of punishment from any source, but because unethical behavior causes harm to others.

[Voltaire2]

11. You've declared that the determination of what is good or evil is derived from religion.

That is both ridiculous and insulting.

I tried to help you out by letting you know that ethics and morality are not distinct, but you insist on declaring that they are. In doing so, and specifically by declaring that "good and evil" are only religious concepts, you you have by implication agreed with strident theists that, for example, atheists have "no moral compass". Seriously?

[MineralMan]

12. You declare that those words are not distinct and have the same meaning.

I say that is not correct and that they do mean different things.

We are, as they say, at an impasse, it seems.

[Rob H.]

15. Take it up with Merriam-Webster

Bold added for emphasis. This is literally their first definition for "moral."

moral
adjective | mor·al | ˈmȯr-əl , ˈmär-

Definition of moral

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : syn. ethical • moral judgments
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior • a moral poem
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior • took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment • a moral obligation
e : capable of right and wrong action • a moral agent

You see the words "good" or "evil" in there anywhere? I don't.

[tkmorris]

24. This entire thread should have ended right there

The OP attempts to make a distinction between Ethics and Morality, when it can be demonstrated quite clearly that society at large and those who dabble in such issues as a profession treat them as synonymous.

Therefore his argument, which I am sure seems elegant when sitting on the front porch alone musing at the passing clouds, completely falls apart the minute it makes contact with other people, who disagree with the assigned definitions. He would have done better to suggest that society could be better served if it DID make a distinction between the two terms, rather than trying to assert that because he does obviously everyone else does as well.

[Voltaire2]

16. Furthermore how exactly do religions determine

this "morality" you have, contrary to standard definitions, declared to be separate from "ethics"?

[MineralMan]

17. In a number of ways.

Religion does not determine my ethical compass at all. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has declared using contraception to be an immoral act. I do not consider it to be unethical to use contraception. In face, I consider the RCCs declaration to be unethical, since it causes harm to countless people.

In fact, I do not use the words moral and immoral at all to discuss such issues. If the largest Christian denomination can declare something that is harmful as moral, then I cannot use that word, since its definition has been corrupted. That religious organization has sought to and succeeded in making contraception illegal in many places, including the United States at one time. It acted unethically in doing so, while at the same time declaring its actions to be in defense of morality.

I maintain that the standard definitions are inaccurate and that ethics and morality have different meanings in actual use.

I am neither moral or immoral in my actions. I am either ethical or unethical. I strive to be ethical at all times. However, I have used contraceptive methods all my life, since I decided not to reproduce for ethical reasons. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, I have behaved immorally. Words are defined by their usage, not by dictionary definitions. Was my use of contraceptive methods immoral? I think not.

[Voltaire2]

20. Not the question asked.

You declared morality to be the subset of ethics determined by religion that defined good and evil.
I didn't ask you how you define good and evil I asked you how religion does that.

[MineralMan]

21. Religion does it incorrectly, it seems.

Based on history, anyhow.

So, I reject religious moral teachings for myself. In fact, I reject the word "moral" itself. I don't use it when describing my own ethical compass. I am, in short, arguing against the standard definitions of the words. Am I competent to do that? That's open to question. I imagine your answer would be that I am not.

[Voltaire2]

22. Ah back in the day you see the answer was

that religion transmitted the ethical wisdom of deities. It might do so imperfectly, but it was our only way of knowing right from wrong. There are plenty of people who still believe this horseshit.

These days religions are just crappy ethical systems. They have no special insight into right and wrong, good and evil.

Ceding the domain of "good and evil" to religion bestowes some special status to religions that they are entirely undeserving of, and more problematically declares that the non-religious cannot conceive of good and evil without using religion.

[MineralMan]

28. Deities have always been constructs of societies.

That's my belief. They have been used to control people as well as to justify unethical actions. But deities and religions are all nothing more than human constructs, in my considered opinion. So, they have no more claim to what is ethical and unethical than any other human construct. Humans create their own rules. Sometimes they pretend to delegate that rule-making to the deities they have also created. Circular logic.

[Voltaire2]

29. So to repeat myself yet again, the problem

I have with your op is that you carve out this space within ethics that you have labeled (incorrectly but never mind that) "morality" where only people who declare themselves to be religious have authority.

