Can you really explain the difference? Subtle nuances of English words | Hacker News Reader

Can you really explain the difference? Subtle nuances of English words

lithub.com

47 pointsHR0190 comments

Morals are principles of what is wrong and right. These can be virtues, like honesty, integrity, and reliability. They can also be duties, like telling the truth, keeping promises, and following the law. They can be individual beliefs, or principles shared among groups of people. And they differ across individuals, groups, societies, and periods of history.

Ethics is the formal study of moral principles. It includes descriptive ethics - exploring and understanding the morals of an individual, group, society, or period in history. It includes virtue ethics, which theorizes that morality is based on virtues, and deontological ethics, which theorizes that morals are derived from duties. It includes moral realism, which argues that some morals are true and universal - as well as moral anti realism, which argues that morals are determined by individuals and groups. It also includes professional ethics, which attempts to design morals suited to specific professions, like medicine, law, business, and technology.

To summarize, morals are the actual principles of what is right and wrong, while ethics is the study and development of morals.

Thanks for the description.

So are people wrong in using “ethics” when they meant “morals”?

Eg “this company has bad ethics”: they mean this company has bad morals?

Also what does a “good work ethic” mean if ethics is mainly concerned with study and development?

Yes, people are generally talking about morals in our sense when they talk about eg, business or work ethics.

But I would not say that's wrong, because there are three common senses for the words:

1) Morals are principles, while ethics is the philosophy of how we develop them

2) Ethics and Morals are synonyms for principles

3) Morals are principles for individuals, and ethics are principles for groups

Professional and work ethics are most in line with sense 3, because they are about groups. Sense 2 is also consistent and probably what most people actually mean.

However, professional ethics ethics can also be seen as an example of our sense 1. It's a field of applied ethical philosophy, where we engineer codes of morals fit to a specific profession's needs. Business ethics fail when they end up choosing bad morals. So we can call the ethics themselves bad.

And work ethic is not just a set of good morals, but also the ability to spontaneously reflect and improve on our own morals as workers. This gives it some of sense 1 as well.

However it would be a stretch to say this is what people really mean, since most people subscribe to senses 2 or 3.

Sense 1 is mainly useful for people interested in systematically developing morals.

Ethics has also a meaning different than the study and development of morals.

That's certainly one definition of Ethics, as a field of study.

However, it's not the exclusive definition of the word.

Let us refer to Oxford:

ethic noun

/ˈeθɪk/

    ethics

    [plural] 
    Moral principles that control or influence a person’s behaviour

    Professional/business/medical ethics

    To draw up a code of ethics.

    He began to question the ethics of his position.
    
    [singular] 
    System of moral principles or rules of behaviour

    The ethic of personal achievement is very strong in western societies.

    ethics

    [uncountable] 
    The branch of philosophy that deals with moral principles

There is nuance in the difference between the word "morals" and the word "ethics".

The problem is that there are a variety of viewpoints on the distinction. Many of the viewpoints are contradictory or otherwise incompatible.

That's why I think the words are effectively ambiguous. I don't communicate in a way that assumes my audience members have a shared and coherent understanding of the distinction.

As an aside, to pick nits on Bernstein's definition of morality:

> Morality refers to right and wrong as a felt sense.

Many people wouldn't self-describe as having moralities that rely on "felt sense". They might even bristle that morality operates in some of the ways that food preferences do. In particular, a lot of moral systems have a notion of self-evident and universal truths. The Declaration of Independence prefaces itself from that perspective, for instance.

I agree.

I think of morality as a code - a set of rules that varies from one social group to another. Morality is loaded with judgementalism. In particular, "morality" to me bespeaks religious rules of conduct.

I think of ethics as a topic of discourse and study, e.g. Aristotle's Ethics. I have a rebellious temperament, and don't have a lot of time for social rules; I make my own rules, which I hope are respectful and kind.

Moreover there are many attempts to codify morality: religions. We would not describe religions as systems of ethics, even though they involve thinking about morality just as much as feeling.

For me, morals are axioms. Ethics are the theorems built on top of those axioms.

For example, moral: do no harm, the Hippocratic oath. Ethics: a surgeon should wash his hands before he operates.

If you’re a soldier then “do no harm” isn’t going to work as an axiom so you need something else.

Every system of ethics relies on a basis of axiomatic morality.

