The dictionary doesn't make a lot of distinction between ethics and morals, but like most synonyms, if there weren't at least fine shades of difference in meaning, we shouldn't have two words. So, I'm going to play Noah Webster and define the two:

Ethics is the philosophical attempt to define an objective guide for human behavior.

Morals are the currently accepted, subjective rules that we use to judge human conduct for the society in which we live.

The key difference is one of viewpoint. We generally find ethics being debated in intellectual tones, by those seeking to find a rational basis on which to make important decisions. Virtually every important philosopher in any society has written extensively about ethics, searching for first principles from which we can develop an objective recipe for living in the best possible way.

Morals on the other hand, tend to be dogmatic, in the form of rules passed on to us by authority figures. In our youth, parents, teachers, and religious leaders spend a great deal of energy impressing upon us some particular set of rules which they believe leads to a proper life. Quite often, there is no attempt to prove that these morals are socially useful and correct. They are simply to be accepted as a requirement of living in a society. They tend toward absolutism.

A moralist declares that there is only one correct response to a dilemma, while an ethicist examines all the possible responses, looking for the best compromise when none of the solutions is completely satisfactory. But even the ethicist needs a basis from which to operate.

Perhaps a useful way to think about such things is to consider an example. Let's start with something that seems simple, the ending of one human life by another human. The most widely read moral code of the western world, the Torah or Old Testament speaks to the issue succinctly. Exodus 20:13 says simply, "You shall not kill". This commandment leaves little room for interpretation. It doesn't say, "You shall not kill except under certain extenuating circumstances." It doesn't even say, "You shall not kill other humans but animals are ok." Like all moral codes, societies interpret such sweeping statements to suit their current needs. Conflicts among groups within societies arise when there is disagreement as to the correct interpretation. The more absolutist the group, the more passionate their defense of their particular view.

While it generally seems like a good idea for a human to never kill another human, we have to deal with reality, where it isn't that simple. Circumstances arise where a choice must be made, to kill or be killed. How do we decide the proper course?

If we modify the biblical exhortation to something like, "You shall not kill humans without reasonable cause," we can still spend a great amount of energy defining reasonable cause. And almost everyone will agree that there are reasonable causes, but we may disagree on specifics. This is where ethics based in reason should be called into service. Humans have fought wars for thousands of years, and in every case, those being attacked faced the kill-or-be-killed dilemma. Criminals threaten innocent citizens with murder every day. Most people resolve this dilemma readily, finding self-defense to be completely ethical. Yet a few people find killing so reprehensible that they would rather be killed than kill, or they seek a way to run away from the issue if at all possible. But if most of us ran from ethical dilemmas, the really unethical people would soon be in control of our world.

Less clear are decisions that are not urgent responses to life threatening situations. Our society debates such ethical issues as punishment of criminals with the death penalty, abortions under various circumstances, medically assisted suicide, or withdrawal of life support from the brain-dead. Our views on the ethics of killing may be shaped by our own fear of death. Our particular ideas about justice may influence our thinking – do we tend toward the "eye for an eye" approach or the "enemies like unto our selves" approach? Both can be defended as valid moral codes sanctioned in scriptures. Do we place a mother's life ahead of an unborn child's if we have to choose, or vice versa? How do we define when life begins? Should a person be allowed to choose to end their own life if the quality is unbearably poor and there is no reasonable chance for improvement? All these issues surrounding death produce the most divisive political rhetoric of our time, since they evoke such passion in us. Somehow, in spite of the ongoing debate, we develop laws as a society to enforce such ethical viewpoints as they change with time, even though we never have complete agreement.

Over the past several hundred years, beginning with the publication in 1651 of Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, philosophers began moving away from simply reinterpreting religious scripture over and over, to more secular attempts to define good vs. evil, ethical vs. unethical. With Hobbes, the real separation of church and state began. During the next hundred years Scholasticism and theology slowly gave way to Rationalism, culminating in the writings of David Hume in the mid-1700s. This shift in thinking led to the period of social upheaval we call the "Enlightenment" which saw a surge in philosophical thought that ultimately led to the revolutionary overthrow of ideas and monarchs. Writers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire, the standard bearers of Romanticism, rejected the Christian premise of the inborn wicked nature of man, instead proclaiming that man is by nature good, but is corrupted by societal pressures.

With theological absolutism fading, new ways to define ethical behavior were needed. In the latter part of the 1700s, Jeremy Bentham and James Mill began promoting Utilitarianism as a system of ethics. In 1859, John Stuart Mill , the son and student of James Mill, published On Liberty, in which he perfected the idea that the greatest good is done when individual freedom is maximized, so long as the freedom of others is not compromised. The old moral codes used to judge individual behavior were rendered obsolete, and cultural relativism began to replace theological absolutism as the basis for systems of justice in the secular modern world, a trend which continues to this day.

