WWTBAM Bored

My wife and I were having a conversation the other night about a Blue Bloods episode where Erin "bent" an ethics standard to achieve a result she felt was morally right. Mrs. Bit commented that it shouldn't be legal or something, but then we got into a conversation about legalities, ethics, and morals. It was an interesting discussion about the differences in each. I told her that something can be legal, but unethical, and immoral. That something can be moral but illegal, etc. and that my personal hierarchy was Morality 1st, Ethics 2nd, and Legality 3rd. It's an interesting topic as what's legal is well defined, actually written but may be complicated and not easily interpreted or applied, and changes. Ethics is a higher standard, but generally based in legality and where legality is or should be fact based, ethics includes appearance and perception in its standards as well. Morality on the other hand is the foundation of most legalities and ethics but given it is a personal attribute can vary widely thus ethics rules and laws that support some folks morals while violating others.

Anybody care to weigh in on their views of the there, and what they see as the relationship and differences in the meanings?

This is a BIG question. Must think.

Ethics has a special meaning in conjunction with attorneys. The ethical laws, known as the Code of Professional Responsibility (or similar names in some states) are binding on all attorneys. Some of the Code Provisions match up with criminal laws, while others impose restrictions on attorneys that aren't applicable to other businesses. For example, many states impose limits on advertising and solicitation of potential clients. The penalty for violating these rules ranges all the way up to disbarment. So legal ethics is in some ways similar to a specialized legal code for attorneys. Now, when you say that Erin "bent" an ethical rule, I interpret that to mean that she came up in her own mind with an argument that the rule didn't apply in her situation and that she would be willing to make that argument before an ethics board if a complaint was filed against her. That's different from a clearcut violation of the rule for what she believed was the greater good.

In more general terms, ethics are external standards while morals are internal standards. At any time, there is usually a consensus in a particular community about ethical standards. That consensus is generally based on the members' standards of morality. Ethical standards can change over a period of time, and, if you don't like the particular ethical standards of your community, you can work to change them or change communities (i.e., join a different church). But since morals are individual, you have people whose ideas of morality are way out of line with ethical and legal standards. And if they act on their own morals ("if it feels good, do it"), that's where we as a society can run into trouble.

My view is that, in general, ethical standards are the most important because they are the broadest form of consensus we have. If we all live according to our own sense of morality, then you risk total societal chaos.

We just had this discussion in my ethics class last week. I began the course by saying that for that moment, we would use the words "ethics" and "morals/morality" interchangeably.

Now that they have some tools, we split them up. Here is the short version of what we posited:

Ethics refer to the things that are always right and wrong, independent of our comprehension of them. The absolute universal standard, if there is one.

Morals or morality are more about what a given culture or society believes to be good behavior at that moment. This evolves and shifts over time and with influences from many other sources.

Legal, we didn't discuss, because it is so capricious, but it is usually clear. Many things are legal that are not moral, and many things are not illegal that maybe should be.

Ritterskoop wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 31, 2022 12:34 pm

We just had this discussion in my ethics class last week. I began the course by saying that for that moment, we would use the words "ethics" and "morals/morality" interchangeably.

Now that they have some tools, we split them up. Here is the short version of what we posited:

Ethics refer to the things that are always right and wrong, independent of our comprehension of them. The absolute universal standard, if there is one.

Morals or morality are more about what a given culture or society believes to be good behavior at that moment. This evolves and shifts over time and with influences from many other sources.

Legal, we didn't discuss, because it is so capricious, but it is usually clear. Many things are legal that are not moral, and many things are not illegal that maybe should be.

This is interesting. I would switch the definitions, I think. To me ethics are what are commonly, at least for periods of time, agreed upon wirhin particular groups, societies, like that. Using a stupid example, not spitting gum on your coworker's lap would be an ethic, albeit illegal, etc.
Not murdering your coworker or anyone else, in cold blood, would be moral. An absolute right/wrong thing.
I like this discussion.

Ritterskoop wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 31, 2022 12:34 pm

Ethics refer to the things that are always right and wrong, independent of our comprehension of them. The absolute universal standard, if there is one.

Are ethics universal? Is there no consideration of different cultures? Of varying periods?

Do I have the right to impose my ethics on others?

Was slavery always unethical?

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:37 pm

Bob Juch wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:56 pm

Ritterskoop wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 31, 2022 12:34 pm

Ethics refer to the things that are always right and wrong, independent of our comprehension of them. The absolute universal standard, if there is one.

Are ethics universal? Is there no consideration of different cultures? Of varying periods?

Do I have the right to impose my ethics on others?

Was slavery always unethical?

