The Differences between Morals and Ethics - Essay Example

Essay The differences between morals and ethics can appear arbitrary to a lay person, but are significant, irrespective of the fact that they are subtle. The differences cover areas such as the fact that morals, entail the definition of personal character, but ethics emphasizes the wider social framework, within which the morals of personal character are used and applied. In simpler terms, ethics points out the codes of behavior or the standards expected from an individual, by the group or the community that they belong to. In line with the definition of ethics, ethics can take the forms and the scale of administering ethical guidelines to a society, a group, a family or an institution. For example ethical models can take the following models: national ethics, professional ethics, corporate/ company ethics or family ethics. The difference points out the major significant difference between the two, which is that, while a person’s moral code remains constant, the ethics that they identify with and practice are likely to change due to a change or shift from one reference group or society to another. In exploring the distinctions between morals and ethics, the case of a criminal defense attorney can evidence the differences. Notably, despite the fact that the attorney’s personal morals may point out that murder is a reprehensible and immoral act, the ethics of their practice will require him/ her to defend an accused client in the best way they can. That will remain the case, irrespective of the fact that a lawyer may know perfectly that the client is guilty of the murder charges and that defending them, successfully, may give them another opportunity to commit a similar crime in the future. In the case of the attorney discussed through the example, their legal ethics must overrule their morals, so that they can play the role they are supposed to play. The role of a lawyer is to defend a client successfully, both for the good of the client, as well as for the good of the justice system, which offers an accused person the chance to go through fair trial; the prosecution is supposed to prove that the accused person is guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt. Confucians thought maintains that social harmony arises from all people knowing their place within the natural order, and playing the role for that part as required. The duties of various people (at the different social positions they occupy) emanate from a person’s position, with reference to others. For example, the roles of a teacher at school are totally different from those that he is supposed to take at home, when interacting with his wife and children. Still, the duties of the particular teacher to their parents will be different from those that they should play at the two other centers; in relating with members of the community, the roles will still need to take a different nature and form. The relational position of people implies that a person will occupy different places, which calls for different actions, at the same time. The elders in society are supposed to show the young the virtues of concern and benevolence; in repaying the respect they are accorded. Through the process of taking the best positions in society, befitting punishments will be distributed among wrong doers, and that will inform all people of what is wrong and what is right. For example, from the case of teacher, their duties to his students may allow them to show some level of superiority, but the same is not expected from them, when they are relating with the leaders within the community. In the case that the teacher shows disrespect for public office leaders, it is possible for them to face charges for the offense; that serves as an example to them and other members of the community. Rule utilitarianism maintains that the action that is morally right is the one that is in line with a moral rule. The general observance of a moral rule is the creation of the highest level of happiness. However, noting that act utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of sacrificing self-happiness for the general good of many people – which will be regarded to amount to the most happiness – it becomes evident that rule utilitarianism is not enough to solve the problem of act utilitarianism. In order to understand the rationale as to why it is not enough, the example of a worker who goes to the office for six days and rests on the last day of the week can be used. Using act utilitarianism as the principle, it would be held that, instead of sitting in front of the TV or sleeping all day during their free day, it would create more happiness if they visited children’s home and shared something with them. Using rule utilitarianism, it would be maintained that the morally right act for the worker would be visiting the children, as it will create more happiness. The solution offered by the rule shows that the man’s priority and the importance of resting would be disregarded for the interest of the many children, which shows that the rule does not solve the problems of act utilitarianism fully. Contractarianism offers the political model, for the legitimacy of political authority and morality, by accounting for the origin and the content of moral standards. In explaining the political side, the model claims that a rightful state authority emanates from the contractual agreement of people and the state, where the relationship is grounded on mutual agreement. On the other hand, the moral theory maintains that the standards that are ethical in nature get their power from the mutual agreement between the parties. The criticisms leveled against contractarianism by the libertarian school includes that it does not conceive a fixed set and model of rights as intrinsic and unchangeable. This criticism is leveled against it, due to its emphasis that rights can only be derived, in areas like property and liberty, upon which free persons can consent or agree about. Pascal’s Wager does not rely on deductive reasoning. This is evident, from the fact that deductive thinking links premises with logical conclusions. In the case that the premises taken into account are true, the terms of the deductive thinking process are true and clear, therefore, the conclusions made through deductive thought will be true. The rules of deductive thinking require the thinker to start with premises that are true, so as to yield true conclusions. The argument is weak and unfounded, which shows that the conclusions drawn using it will still be wrong and baseless. In its working, he should have grounded the argument on factual premises, and not an impractical one of trying to believe that God exists, irrespective of the fact that it did not offer any proof to support the premises about God’s existence. The problem of evil only refers to the contradiction in the idea of having a deity who is al good, all powerful and omniscient, yet they have allowed evil to continue to exist. The contradiction is apparent from the fact that the deity who is all good, all knowing and all powerful would create evil, or allow evil to exist, which leads to the conclusion that the situation needs to be justified and corrected. The problem can be traced to the conception of a God who is embraced by Western religious believers, following the overlay between Christian beliefs and the concept of the ideal deity believed by the Hebrews. One of the solutions to the problem is the premise that the evil in the world has been created and caused by the moral agents living in the world (humans) and not a God who is all good and powerful. The problem with this solution is that, questions arise, as to whether an all-good and all-powerful God would allow evil to take over the world, without caring about the consequences. The second solution to the problem is that evil does not exist as an entity, thing or being. This answer is based on the argument that creation is merely a matrix, where everything is not real; therefore evil is also not real. The third option is the regard that God is not omnipotent; therefore a duality of evil and good has existed and will continue to do so. This solution is based on the fact that an all-powerful and good God would stop evil, but so far he has not stopped it. None of the attempts is successful, because all of the options are based on assumptions, where the real premises of the problem of evil, the existence of God and the balance between God, man and evil can never be verified in an empirical, or a logically convincing manner. The allegory of the cave, as used by Plato, is a work that clearly explains the distinction between appearances and reality. It explains the case of humans that are imprisoned by their bodies, which allowed them to only see appearances; they mistook appearances for reality; according to them, their sight gives them a fact, which is often not true. In differentiating the appearances accepted by the groups, like many human groups, emphasis is made that people need to question the sources of appearances, which according to him is all about embracing philosophy. Through questioning the perceived truth, people would become enlightened and see beyond appearances, which will allow them to witness the reality behind the appearances. Works Cited Schick, Theodore, and Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Philosophy: An Introduction through Thought Experiments. 5th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print. Read More