I think that is both nonsense and dangerous.

Religion provides no special insight into any concepts within ethics. How could it, as you yourself declare religion is entirely a human construct. Any moral insight religion provides can also be provided by ethical systems that are not religious

[MineralMan]

31. I believe you have misunderstood me.

As far as I'm concerned, religion has no validity. However, it does attempt to dictate to its followers and sometimes to society in general. I assign morality to religion. You do not agree. However, I do so to separate morality, which has connotations of religious doctrine, from ethics, which I see as independent of religion.

Religion is not some god-given source of truth, since it created its own deities. It is simply a human construct, all to often used to make the unethical seem ethical. That is at the core of my argument, which is designed to separate a word from another word.

[Voltaire2]

36. "Morality defines what is good and what is evil, depending primarily on religious principles."

Again, you have consigned the definition of good and evil to religion. Religion has no monopoly on those definitions, nor is "morality" separate from or a subset of "ethics", nor is it limited to the definition of good and evil, at least not by any standard definition nor in the history of moral philosophy.

I think what you might have been trying to say is that some ethical systems are religious, that is to say that these systems claim that their ethics are derived from assorted deities through some mysterious transmission process, that their ethics being ordained by gods are not subject to debate, and that these ethical systems are inferior to, or ought to be inferior to secular ethics derived from rational discourse. Which I would agree with.

[safeinOhio]

6. The problem with both are the

loop-holes.

[MineralMan]

7. But, I mentioned three things.

Still, you are right. There are loopholes in all of them. Each of us has our own personal ethical compass. There is no single set of ethical standards that everyone follows. Both religion-based morality and government-based legality attempts to codify the standards, but there are disputes that arise, regardless.

Human beings are messy creatures, it seems.

[Lostnote]

9. Ethics/morality are malleable concepts.... Legal will have one staring down the end of a barrel

... Just being contrary....

[WoonTars]

13. Morality depends primarily on religious principles?

Like the religious principles in the bible that give instructions on how to beat your slaves?

False premise.

Any book, or books that instruct the reader on how to physically maim, or murder people either as offspring, spouses or personal property is neither moral or ethical, and certainly not legal.

My opinion.

[MineralMan]

14. And yet, in that religion such treatment was moral.

It was also highly unethical. There is much in many religions that is considered moral that I find to be seriously unethical, which is why I do not use the words "moral" and "immoral" when discussing human actions.

As I said in the OP, slavery was once considered to be OK morally by a major religion. I maintain that it has never been ethical, regardless of the moral code of a religion, because it does harm to a human being.

Ethics override morality when declared morality is unethical. That is why I consider ethics to be superior to morality, since morality appears to change, even within religions. Slavery is unethical. Period. No moral code can make it ethical, even if it is viewed as OK morally.

[Voltaire2]

18. You should consult dictionaries before defining terms.

Stalin's Russia determined that it was ethical to mass deport millions of Kulaks from their farms in order to facilitate the collectivization of agriculture as part of the first soviet five year plan. They did so on utilitarian principles.

Regardless of the outcome, (it was a disaster that helped bring on famine) it was, to most people wrong to have done this.

Ethical conflicts abound. The existence of ethical conflicts does not separate morals from ethics, it illustrates that ethics is really complicated. The complication of ethics is why Moral Philosophy, a subject you might want to look up, perhaps on Wikipedia to start with, is such a rich subject with a very long history.

[MineralMan]

19. Thank you again for your advice.

[yallerdawg]

23. On the other hand...

the abolition movement, the civil rights movement and many other issues have been driven by "religious belief."

Can right and wrong exist without some kind of moral compass which has to be established outside of our selves? Otherwise it is fundamentally, "Do what thou wilt?"

[Voltaire2]

27. Where is this "moral compass" coming from exactly?

[MineralMan]

32. "An thou harm none, do what thou wilt."

That is the actual complete statement. It is conditional. As long as you do no harm, you are free to do as you wish. That's a pagan sort of slogan that has been used in one way or another for a very, very long time. There are different forms of it, but all mean the same.

The second part is wrong without the conditional part.

I have zero problem with that message.

