Morality vs. Ethics
Introduction
Several morality and ethics scholars seem to score at the same goal, yet have differences in meaning. For instance, they have correspondences at some respects and defer in others (Bennett-Wimbush, Amstutz and Willoughby 2015, 134). Consequently, this investigation pursues various premises to determine the similarities and differences that exist in their functions to structure the society. In this datum, the advancement of this paper examines these areas using structural, functional and normative tenets of the two in the society and general human interactions. In recollection, it will fundamentally appear apparent from the analysis that the two work to create harmonious human living. In certainty, the society has been experiencing the lack of peace, which results from the lack of recognition of individual differences. People share space but differ in the perception of things, occurrences and understanding (Gino and Shalvi 2015, 8). The fundamental question that this paper seeks to answer is that how can the society live in peace and unity? In an attempt to respond to the question, several ideas revolving around morality and ethics will construe to give the understanding about a better society. In addition, these understandings will illustrate the various reasons that lead to conflict in the society (Swierstra and Molder 2012, 1060). As a result, different literatures and theories that communicate about morality and ethics will play an important part in this exercise. Imperatively, understanding the nature of a healthy society is noble, so that people can align themselves towards the principles that make such a reality.
Differences between Morality and Ethics
As depicted in this work, morality and ethics have differences in meaning depending on what they are to perform at a particular effect and instance. Therefore, this work gives the various meanings depending on the structural, functional and normative relevance of the two in the human society.
Ethics is a branch in the study of philosophy, which looks at the good behaviour that an individual or institution should portray in a particular setting. For example, an individual working in a particular firm must maintain respect to the authority by remaining loyal to what the principles dictates to be done in that particular institution. When doing this, he or she remains sensitive to the moral principles that exist in such environments they operate. On the other hand, Morality is the act of behaviour, which defines right and wrong, and obligates a person to choose virtue alone and avoid doing anything that obliterates the real values (Flores and James 2013, 837).
Ethics studies values that particular individuals uphold in their places of work in terms of services or interactions they create with other people (Fischer 2014, 30). It remains a reality that people who know the value of ethics respect others, and exchange dealings to support dignity and respect (Keller, Kwo and Helft 2014, 140). Any person becomes good in whatever he or she does because he or she understands that doing good is rewarding. On the other hand, morality is the study of what the society considers right or evil (Flores and James 2013, 845). An individual is compelled by the society to show conducts that go in line with what is accepted, and avoid the behaviours that break the societal rules.
Ethics speaks about the values that an individual does to safeguard the respect of the institution he or she works for in his or her relationship with people. In another sense, a person can only think, act or work according to the values that exist in an area he or she is operating. On the other hand, morality defines the norms and values that a person must respect to consider himself or herself good among the people. Every culture has specific ways of dealing with a person who violates such norms (Flores and James, 2013, 845). In all these illustrations, it is evident that ethics is specific to a particular institution or setting while morality encompasses human dwelling universally.
Similarities
Morality, Ethics and Human Peace
In a society where people observe the values of morality and ethics, their engagement influence the kind of effect an individual behaviour implies to another. Furthermore, morality and ethics are contingent to each other in every part of human interaction. For example, every person belongs to a certain culture, profession and social class (Yu 2013, 23). All these aspects create differences in people’s perception. For example, people who belong to a particular religion interpret religious values differently from others in another. For instance, Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God and that nobody can reach the kingdom of God without believing in him (Darragh, Buniak and Giordano, 2015, 1). On the other hand, Muslims believe that Prophet Mohammad is the chief prophet of God who speaks the real message of Allah. These two opposite standpoints need an in-depth understanding so that individuals can follow their religious doctrines and live in peace. As a result, religious leaders study morality and ethics to help them carry their teachings with a view of maintaining respect and value to humanity regardless of where an individual come from, the language he or she speaks, the level of education or the skin colour. In this dictum, morality and ethics work together to achieve a common goal (Williams 2012, 7).
In addition, people live in a society that is structured politically, socially and economically. These institutions determine how people live and relate to each other (Chandler 2014, 447). In doing the same, it is important that the society develop standards that shapes and controls how people engage with each other in these activities. For example, in places of work, there must exist rules that guide the way people get promotions, issues to do with salary payment and other factors like sickness or maternity leaves. Therefore, employers must maintain the code of ethics that look into the welfares of their employees (Perry, Bratman and Fischer 2015, 22). It is ethical that only people who merit and has valid qualifications to get promotions, not that the authority uses its powers to favour other people at the expense of others. On the other hand, employees must work in agreement with the principles that guide their conducts and services. For example, it is against medical ethics to discuss the treatment plan of a patient with another person without his or her consent. Therefore, ethics upholds value and respect of whatever an individual does to another person.