See, that, to me, would be an ethic that is morally wrong.

Legality / Ethics / Morals
Where / When / Who

You could probably do a Venn diagram to fully encompass all the possibilities, then name a singular act, depending on where you are, when you are, and who you are, put the act in a particular intersection. But if the where, when, or who change the act may go in a different intersection. I don't think there is any universal intersection (no single act would be classified the same throughout the world for all time by everyone.

Bob Juch wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:56 pm

Are ethics universal? Is there no consideration of different cultures? Of varying periods?

In my view, ethics are community based, whether that community is geographical or otherwise. The world's religions are communities of people who share the same ethical beliefs as set forth in the Bible or Koran or whatever other collections of precepts for that religion. Those uncomfortable with a particular religion often form their own, such as the Protestant reformation or Mormonism. These may share a little or a lot with a parent religion.

And these ethics do change over time. Look at what was considered acceptable behavior 200 years ago versus today.

The question of whether we should own other human beings was locally moral but ethically wrong, would be my best example. Over time, folks finally find the absolute truth, which is to value other people the same as oneself.

Some other examples: Cultures that thrive protect children, do not randomly murder people, and generally have communication that assumes people are telling the truth as they know it. Cultures without these traits don't thrive, and eventually die out. The culturally-independent standard of rightness is what I am calling ethics, and the temporary standards are what I am calling morality.

I would never insist that we all agree on these definitions, as long as we are doing our best to make the world better and to choose to be the best we can be.

And I salute everyone for keeping it out of the usual conversational paths that happen here. Let's keep that going.

Ritterskoop wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:29 pm

I would never insist that we all agree on these definitions, as long as we are doing our best to make the world better and to choose to be the best we can be.

And I salute everyone for keeping it out of the usual conversational paths that happen here. Let's keep that going.

I agree and am also glad the conversation has remained purely intellectual.

I think we need a fourth word and Venn circle.

Slavery was at many times in the past legal, ethical, and moral within the confines of the various societies. I think we all can agree it is no longer legal, ethical, or moral nor in our current state of enlightenment was ever "right".

I go back and forth on this because even in those societies there were, as far as we know, pockets of resistance where people living in those days/societies share our current enlightenment and felt it wrong even then. I don't want to bring in a religious term because this spans most religions. Is there a term, one that is not a qualified version of the first three?

I wondered if Earendel was going to post in this thread.

About 20 years, the US Army's Chief of Engineers wanted to empower the mainly civilian employees within the Corps of Engineers, so he created "Just Do It" cards that would fit in yoru wallet. He wanted you to ask yourself three questions when pondering whether to take an action:
1. Is it legal?
2. Is it ethical? and
3. Is it moral?

If you could answer yes to all three, then you were "delegated" the general authority to act.

Shortly thereafter, two main issues arose:
1. As it turns out, a small shoe company in Oregon had copyrighted the phrase, "Just Do It", and they did not like anyone using it if shoes were not being sold; and
2. The first two questions really were not for any employee to decide. Rather, the agency attorneys really were the arbiters of what was legal and ethical based on statutes, regulations, and administrative policies.

As a fairly new one of those attorneys, who pursued a (political) philosophy degree in college, I was intrigued by these questions. As the years passed, management continued to use it as a shorthand (without the "Just Do It") way to try to speed up the decision-making and project execution process. (In other words, cut the lawyers out.) Maybe ten years ago, I starting teaching ethics within my District and in other Corps offices using this "Is it legal, ethical, adn moral" as a type of starting point. Within the federal government, the line between legal and ethical is blurred, as ethics is codified in statutes and set forth in regulations. "It is ethical" really can be a subset of legality.

Here is the shorthand way that I discuss the concepts of ethical versus moral.
- Ethics are rules of conduct recognized with respect to a particular class of human action or particular group. It defines conduct based on a set of rules. This is why people use terms like "business ethics" and "governmental ethics". Industries and professions often set forth the expected rules of behavior for those in that industry or profession.

- Morals are principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. Morality defines conduct on what should occur according to that person's (or society's) ideals and principles. There are no set rules or policies to research or coordinate in support of a decision.

- Ethics are external constructs, based on pre-decided rules and regulations, while morals are internal beliefs, based on personal experience and learning.

- Ethics can be enforced on entities and people, while morals are nearly impossible to enforce and control.

- Ethics is business / government, while morals are society.


The closing thought in my training re-shapes those questions of ethical and moral decision-making.
- Do the rules of ethics permit me to take the proposed action? That is, may I proceed? (Ethics)

- If yes, what are the benefits to DoD/DA/USACE if I proceed, and what are the risks? In other words, should I proceed? (Morals)