Do you have expertise in ethics? No. — "Bartricks

Thus spoke the Dunning-Kruger troll. Again.

Yes, that's the one.
It isn't an issue in philosophy. Academic philosophers do not debate whether ethics and morality have the same meaning.

When someone contradicts me, ask that person if they have any expertise in ethics. That is, do they have a PhD and/or peer review publications in respectable venues. They won't.

Academic philosophers do not debate whether ethics and morality have the same meaning. — Bartricks

I tend to agree with that. Ethics and morality in the sense of field of knowledge or study are unquestionably synonymous.

I think the confusion arises from the way some writers use the terms. For example, "ethical and moral" tends to occur quite frequently as if it was two different concepts:

"Humans are ethical and moral regardless of religion and God"

And discussions keep shifting from one term to the other and back again:

"To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person’s choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the individual to include what is determined to be right, and wrong, for a community or society at large.

Ethics is concerned with rights, responsibilities, use of language, what it means to live an ethical life, and how people make moral decisions".

Ethics and Morality - Psychology Today

So, I can see why people can find it confusing.

So, do you have a Ph D and peer review in ethics? Also, I am sure that the academic philosophers are worth listening to, but I would have thought that within academic and other philosophy discussion it is all about the interchange of ideas rather than ultimate deliberations about the meaning of terms.

Thanks for finding a useful article, because I do think that there are probably differing opinions on the matter.

Yes. And I use the terms interchangeably. Like everyone else apart from those who lack expertise. So, psychologists, sociologists, historians and, well, anyone else who isn't a philosopher seems to think they might be different - cos how is it possible to have two words for the same thing? That never happens does it? - and then they don't listen to experts because as we all know, experts are only worth listening to when they confirm your convictions.

Why will you only find articles by non philosophers on this? Why might that be? Why might it only be sociologists or psychologists or what have you drawing the ethics morality distinction? Why?

I can see that it is worth being aware that psychologists have a different training, but I am still not sure that it means that only academic philosophers have the authority to have an opinion. Even if you are an 'expert' it doesn't mean that every other expert would agree with you because in philosophy, the whole purpose must be about discussion of ideas, or otherwise there is no point in philosophy at all.

So just to be clear: when it comes to what ethics means, you think the authorities on this are not professional ethicists, but psychologists?

Where do you get your car serviced? The dentists? Sheesh.

But I am not aware of other professionals thinking that they have exclusive knowledge. For example, I have worked with consultant psychiatrists, including professors, and they don't try to argue that their knowledge and expertise about mental health is superior to that of all others. The way you describe it makes it seem as if truth is decided within ivory towers.

Go ask a psychiatrist the meaning of a term in psychiatry. Then contradict their answer.

You have asked a question about whether ethics and morality denote the same concept. That's not a question in philosophy. There's no dispute over it. It isn't interesting. It isn't about reality, just about word use. And the answer is undisputed: they mean the same. One is Greek, the other Latin. Deal with it. You do when it comes to fromage and cheese - or is that a philosophical question too?

The psychiatrists I knew were open to debate. In the first place, I simply raised the topic for discussion, and I am not really concerned to prove a point. If you are an academic of such importance I respect your opinion, but don't that it gives you the authority to come up with the one and ultimate opinion. I see this being in contradiction to the true spirit of philosophy. I believe that in order to make your case you would need to look at forming an argument rather than just claiming that you are the expert.

So, psychologists, sociologists, historians and, well, anyone else who isn't a philosopher seems to think they might be different - cos how is it possible to have two words for the same thing? — Bartricks

It's really funny, actually. But I have this book at home, An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis by Philosophy Prof. J Hospers that I hardly ever even look at, to be honest. I just checked right now and under "Problems in Ethics" (chapter 8) it says "The nature of moral judgments", under "Ethics and Law" it says "moral rules, moral principles, moral theorists", ... then it goes on to talk about "moral rights" vs "legal rights", "morally unjust", etc., etc. I haven't found the phrase "ethical and moral" yet, but you get the idea.

I am just reporting how the terms are used by those who have dedicated their lives to thinking as carefully as possible about their subject matter (and who are good enough at it to be employed to do it).

They are used interchangeably (though, like I say, ethics has an additional meaning - it can also mean 'the study of morality'). Now and throughout history. Ethics comes from ethos. That was Greek for customs. Morality comes from mores. That's Latin for customs. That doesn't mean that ethics and morality mean customs. But it does show you that the terms have always been used interchangeably.

There can be more than one word for the same thing. Hence, you know, different languages. Morality means ethics and ethics means morality. Unethical means wrong and that's what immoral means. And 'unethical and immoral' is stupid and now you will start hearing it everywhere. And when you hear it you will now know that its utterer is a fool who has no expertise in ethics. They are everywhere.

I am not saying that I don't respect your opinion, but we can see if anyone else contributes to the discussion at all. I see it as a topic for exploration, because the usage of terms does affect the way the ideas themselves are understood and interpreted.