Moreover, moral decision is a crucial knowledge that every human beings need to poses, and every person is entitled to the same. Scholars such as Aristotle and Plato call people moral animals that must remain good agents of moral behaviours. Plato associates morality to knowledge and says that knowledge is beauty (Perry Bratman and Fischer 2015, 12). He believes that people who fail to behave in a better way lack knowledge and should be taught the same. For leadership, Plato believes that only philosopher kings should rule since they are in a position to meticulously identify and discern what is good and bad for the society. He adds that unwise leader would find himself or herself doing things, which are regrettable. In fact, he is clear that allowing such leaders in power is like taking an advice of untrained individual in a surgical operation. Meaning, a leader must be morally sensitive, and knowledgeable to lead the society in a way that attracts peace and harmony. He believes that a morally rotten society is chaotic and has nothing to offer.
Plato segments the human soul into three elements including rational, spirited and appetitive. In this precept, a rational element is responsible for making sound judgements that determine healthy and pleasant behaviours (Barker 2012, 13). On the other hand, spirited element gives an individual to act and do what is rational as informed by the rational element of the soul. Someone is either coward or courageous depending on the working of his or her spirited element. Finally, the appetitive element is responsible for the desires that an individual seeks to attain (Neubert, Wu and Roberts 2013, 280). Furthermore, Plato likens the individual soul with the society, saying that an individual influences the society and at the same time, the society affects the individual. In other words, a good person who lives in a bad society can no longer be good (Kuipers 2016, 8). Likewise, bad people who live in a good society eventually make it bad. He adds that the society is an individual enlarged and that the society is a reflection of the people living in it. In his dichotomy, he says that all the three work together, but must be led by the rational element. In more illustration, He says that the rational element represents the wise leaders who develop good policies to run the government and the people. The spirited element represents the soldiers who provide security to the public and must work under the guidance of the good leaders. The appetitive element represents the citizens who must provide all that is necessary to run the government. They must provide taxes and food to keep the soldiers and finances to develop the social amenities like roads, hospitals, schools among other necessary facilities.
Subsidiary to the same understanding, though taking a different dimension, Aristotle believed that a leader must be guided by certain principles that he or she relies on when discharging his or her duties. He says that a leader must lead under the whims of the rule of law and that his or her activities must demonstrate respect to the same. He is not comfortable with the claim that one single individual would know everything that interests people. This is what informs the genesis of a constitution and other laws (Gino and Shalvi 2015, 5). Ethically, laws exist to remind people about what they should do in every situation at a given time. However, ethics and law are different, but they work together to support morality in achieving what is good for people (Chang 2012, 23). Nevertheless, it has been a challenge that people understand that the law is against something yet they continue doing the same. This paradox has been a challenge to many scholars who try to respond to it. More importantly, the society must work together to achieve the world peace. People should learn to embrace each other and understand that diversity is power.
Besides, the society contain many people do not recognise others who have different opinions, believe and lifestyle the way they do. The society has witnessed discrimination because of language, colour, cultural affiliation and religious associations. With the understanding of ethics and morality, people would learn to do well to others because they know that they deserve the same (Barker 2012, 42). It will be possible to overcome the trait that has made majority associate with people they share some characters while disregarding those that do not belong to their brackets of their influence. In this viewpoint, a community would get a new connotation to mean common unity (Hoffman 2014, 12), whereby people live united with one bond of achieving the best for the course of humanity, as opposed to doing everything for self-interest. In the religious realm, taking Christians as a case study, the Holy Communion will be celebrated with the understanding that it means common union, whereby the congregates carry out their activities remembering that people need one another for life on earth to be complete (Hall et al. 2016, 22). Therefore, the knowledge of morality and ethics forms a common place in human interaction that it should remain a subject bin every training.
