Home For Fiction – Blog

Let’s get this out of the way: There is no “god-given” definition of either ethics or morality (there’s a meta- element of irony here, as you can hopefully perceive). Most people might even use them interchangeably to refer to the same thing. However, there is a crucial difference between the two.

In most definitions, morality refers to a person’s moral convictions, what they consider right or wrong. Ethics, on the other hand, usually refers to systems of convictions; agreed convictions, in a way. For example, we might refer to “journalistic ethics”, that is, a commonly agreed set of practices and behavior that journalists should adhere to.

The proverbial plot thickens – there are never simple answers – because one’s personal convictions, their morality, is always a result of external factors; our environment, our culture, our upbringing. Perhaps some would like to suggest that our DNA pushes us in certain directions, but that, too, would be a result of external factors: We might be born good/evil (a huge oversimplification), but the externality remains, as our DNA is a result of our ancestors.

Ultimately, the debate “ethics or morality” is important – after all, that’s the whole point of this post, right? – because it refers to another crucial difference that, although contained in the one between personal/collective convictions, is easier to miss.

That difference is between knowledge and behavior.

The Question of Ethics or Morality Is about Focus

As I said above, the main definitional difference between ethics and morality is that whereas one is about a collective agreement, the other is about personal convictions. However, this definitional difference implies another difference, which is about focus: Whereas ethics (as a common agreement) focuses on behavior, morality focuses on knowledge.

The journalistic code of ethics basically says “I don’t care if you agree whether X is right or wrong; since you’re a journalist,s you must behave this way”. On the other hand, when a person says “I can’t eat meat, it’s against my morals”, there isn’t any law or rule that prevents that – unless of course there is, such as in many religious contexts, and then we go to ethics! – but only a person’s own convictions.

Again, however, we must be careful not to enter a cyclical argument: “The matter of ethics or morality is important because it is important”. Instead, we must answer: Why is it important that ethics (collective agreement, in our definition) is about behavior whereas morality (personal conviction) is about knowledge?

Ethics or Morality? Behavior or Knowledge?

Let’s assume you’re walking in a park late at night, and you come across a frail, weak old woman wearing solid gold earrings and necklace. Let’s say you are overwhelmingly stronger, and there isn’t a shadow of a doubt that you could easily overpower the poor granny and take the gold. There are no witnesses, and let’s assume in this thought experiment of ours that it’s 100% certain that there will be no legal consequences.

Do you mug the granny or not?

I removed ethics from the picture by removing the legal consequences partIf you’re thinking something like “I wouldn’t mug the grandma because God/my religion/the FSM says it’s wrong,” you are still operating in an ethical framework, not a moral one. That is, you cannot properly assess your morality unless you are constrained by no ethical systems. Only morality remains. In other words, the question you are called to answer is, Would you attack someone if there were no consequences?

I would like to believe that you – yes, you – are the kind of person who wouldn’t do it anyway, because your moral convictions tell you that causing suffering to others is not something you want to do.

Knowledge is superior to behavior – though we’ll explore some interesting predicaments in a while – because it follows you everywhere. It’s independent of rules and laws, systems of thought or religions.

If You Know Good and Do Evil, Are You Good or Evil?

I mentioned earlier how systems of ethics don’t care how you feel; they only care what you do. But what if we reversed the argument and were in a situation where we knew something was evil, rather than good, but we still did it? What… good did it do to us (not to mention others) if our behavior didn’t reflect our convictions?

As I see it, there are two options here: Either the person attempts to resolve the cognitive dissonance by modifying their moral conviction (“I used to think stealing is always bad, but I realized it’s OK because I needed to feed my starving family”), or then they suffer feeling guilty. One doesn’t exclude the other, either.

In any case, however, I think what follows the decision to act – the behavior – is in a sense irrelevant. That is not what we’re examining here. After all, there are also journalists who violate journalistic ethics, doctors who violate medical ethics, and so on, because of fear, greed, and whatnot.

Instead, what we’re examining here is whether it’s more important to have behavioral foundations based on rules or on personal convictions. In a nutshell, the question of ethics or morality is a question of whether one can be relied upon to be moral when others aren’t looking.

The Problem of Dominance

Systems of ethics – again, here defined as commonly agreed rules that do not necessarily require moral agreement – can be violated more easily than personal convictions. Heck, that’s why corruption “works” in many societies: because when enforcement is scant, the absence of personal morality favors dominance.

That is to say, without personal morality – what tells you to do the right thing when nobody’s watching – one tries to bend the rules and impose their will against others who may be unable (or even unwilling). In the grandma example earlier, a strong young man with no moral convictions, and assured of the ethical system’s (either religion’s or society’s laws and enforcement) failure, will have no qualms about mugging her.

But dominance has a problem, too: There will always be someone bigger, stronger, smarter, meaner than you. Dominance cannot be relied on for any kind of stability in life.