The beauty of the English language is that the act of participating in this question shapes the correct answer to it.

It is literally ironic.

Yes I can explain and it's not big deal:

Morals are tenets of right and wrong. (Grace)

Ethics is conduct judged under moral principle. (Law)

Morals are truisms of the human disposition towards goodness.

Ethics guide conduct towards just ends where situations may be morally uncertain or ambiguous.

Morals are what we instinctively know about goodness, while ethics are the rules by which we collectively govern conduct to goodness.

— Lorenzo's Oil (1992) https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0104756/

Augusto Odone: When we first went to the Comoros, what did we do? We got to know the country, right?

Michaela Odone: Yes

Augusto Odone: We studied, we got to know the language, resources, its law. We studied, right? We should threat Lorenzo's illness like another country.

Michaela Odone: I don't quite see the analogy.

Augusto Odone: All right, all right. ALD has many dimensions, right?

Michaela Odone: Yes

Augusto Odone: So, in order to understand it, we need to command genetics, biochemistry, microbiology, neurology, ology-ology.

Michaela Odone: Augusto, we don't have time to go to medical school.

Augusto Odone: Michaela, the doctors are in the dark. They're groping in the dark. The've got Lorenzo on a turvy-topsy diet. And that bloody immunosuppression is brutal and useless. Michaela, we should not have consigned him blindly into their hands. He should not suffer by our ignorance. We take responsibility. So... we read a little. And we go out and inform ourselves.

Michaela Odone: But... to miss time with him while he can still speak to us...

Augusto Odone: Yes, I know, I know. But he expects it of us.

Most of the similarities or difference between any two words comes from the surrounding context. Once "immoral" is set next to "unethical" along with some usage examples then the reader can begin to taste the difference.

I like to look at inverses.

Give me an example of something that is moral and unethical, and example of something that is immoral and ethical. Once you do that, we can get to the real difference.

Just for fun,

Moral and unethical: a prosecutor purposefully crafts a poor argument against someone he knows is innocent but has awful legal representation.

Immoral and ethical: a prosecutor purposefully crafts an amazing argument against someone he knows is innocent but has awful legal representation.

I'm sure these fall apart under only minor inspection!

I had the same examples in mind. Funny innit how prosecutors can't seem to reconcile morals and ethics.

Is this really specific to prosecutors? I feel like it would work in reverse with an incompetent prosecutor and a defense lawyer who knows his client is actually guilty. What stands out to me in those examples is that the difference is occurring because of a conflict between an explicit, codified set of rules (the code of ethics that lawyers operate under) and a perceived greater good that isn't being enforced or codified. To me, this makes it seem like the difference between ethics and morals is that ethics are codified and enforced in some sense (i.e. there's some authority with the ability to mete out punishments for violations), whereas morality covers right and wrong independent of consequences. I think in a moral context, the intent of an ethical code is to define the morality of various actions, but the question of whether something abides by those ethics is orthogonal to whether the action is moral or not; people might agree that a code of ethics says something but disagree whether what it says is moral or not.

Fair points.

In any case prosecutors have discretion, and they are where "tough on crime" runs head-on into basic humanity.

How is the second one ethical?

The prosecutor's job is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to argue to state's case to the best of their ability and let the judge decide.

I'd change the second example from "knows is innocent" to "believes is innocent".

If the prosecutor "knows" they're innocent, then their argument against would be either untrue or purposefully withholding crucial information, which would make it an unethical argument.

If the prosecutor knows the defendant is innocent, it is arguably unethical to prosecute him. The ABA Standards on the Prosecution Function 3-4.3(d): "A prosecutor’s office should not file or maintain charges if it believes the defendant is innocent, no matter what the state of the evidence."

Note that few if any jurisdictions have adopted this as binding. It's unlikely that a prosecutor would lose their license over what you propose. But it's nevertheless arguably unethical.

One might suggest that they _peruse_ the article, opening up another can of worms

Interesting how all comments are about the question in the title, and not about the post itself, which is more about the subtle nuances of English words. In my opinion, maze vs. labyrinth was way more interesting than morals vs ethics. Also, read the article, please, makes discussion better than just limiting oneself to the title only.

Good point and I think we can mitigate it by taking both morals and ethics out of the title above. Thanks!

I felt that maze/labyrinth bit was disingenuous, since the sense in which labyrinth is a winding path is more of an old religious one, but the common sense of the word is synonymous with maze, and so are some ancient uses, like the minotaur myth.