For instance, science has been doing much about new discoveries, which is good. The challenge is that most of its activities have been lacking moral obligations (Flores and James 2013, 840). What this means is that many of these findings are tailored to destroy humanity rather than to protect it. For example, the Jewish holocaust of 1945 is on record, where six million Jews died in camps of concentrated poisonous gases for reasons that are partly related to politics and religion. Adolf Hitler, who was the then German chancellor, believed that Jews were the killers of the innocent Christ without apparent reason (Chang 2012, 11). He believed that they too had to face the consequences of what they did. He added that they were very insignificant to the German economy and their extermination would be the best option (Hoffman, Frederick and Schwartz 2014, 22). The decision failed to capture the cognisance of the fact that not all the six million that were to face death participated in the killing. For a matter of truth, Jesus died several centuries before these people were born. Therefore, the act demonstrated the highest degree of injustice and unethical treatment.
Conclusion
Inherently, understanding the nature of a good society is decent, so that people can appreciate the principles that make such a reality. In fact, people with the knowledge of ethics respect other people and exchange dealings that uphold dignity and respect. Any person becomes good in whatever he or she does because he or she understands that doing good is rewarding. On the other hand, morality is the study of what the society considers good or evil. Furthermore, morality and ethics are contingent to each other in every part of human interaction. For example, every person belongs to a certain culture, profession and social class. All these aspects create differences in people’s perception. For example, people who belong to a particular religion interpret religious values differently from others in another.
Reference List
Barker, E., 2012. The political thought of Plato and Aristotle. Courier Corporation.
Bennett-Wimbush, K., Amstutz, M.D. and Willoughby, D., 2015. Student Perceptions of
Animal Use in Society. NACTA Journal, 59(2), p.134.
Chandler, D., 2014. Beyond good and evil: Ethics in a world of complexity. International
Politics, 51(4), pp.441-457.
Chang, I., 2012. The rape of Nanking: The forgotten holocaust of World War II. Basic Books.
contemporary readings.
Darragh, M., Buniak, L. and Giordano, J., 2015. A four-part working bibliography of
neuroethics: part 2–neuroscientific studies of morality and ethics. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 10(1), p.1.
Fischer, J., 2014. What Kind of Ethics?–How Understanding the Field Affects the Role of
Empirical Research on Morality for Ethics. In Empirically Informed Ethics: Morality between Facts and Norms (pp. 29-43). Springer International Publishing.
Flores, A. and James, C., 2013. Morality and ethics behind the screen: Young people’s
perspectives on digital life. New Media & Society, 15(6), pp.834-852.
Gino, F. and Shalvi, S., 2015. Editorial overview: Morality and ethics: New directions in the
study of morality and ethics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, pp.v-viii.
Hall, T.E., Engebretson, J., O’Rourke, M., Piso, Z., Whyte, K. and Valles, S., 2016. The
Need for Social Ethics in Interdisciplinary Environmental Science Graduate Programs: Results from a Nation-Wide Survey in the United States. Science and Engineering Ethics, pp.1-24.
Hitlin, S. and Pinkston, K., 2013. Values, attitudes, and ideologies: Explicit and implicit
constructs shaping perception and action. In Handbook of social psychology (pp. 319-339). Springer Netherlands.
Hoffman, W.M., Frederick, R.E. and Schwartz, M.S. eds., 2014. Business ethics: Readings
and cases in corporate morality. John Wiley & Sons.
Keller, E.J., Kwo, P.Y. and Helft, P.R., 2014. Ethical considerations surrounding survival
benefit–based liver allocation. Liver Transplantation, 20(2), pp.140-146.
Kuipers, B., 2016, March. Toward Morality and Ethics for Robots. In 2016 AAAI Spring
Symposium Series.
Kuipers, B., 2016. Human-like morality and ethics for robots. In AAAI-16 Workshop on AI,
Ethics and Society.
Neubert, M.J., Wu, C. and Roberts, J.A., 2013. The influence of ethical leadership and
regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(02), pp.269-296.
Perry, J., Bratman, M. and Fischer, J.M., 2015. Introduction to philosophy: Classical and
perspectives on digital life. New Media & Society, 15(6), pp.834-852.
Stevenson, N., 2014. The Transformation of the Media: Globalisation, Morality and Ethics.
Routledge.
Swierstra, T. and te Molder, H., 2012. Risk and soft impacts. In Handbook of risk theory (pp.
1049-1066). Springer Netherlands.
Williams, B., 2012. Morality: An introduction to ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Yu, J., 2013. The ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of virtue (Vol. 7). Routledge.
