Expounding

First off, I got another 1,500 words on “First” yesterday. Not my best day but seeing as it’s been few weeks since I’ve managed anything like regular work, Ill take it and thank you kindly! I liked the comments left on the question of Morals vs. Ethics. It's nice to know I'm not the only nutcase who seriously considers these issues!

Well then, as promised: I will impart to you my own odd little view of the difference between ethics and morals. As I said, it seems to be a very distinct item that shows up in my work, hence at some level I must find it an important issue so I’ll bore you with my viewpoint for a bit and hopefully clarify the whole thing for my own tiny brain.

Morals are a codified set of guiding laws that tell a person what’s right and what’s wrong. Morality is espoused and taught by all religions and most governments have an intrinsic investment in supporting Morality whenever possible. On the surface, Morality seems to be a good thing: most of us would agree that killing is an immoral act and we’d agree that folks should never be allowed to kill each other. There are certain things that people generally accept as being simply: “Wrong” to do. Stealing, killing, telling lies, etc.; these are all immoral acts.

Ethics are a standard of conduct, wherein each individual is responsible for deciding the correct course of action in a given circumstance. On the surface, Ethics and Morals seem very similar. In most cases, both stances would say that killing is wrong. The fundamental difference lies in the fact that Ethics are infinitely flexible, where Morals provide no flexibility whatever. For a Moral person, there can never be a justification for killing, whereas an Ethical person might well deem that killing is the only correct action in a given circumstance. Assume an instance where you are armed with a gun and witness a terrorist about to detonate a bomb. Morally, killing this man is every bit as wrong as killing an innocent child. Morality sees killing as killing, regardless of the victim; it is an absolute. Ethics sees the variable worth of the potential victims and weighs the potential damage the terrorist can cause against the value of his life. An Ethical person would put a bullet in the SOB’s head and be happy that he saved countless other lives. Now, that’s an admittedly extreme scenario, but it underlines the point. On a smaller scale, we would all agree that it is immoral to steal but ethically I think most of us would have no problem stealing food to feed a hungry child. I’d do it and never lose a moment’s sleep worrying about the morality of it. The needs of survival outweigh the rules of personal property. That’s an Ethical decision.

Now to my thinking, any rational person would choose Ethics over Morals at all times. You will note however, that religions and governments alike denounce Ethics. Oh, perhaps not directly, but if you listen carefully you will find that all major religions are opposed to “Situational Ethics” and governments cling tightly to the “Letter of the Law”, leaving little room for justifications when those rules are violated. Morality is a servant of absolute and rigid rule, where the determination of right and wrong is made by those in positions of power. Ethics is an uncontrollable system wherein individuals are responsible for making the best choice possible in a given situation. That level of freedom among people is anathema to power structures. By its very nature, Ethics undermines the status quo and is a threat to religion and government alike.

Morality is a very dangerous tool. It encourages people to not think. Morality is a mental crutch that provides a catch-all excuse for never having to accept change or look at our own beliefs with a rational eye. If something is called “Immoral” we can feel free to ignore it, denigrate it, and even persecute it if we wish. Look at homosexuality: most religions consider it an immoral act and large portions of the world strongly agree, even to the point of physical beating and murder of those who practice it. Morality simply calls it wrong, with little rational explanation of why. (Sorry, “The Bible says so” does not count as a rational reason!) An Ethical person looks at an issue like homosexuality and asks a simple question: “Who does it hurt?” That’s a rational approach. The answer is of course: nobody. The large religions and the government of the U.S. believe otherwise however. Their Moral stance is that it is wrong and a threat to the fabric of our families and nation. How? Simple: it’s immoral!

Morality is an absolute and logic shows it for the cyclical round of justifications that it is.:

1. A thing is immoral.
2. You ask why it is immoral
3. The response: that it is simply the wrong way to behave
4. You ask why it is wrong
5. The answer: (refer to number 1 above)

Ethics have no associated rules; you simply make the best decision you can under the circumstance. It is not expected that you will be right 100% of the time and you will never make a decision that everyone will agree with. You can only do what seems the right thing to you and live with the consequences.

I like to think of myself as an Ethical kinda guy!

So, there’s my diatribe on the two . . . This subject has shown up in every single novel I’ve written. It may not be the main theme, but it is definitely a sub-theme. I don’t support Morality, or any of the structures that create and/or propagate it. I believe that individuals are the only ones who can determine what’s right and what’s wrong and that those two things vary dramatically based upon circumstance and necessity. A lot of folks say that makes me an anarchist, or morally bankrupt.

I’m cool with that.

Have a great holiday weekend, I’m offline until Wed. of next week I think.

Later!