If we're being honest, the article contents were imprecise rambling crap, rather than useful reflections on language. That's why we're reflecting on the actually interesting title question, imo.

> maze vs. labyrinth

And from a math perspective, they don't need to be any different. A simplistic 2D line maze / labyrinth like those shown can have all the same features, just shaped differently. Secondary false routes, merging alternate routes, shape features designed to disguise routes, routes that loop back to the main route. And the center is effectively the same as reaching the opposite side. As long as routes do not cross, not sure if there's any known features that cannot be implemented in both topologies. That's too far off in math professor land.

Notably, Wikipedia appears to agree that most scholars seem to view the idea that a labyrinth is supposed to be the word for a single path puzzle, vs a maze that has any form of "trickiness". There's also a lot of the cultural issues, the article doesn't really touch on. That it's supposed to be relaxing, except most mythological labyrinths were "murder the monsters" or "murder the pyramid looters".

You can't represent disconnected edges as a single-path. So a maze can have features not implementable as a labyrinth.

I gather someone changed the title which is actually a shame since now fewer people will read it.

> maze vs. labyrinth was way more interesting

The article says the Minotaur myth’s labyrinth was “obviously a maze”, but I doubt it.

In the myth, Ariadne gave Theseus a ball of thread (a clew) on the advice of Daedalus, the creator of the labyrinth [1]. And “Theseus followed Daedalus' instructions given to Ariadne: go forwards, always down, and never left or right” [3] "till he found the Minotaur asleep in the inmost recess" [2].

Getting a "clew" instead of a map from the labyrinth's creator makes me think it's likely symbolic... or that Daedalus expected Theseus to do a DFS search? Plus the “clew” wasn't strictly needed, since reversing those instructions for finding the Minotaur would've got him out again.

That makes me think the Minotaur was trapped in a proper single-path labyrinth.

Of course it’s just interpretation, and some think differently [4], which makes this way more interesting!

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus#Theseus_and_the_Minota...

[2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:19...

[3]: https://www.hellenic.org.au/post/theseus-and-the-minotaur-th...

[4]: Like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#cite_ref-5 . But note the book it cites, from my reading of it, actually says something more nuanced and subject to interpretation.

Both the words "morals" and "ethics" have always bothered me. I feel like they attempt to give an air of absolute authority, that is undeserved. In most cases, using the word "strategies", is much more humble and appropriate.

Why strategies? Ethics for example is taught as a bunch of rules or constraints to consider in decision making. It is mostly to control undesireable side effects of your actions.

It doesn't look for me as a strategy.

Websters definition of strategy: a careful plan or method

And in practice, a strategy can be expressed as a bunch of rules or guidelines to follow. Which I believe fits nicely, with what you've described.

I see, there are similarities. But on the other hand engineerings ethics doesn't say how to achieve engineering goals, it says mostly how to avoid anti-goals. So it is a part of a strategy but not a strategy itself.

Any group of rules/guidelines/rules-of-thumb can be described as a strategy; even if their goals are stated in the negative. And by my definition, the justifications for those strategies, amount to a meta strategy. To me, it's strategies, all the way down.

Ethics/morals as a strategy to achieve your values, sure. The plan is the uninteresting part - people are interested in the values.

Yes, i've been trying to dig into this. People's values are basically a strategy; they hold these values, as a strategy developed by evolution. Evolution has found that instilling these values is a good strategy to sustain the continuity of life.

So, in my terminology, "values" are simply a meta strategy, that inform the development of more specific and functional strategies.

The reason I am trying to avoid the language of ethics/morals and values, is that they depend on an appeal to authority. Or at the very least, they take on the air of such authority. They're often presented as beyond debatable, somehow God sanctioned and any opposition to them is "evil".

What I would like to argue for, is that all morals/ethics/values are just strategies employed by a group of people. None of them are anointed by a higher power. Of course, we can still argue about relative effectiveness of such strategies, and why they're employed.

Others have commented on ethics vs morality. As for maze vs labyrinth... These are synonymous words. One comes from Greek, the other is Germanic. I wasn't able to find a single dictionary that defines a labyrinth as having a single path that draws towards the center. Where did the author pick up that from? Doesn't the author find it strange that the example from Greek mythology (the word labyrinth is Greek...) is already a counterexample?