The ethics branch of philosophy didn't stop developing with John Stuart Mill. In fact, it was heavily influenced by many writers in the next 150 years, people like Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Sartre, Huxley, and Russell, who continued the assault on moral absolutism. They extended Mill's vision of liberty in various directions for a world that has become very small for the people it must contain. Some of these directions reached dead ends, like the übermensch of Friedrich Nietzsche, or the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ethic of Karl Marx. Such ideas simply didn't work with real people. This is a very important point which has to be considered, that systems of ethics, if they are to be more than the dreams of idealists, must work in the real world, where not everyone wants to play by the same rules.

The struggle to maintain absolutist moral codes by religious groups is by no means done. Christian fundamentalists are particularly vocal and wield considerable power in American society. Theocracies have been popular ideas in the Muslim world for many years, since the Koran provides more specific guidance for moral correctness than other major religious texts. But the allure of theocracies seems to wear off over time, and even if Islamic moral code forms the basis of law, many practical matters must still be handled in a secular way. Communism, which can also be thought of as an absolutist moral code, is fading but still makes an occasional resurgence here and there in the world today.

There is a problem with the loss of dogmatic, inviolable moral codes. We run the risk of having our ethical compass disappear as well, setting us adrift with no guide. We see people like this floating through life all around us. Without a guide, they instinctively move toward pure, hedonistic self-interest. They are continually searching for happiness and have no clue why it eludes them.

The problem of being adrift is especially severe in young people, since we all start life with self-interest our only concern. In the absence of guidance of some sort, even the lessons of life may not be enough to cause a child to see the relationship between fundamental ethical principles and personal long-term gain through their application on a day to day basis. Combined with the feelings of invincibility and immortality that come with youth, the result is a dangerous cocktail. Ultimately, pure, uninhibited self-interest conflicts with laws in our society, since it is the basis of what we define as criminal behaviors.

Without a clear prescription for moral behavior, each individual must take responsibility to develop a personal system of ethics. Historically, we've found that it is much easier to teach young people a moral code whose violation results in certain punishment, whether swift and physical, psychological, or long term-spiritual, than it is to teach a purely principle-based system of ethics. It requires less work and achieves the goal of conforming citizens, and thus a stable society. Parents, schools, and religious institutions have provided such moral instruction since there have been people. But I propose that a rationally developed system of personal ethics offers clear advantages, and is therefore worth the effort. It is more adaptable to changing times, it helps to build a better society, and it results in greater personal fulfillment.

John Stuart Mill's thoughts on maximizing individual liberty were very powerful. But his "do your own thing as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" model is not sufficient in itself since it doesn't really address many ethical questions. Many theologians and religious groups take particular offense at any concept that denies that there are always absolute good and evil human behaviors, and that we would even consider looking beyond the particular moral code of their group. In fact, such a discussion with a devout follower of any western religion is usually pointless, since they have already identified a first cause for themselves, and they aren't interested in further discussion. But some of us can't be that way, i.e. convinced of the universal application of some particular moral code. We must press onward and look elsewhere, since we want to live fulfilled meaningful lives also. Our disagreement centers on whether that is possible in the absence of their religion, and we simply have to agree to disagree.

As I think about the people I observe who seem to be the most successful and fulfilled, they always have a very well grounded system of ethics, whether they have analyzed it as such or not. Sometimes, such a person is deeply religious, sometimes not at all. In either case, they don't really need dogmatic moral codes, because their personal system of ethics encompasses and goes far beyond specific dos and don'ts. The fundamental principles by which they live their lives provide the basis for their entire way of being. These are the sorts of people who are described with adjectives like honorable, high integrity, just, compassionate, principled, etc.

But these core principles don't just spring into being as the first cause. They are derived from an innate desire we all have to lead a fulfilling life. In my view, an objective analysis of that desire, whether conscious or subconscious, can lead to a logical and coherent value system, without the contradictions that moral codes always carry as baggage, with or without a religious backdrop.

A First Cause Model

If we apply the concept to every aspect of our lives, we find that those wonderful "aha" experiences that feel so good become more frequent. And with maximized liberty allowing us to become self-actualized, the satisfaction of a quality centered ethic moves us beyond self-interest toward what some would call altruism. We learn to do things which help others because we find the experience fulfilling, which ultimately helps us to find the energy to do even more. Maximized quality-based living puts our lives on an upward spiral of fulfillment. The converse, minimal effort, self-gratification based living, ultimately puts our lives on a downward spiral of despair.

Principles for Living

Be truthful at all times both with yourself and with others.

Treat others as you would expect to be treated.

Promise only what you can reasonably deliver, and meet those obligations unfailingly.

Where it counts, always do your best.

Seek balance always between personal needs and the needs of others.

I encourage everyone to sit and reflect on their own principles for living. Name them often, and test your daily decisions against them. If you find that the principles don't support the underlying quality motive that leads to fulfillment, modify them until they do. They will become increasingly a part of your existence, and you will feel your spirit rise.

I'd like to close with the lyrics to a song from my own youth by Graeme Edge, which speaks to the search for fulfillment, called:

dm 11/7/99