[MineralMan]

34. Society is also outside of ourselves.

Humans are social animals. Most of the rules we follow are designed, in some way, to preserve the society and help it to thrive. Religions are simply extensions of the societies that created them, I believe.

It is exceedingly difficult for an individual human to survive without a group to provide support and strength. Societies are essential for human existence. So, yes, a good portion of our sense of right and wrong does come from society, beginning with an immediate family and extending outward from there.

We are also a reasoning animal, capable of forming associations between actions and consequences. As part of a society, rules develop that benefit the group. Not all of those rules are positive, however, as history has shown. It is possible to learn from that, as well.

Religion has worked to provide some sort of sense of authority for rules in many societies. In a real sense, that is the reason religion exists in the first place, I believe. It answers questions that cannot be answered through observation and reason at a particular time, and establishes a trans-human authority for rules that may not make sense when considered closely.

It's all a group thing, really. We are all part of the society in which we live, for better or worse. We learn the applicable rules and either follow them or not. We have freedom of thought, but that does not always lead to success withing the larger group.

[trotsky]

38. There were people of different religions, and even no religion at all...

in the abolition and civil rights movements. Those movements weren't all driven by religious belief, but by a desire for justice and equality.

Plus, it cannot be ignored that the people SUPPORTING slavery and its aftereffects did so out of religious belief as well. You can't only take credit for the "good" stuff.

Can right and wrong exist without some kind of moral compass which has to be established outside of our selves?

In order to make this claim, you need to prove that the moral dicates of your religion are:
1) Actually divinely ordained
2) Clearly stated and accurately communicated
3) Universally agreed upon by members of your religion

Good luck.

[Rob H.]

25. "'It was also highly unethical."

By today's standards, yes. By the standards of the time? No. The Bible has passages describing how to beat one's slaves and making the distinction that if a slave was beaten to death, he could be avenged, but only if the slave didn't survive for one or two days after the beating. All perfectly acceptable at the time.

[MineralMan]

26. I disagree. A code of ethics based on doing no harm

to others would make slavery unethical at any time. As I said, that is at the core of my own code of ethics. It's not a new concept, really. In fact, it's as old as humanity. Only by denying the humanity of others can slavery be construed as ethical. Clearly, humans are humans, so there it is.

In my opinion ethical behavior timeless in nature. It is a standard separate from "the times."

In practice, of course, that simple ethical core value has been ignored throughout history by some. I do not excuse historical lapses, though. Not at all.

Do no harm to others. Try to prevent harm to others. Doing the second can sometimes conflict with the first, of course. That is a central conflict, really, in attempting to behave ethically at all times. Consideration before action is the key to staying within one's moral compass. However, when it comes to something like slavery, it is very simple. Slavery causes harm to others, and so is unethical. The times are irrelevant to that. During times when slavery was existent, there were always ethical people who knew it was unethical.

[Voltaire2]

35. Hardly anything in ethics is simple.

"Slavery causes harm to others, and so it is unethical. "

You have stated a categorical rule: anything that causes harm to others is unethical.

The examples of how that rule breaks down are notorious.

Here's an easy one: is it unethical to defend oneself from attack? There are absolutists on this who would say yes. They are rare. Generally people believe it is ethical to harm others who are trying to harm you.

[amalasuntha]

37. Slavery was considered as ethical for most of human history as well, as you should know

if you have read many of the classical philosophers.

[vlyons]

30. I am deeply interested in ethics

As a Buddhist, ethics is the foundation of Buddhism. Ethics enables us to practice the self discipline necessary to live with others in this world without doing harm to ourselves and others. There are 3 basic forms of Buddhism: Hinayana the path of self liberation, Mahayana the universal path of wisdom and compassion, and Vajrayana the fast path of indestructable wakefullness. Without going into a lot of technical details, all forms of Buddhism are built upon Hinayana. And the 5 basic ethical precepts of Hinayana are
no killing
no stealing
no lieing
no sexual misconduct
no intoxicants

Buddhism is NOT a religion. It is a practice. One can be of any religion, or no religion, and practice Buddhism. I always recommend the Dalai Lama's book, "Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World." It is his very logical statement about how we can practice ethics in a secular world to the benefit of all sentient beings.

[MineralMan]

33. Thank you, yes.

Buddhism varies in practice, but has at its core a good set of rules for behavior.