> defines a labyrinth as having a single path that draws towards the center.

Celtic labyrinths are just like this. See, for instance, Solsbury Hill: https://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2455/little_solsbu...

Okay? Not what I asked, though.

> Ethics vs. Morality

This is external vs. internal. It is certainly the case that these words are used interchangeably. However, one would argue that this is both intellectually weak and symptomatic of a spectrum of other issues.

One can rationalize much evil along various utilitarian lines.

Whether the Creator buys off on one's moral lapses remains to be seen.

The image of the cover of the book the article is based on has "venomous" vs "poisonous", but the article doesn't cover that one.

If anyone is curious:

• poisonous: you get sick if you bite it

• venomous: you get sick if it bites you

"A person who writes fables is a fabulist." That's fabulous.

It's superlative - it's the fabuloust.

Ethics – Rules of conduct in a particular culture or group recognized by an external source or social system. For example, a medical code of ethics that medical professionals must follow.

Morals – Principles or habits relating to right or wrong conduct, based on an individual's own compass of right and wrong.

Reasonable enough, but many people would say eg a ban on drinking is about morality.

The ban is the rule of conduct.

The reason someone initiated the ban is based on their principals of right and wrong.

I wonder if “universality” is also a difference? For example, a medical doctor’s code of ethics might say something like “AS A DOCTOR, always consider the patient’s wellbeing first.” But this is specific to doctors. While a religious person might morally feel that “drinking is wrong,” but they don’t mean that it’s only wrong for people of their religion, they think it’s wrong for everyone.

In most cases I can think of, ethics are a code only for people of the group to follow, while morals are beliefs about inherent rightness and wrongness, that are thought to apply to everyone.

The distinction seems useful, but consider that each of both terms have been defined in many different ways by many schools of thought along the milennia.

For Aristotle, Ethics was the way your parents raised you and the moral compass that education has provided you, either rational or not. So not what you expect after reading the article.

I don’t think there is a difference. They are about determining what is the right and wrong thing to do. Sometimes people distinguish them as morals has to do with religion and ethics has to do with business/politics, but I think that is an artificial distinction. In other words, I consider the words to be synonymous.

I was going to disagree with you but then I noticed your username :P

Then I was going to agree with you. But that didn't seem rational either. O.o

+1 to what @mholt said haha

Morals is the code of conduct which a certain group adheres to in principle, without those rules having the force of law.

Ethics is about your own conduct or the conduct of a group and whether that conduct leads to survival or improvement for yourself and others.

Justice is when a larger group sets some rules (usually laws) because it believes those rules are beneficial to the group. When a member of that larger group fails to follow these rules set by the group, the group comes down on them to force them to apply the rules set out or to punish them for not applying these rules.

Morals is rules that can be enforced or not, ethics is about doing the "right thing", justice is about enforcing the laws set out by a larger group (like a city or state or country etc)

I have a simple definition, but one that generally works well enough. Ethics are 'facts', morals are 'opinions.'

Ethic = do not kill.

Moral = do not covet your neighbor's wife.

It is plainly falsifiable whether somebody does or does not violate an ethic, whereas morals tend to be much more ambiguous and are generally unfalsifiable.

Except there are clearly times when "do not kill" is a horrible strategy, and the wrong way to proceed.

I am using "fact" in the most technical sense. For instance, horses have 5 legs is a fact, while elephants are large is an opinion. The difference between a fact and an opinion is falsifiability. It's not like a fact is the irrefutable "truth" - it's simply something that can be demonstrated, irrefutably, to be true or false.

Can you prove out "do not kill" as necessarily true?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "do not kill" is falsifiable. "Do not covet the neighbor's wife" is not.

> I'm saying that "do not kill" is falsifiable.

I sincerely do not understand what you mean by this. Are you talking about whether the phrase exists?

I also just noticed this from above:

> The difference between a fact and an opinion is falsifiability.

The technical, most essential difference is whether the related proposition is true, is it not? Falsifiability is a requirement to have a chance to reach truth, but it does not guarantee it can be reached, and it does not upgrade an opinion to truth.

No, I am using the literal textbook definition. This is why "a horse has 5 legs" is a fact, while "the universe is large" is an opinion. The problem with the latter is that large is subjective, even if most of everybody would agree it's "true", facts do not require agreement, perspective, or context - they can be demonstrated to be clearly right or wrong. A false fact is still a fact.