Yes. I have that book knocking about somewhere. I think it's quite good.

I agree with @Bartricks that ethics and morality are the same thing. It's just "ethical" and "moral" that seems a tad unclear.

These are the OED definitions:

ethics a. The branch of knowledge or study dealing with moral principles

ethical a. Of or relating to moral principles, esp. as forming a system, or the branch of knowledge or study dealing with these

moral a. Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.

So, they are synonymous. It’s just that some authors seem to use one or the other when they wish to emphasize a particular aspect of ethics or morality. Possibly, this is the root of the confusion. I for one particularly dislike phrases like "ethical and moral" when it isn't at all clear from the context what the writer is talking about. It's almost as if they are talking about one thing but they throw in the other one just to make sure they are as inclusive as possible.

I have a feeling that this is about as far as you can get with philosophy.

It isn't an 'opinion' and you are not respecting it. Calling it an opinion is disrespectful. For an opinion is unjustified. It is just an opinion.

When I say ethics and morality are synonyms, I am not expressing an 'opinion'. I am telling you how they are used by experts - that is, by those who understand them. They are used interchangeably. I use them interchangeably and no reviewer has yet said 'er, are you talking about morality or ethics in this paper?'. They are used interchangeably by everyone such that switching between the two will go unnoticed and unremarked on. Ethical properties. Moral properties. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory. Utilitarianism is a moral theory. That act was unethical. That act was immoral. And so on.

That's how they're used outside the academy too. I mean, virtualy everyone knows that unethical means the same as immoral. 'He was very moral but totally unethical' makes no sense at all.

It is those in other disciplines who are responsible for muddying the water. For it is they who say things like 'ethics concerns an organization's rules and regulations, whereas morality concerns an individual's conscience' or some such nonsense. I have no idea why they do this. I think they think they're being sophisticated or something, or perhaps they just like making unhelpful distinctions, or perhaps they are just stupid.

Really, I am not going to keep arguing my point, but what I do see as being a problem is the view that there are 'experts', who have the last word. Also, dictionary definitions are useful, but they are brief. But, I do think that it is worth bearing in mind a point arising, early in the thread, how moral was more of a preferred choice of term within religious contexts, and ethics within the secular.

But, really I just raised it for thinking about. It may be that many will agree with you, or not think that it is worth talking about. I am about to log out for the present, and we will just have to see if the discussion is finished here, or whether anyone else joins in further. I am interested to see if others agree that experts have decided that moral and ethical are identical, and if so, I am happy to accept that.

But, I do think that it is worth bearing in mind a point arising, early in the thread, how moral was more of a preferred choice of term within religious contexts, and ethics within the secular. — Jack Cummins

"Christian ethics, which is also referred to as moral theology, is a multi-faceted ethical system: it is a virtue ethic which focuses on building moral character...."

Christian ethics - Wikipedia

But we'll keep an open mind and consider all new findings.

what I do see as being a problem is the view that there are 'experts', who have the last word. — Jack Cummins

For any situation calling for an immediate moral judgement on your part, what......you gonna query an expert? Nahhhh......I suspect you’d agree you’re the last word, and it’s you alone that has to answer to yourself, for whatever you do with that last word.

Ethics is what you learn; moral is what you are.

Don't trouble yourself with quibbles over "dictionaries" and "expertise", mate. These crutches are leaned heavily upon by pedants who fail to understand (i.e. apply what they've read to living). What is crucially telling is how one uses different terms and concepts which appear synonomous for intelligibly distinct purposes in situ. Sophists (pseudo-sages) and philosophers (freethinkers), respectively.

What I believe is that there is a danger that concepts are thought about in a concrete and static way. I was just reading 'A Short History of Ethics', by Alasdair Macintyre. He argues that, 'to analyse a concept philosophically may often be to assist in its transformation by suggesting that it needs revision', and I would say that this is something that applies here in the thinking here. So, I wish that the academic experts could begin to see the need for being able to be more progressive.

But, I won't trouble myself too much, as life has enough stress and strain without getting too worked up over word definitions.

The words can be used interchangeable, or not; the important thing is to recognise how they re being used and to check the usage is consistent.

I would agree with that, and it was really an abstract discussion, but in reality the use of terms does depend on the context in which they are used. Really, I think that in some ways the ideas have to be understood historically. However, I do believe that ideas about morality and ethics have changed, so there is a need for understanding of this progression being reflected in the meanings of the terms.

But, I won't trouble myself too much, as life has enough stress and strain without getting too worked up over word definitions. — Jack Cummins

:up:

Absolutely, I am about to go to bed and don't wish to end up having nightmares about words transmogrifying into monsters.

Really, I think that in some ways the ideas have to be understood historically. — Jack Cummins

Then see https://www.etymonline.com

Thanks for the link. It looks useful, and you definitely love dictionaries.

The fact that words are synonymous does not mean they can't on occasion be used in slightly different senses and vice versa, the fact that words are sometimes used to convey slightly different meanings does not mean that they can't be synonymous in other contexts.