Morals vs. Ethics: Ten Commandments vs. the Ten Suggestions

Random definitions pulled from a philosophy website:

It's understandable that there's a debate going on, because the meanings of

morals and ethics do overlap. Broadly speaking,morals are individual principles of right and wrong, and a system of ethics deals with sets of those principles. Both terms entered the language in the Middle English period, with moral being the older form by about 100 years (c. 1300). Morals and morality are about personal behavior, ethics more grandly philosophical. 

                                                           #

Adding my two cents' worth: In philosophy, "morals" may be considered an inclusive term for any principle of guiding behavior. Thus, ethics are ALWAYS morals, but of a particular flavor relying on logic and the distinction of creating good versus the opposite. Morals in the sense of religiously dictated behavior are termed DEONTOLOGICAL morals, that is, morals given by a god figure.

                                                          #

(Unlike Consequentialism) for many deontologists, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. Such norms are to be simply obeyed by each moral agent; such norm-keepings are not to be maximized by each agent. In this sense, for such deontologists, the Right is said to have priority over the Good. If an act is not in accord with the Right, it may not be undertaken, no matter the Good that it might produce. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

                                                           #

The Simple View of Morals and Ethics is now updated to make distinctions more clearly - the framework is the same but two new assertions are made. One is Rushworth Kidder's notion that "ethics is the balance of right versus right" in a tradeoff or case - based process. The other is Craig Hubley's notion that "moral example distinguishes right from wrong, and over time what we choose to emulate creates a 'moral core'" as distinct from a "moral code".

                                                            #

It seems to me that there is, in fact, no useful distinction whatsoever that can be drawn between the terms "moral" and "ethical".

                                                         ###

It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere—no difference in abstract truth that doesn't express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and some-when. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.

SOURCE: William James, "What Pragmatism Means" (1907).

Read more: Pragmatism - William James - Difference, Belief, Peirce, and Conduct - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/10826/Pragmatism-William-James.html#ixzz4qdAqvsXU

Me:

Bottom line: It is conceivable that when you write about ethics, you might in some instances want to make use of the term morals. If you do, you will need to define it. For my purposes, when we talk about ethics we are talking about rules of conduct that are based on consequence and are never absolute.

The conclusion of the most recent Ethics Code created by the Society of Professional Journalists:

The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by additional explanations and position papers that address changing journalistic practices. It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.

If you click through to the "expanded explanation," you will find:

We realize — and have embodied in our code — that all journalism ethics is a balancing act between often conflicting responsibilities. One of our guiding principles, whose importance we all recognize, is "Seek truth and report it." Another is "Minimize harm." Obviously, if one reports all truths without flinching, we will inevitably do great harm, and if one minimizes harm as much as possible, one will not be reporting essential truths. The key is in the balancing act — and in recognizing the importance of each core value. That's not easy to enforce.