So back to the above, there is no subjectivity when a person murders another. By contrast, coveting something (or somebody) is very much a gray scale of subjectivity.

Not much to disagree with here. :)

My cynical take: ethics are morals that someone is trying to impose upon society or specific people, often through institutions (like code of ethics for a profession). Not calling it “morals” gives it a different perception or legitimacy that it isn’t based on political choices or biases.

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right"

- Asimov, Foundation #1

I have an anecdotal about ethics and is the reason why now I consider it a word that managers use to exploit, I don’t reply to weekends work messages and so I was told that I have poor work ethics

It's you managers who have a poor work ethic. They are unable or unwilling to distinguish between work and rest, between what you are paid to do and what you are not.

I'm glad that this sort of thing has never been a problem in my working life here in Norway. And I feel sympathy for those in the US for whom it seems to be a continual problem

Moral: these are very personal rules and beliefs that we rarely break/change.

Ethics: these are societal rules and beliefs that we sometimes disregard depending on context (society/group etc)

Now contrast them with etiquette, decorum, and grace. English is not easy.

None of those have to do with values, just practice or protocol.

OK, what about decency?

Morals = doing the right thing, greatest good for the greatest number, increase the size if the lie through cooperation, treat people the way you want to be treated

Ethics = follow the law and company policy, regardless of whether it is right or wrong

There is no such thing as morality and ethics, only darwinism.

We have made these constructs because it's advantageous.

Imo.

That is like saying "there is no such thing as a hammer, only subatomic particles".

It's not even wrong.

Interpreting the statement charitably, I think they mean "morality and ethics are arbitrary constructs of humankind, not the deep universal principles they are sometimes taken to be".

But that's so obviously a straw man. Obviously nobody believes that.

Could you elaborate? There are people that don't subscribe to moral or ethical absolutism.

Or objectivism, which is the nice one. It's rejecting absolutism that drives people into the arms of relativism.

What a lovely thought.

What exactly are you saying nobody believes? Moral absolutists, moral relativists and moral nihilists all exist.

They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative.

I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.

I think statements of the form "X is immoral" are just secular versions of "X is against God's will", in the sense that they (not necessarily intentionally) use linguistic trickery to present a personal preference as a universal rule.

If I am against something I can say "I am against X"; making statements about oneself is generally safe and not an overstep. There's no obvious path from "I am against X" to "I will stop you doing X".

If I say "X is wrong", that sounds like an absolute, and is more easily (ab)used as a justification for stopping others doing it.

The exact same linguistic distinction applies to offence. "I am offended by X" is accurate and works fine in a society. "X is offensive" is a precursor to censorship.

There isn't even darwinism, just atoms doing atom things

Another shill for Big Atom. Everyone knows it’s all subatomic particles.

Darwinism is self evident. Like the water always flows path of least resistance. Moralism and ethics are ideas ever changning depending on who you ask.

Also self-evident: the existence and nonexistence of God.

So you are saying there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it?

This is a strange take. Yes, both morality and ethics are intrinsically tied to there being existing agents interested in them. But once you establish that those agents exist, saying, "there is no such thing as morality and ethics" is nonsensical.

They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone.

I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative.

I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.

Isn’t that like saying there’s no such thing as eyelids because they’re a product of Darwinism?

You may be interested in Darwin's views on morality here:

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2300/pg2300-images.html...

If you could choose between having hot sex without any chance of conception, or instantly producing a child (no sex involved), which scenario would you personally prefer?

Most people would enjoy the hot sex more.

Some people have this weird misunderstanding of evolution, where they conflate the behavior of genes, of human desires, and sometimes of morality. This is rather nicely debunked in The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.

Interesting idea and question.

This reminds of the current trend that the population developed countries are in decline.

So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral, but now it's moral.

>So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral

Where and when are you talking of?

In medieval Europe it was considered immoral by the catholic church (and note: basically everyone ignored them in practice, and not everyone agreed with the church), because they explicitly religiously believed that deriving pleasure from sex was only caused by the Original Sin, and that nobody should have sex, ever. They carved out an exception for preventing humanity from going extinct, but otherwise: seeking sexual pleasure is sodomy.

Elsewhere: it varies, but sex is fun and most people wouldn't oppose it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com