ENVS203: - How do Ethics and Morals Differ?


There is no doubt on the matter of moral individuality and ethical values of groups, be it a professional, societal or generic.
However: When does the religious morality verses ethical requirements meet rational thought. In he case of evidence when greeted with seemingly insurmountable data which challenges insular Biblical belief, the individual under conviction can realise that the evidence before them can prove or at least sway them into a new thought process of basically a premise rather than a religious fable and acceptance of what is, but as they are under acts of faith have no option but to disagree with fact and rely on faith, dubious to the point of irrational, know it, yet still choose the irrational.


I mostly agree with the definition. Both ethics and morals apply to what is virtuous, but the difference is that ethics implies what is virtuous as a whole (systematic principle), while morals implies what is virtuous in a singular sense (individualistic principle). In other words, ethics takes a grouping of individual morals and applies it to an overall truth standard. For example, a moral could be to “say nice things to others”. However, ethically speaking, there are times when this would not be a moral thing to do, such as complimenting someone who just insulted your friend! Morals are the individual principles, and ethics combines these morals in context to achieve a systematic virtue.

 This is a misleading take on the difference between ethics an morals. It equates morals to the individual and ethics to the larger group, while actually individuals posses both ethics and morals. I believe the greatest distinguishing factor between the two is along these lines: morals refer to a persons most deeply held convictions and values, while ethics generally refer to how a person interprets and applies those morals. If I believe that abortion is ethically wrong, it's not so much because it goes against my ethics as it is that it goes against my personal morals. 
  The contention that ethics are a public matter is valid. However, it is inadequate since it does not recognize that the source of ethics are morals.


Yes. Morals vary from person to person, and so cannot serve as a reliable and constant reference point for how a society should operate as a whole. Ethics fill this role, to attempt to provide fairness and equality, but conversely can’t always satisfy each individual’s nuanced sense of right and wrong on a personal level.

I would add that there is an obvious correlation between established societal ethics and the ever-changing cumulative trends of personal morals.


This is a very important distinction between ethics and morals: morals being a system of personal convictions, and ethics being the societal platform in which those convictions are expressed. One thing that I think the definition left out is the fact that it is crucial for the ethics of a society to be as agreeable and open to individual moral codes as possible (non restricting) without closing anyone out. There will be certain ethical things that a society finds reprehensible (i.e. murder), but society should not find someone’s moral code reprehensible unless there is just cause for it.


The definition is well-defined and easy to understand and process. What comes to mind is not so much based on adding and taking away, it is more about “Perspective Placement” in my mind. When I think of morals, I consider this more as an internal position where it aligns with character. Morals that are part of you and this does not change easily without taking matters to heart. It is so personal that when left behind closed doors for no one else to observe or ever know about, matters not. It is based on who you are and not just about what you know to be true. Ethics is more what is outside of yourself and this means you should also leave your personal judgment outside of the theory of ethics. Sometimes the two cross and may match, other times, you base your decision according to laws and theory. When needing an ethical answer, you may need to look up the answer. If it’s a moral dilemma, you usually listen to your heart. Either way, society does have social norms but not everyone’s social norms look the same, which we already know. What is important to me morally is to not judge someone for their reasons or their decisions. It is best realized that everyone has a different bird’s eye view and interpretation of moral and ethical dilemma’s. Ethical decisions lean on the rules of society and what is acceptable more by laws and regulations. Morals would allow for more chances for positive change by giving people another chance instead of imprisoning them for not following the rules


No, I do not agree. Ethics and Morals are too close to be separated by individual or community standard. To define things that are immoral as ethical under a company (or a government) law/policy does not include ethics in it’s totallity. In general, companies and governments tend to lean towards ends ethics: one of the types of ethics we studied in the beginning of this unit. This means that sometimes organizations do things that are immoral, but still legal. However, an immoral act isn’t ethical, although the result may be ethical.

I would add that the real difference to go in line with what that article wanted to say is that morals are based off a person’s religion or non religion, and ethics is based off community and country law.


Yes, there is a difference
But if the arts correspond to the ethics established by the owner, his relationship will be good


Yes! because ethics is something, which can be switch. As it depends on the specific situation. It is related with “should be”. While Moral is something, which can not be change,it’s fixed. It’s related to the personal character of the individual.


The text does provide great examples of the line between morals and ethics. I’d be interested in a breakdown of this comparison as it pertains to politics. Often, elected officials’ platforms are based on their own moral beliefs. For these official does this negate their obligation to the ethics of being an elected leader?