Morals and Ethics

The words ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’ are bantered about by national media, politicians and religious authorities as if they their use somehow absolves them of any need for rational thinking. All too often the words are misused for a particular situation or simply jammed into a sentence without any forethought regarding applicability.  Morals are codes of conduct that define a continuum of good and bad. They develop as a product of our upbringing and are used as benchmark measures when choices might lead to a conclusion of being good or bad. Ethics are similar in that they do define what is socially acceptable and not acceptable. They are developed over time but not necessarily in support of any specific moral code. Sometimes an ethic, such as ‘following the chain of command’ may not apply to some situations if that situation does not demand adherence to a chain of command.  This is not the same as ‘situational ethics’ which is in support of any means to an end.  Situational ethics break the boundary of any universal moral standard.  One example of this is the use of torture to gain information which would prevent mass destruction of people.   Morals apply regardless of the situation:  they never vary and in theory can have fundamental universal application.

Unlike ethics, morals have a sort of hierarchy built as a process of child development according to specific stages.  Kohlberg defined 6 stages of moral development grouped according to convention (traditional).  Most adults are at a conventional level of morality which is dictated by the social process of law and order.  This is a civic duty approach to life which is dictated to each individual and applies to all: ‘no one is above the law’.  A Post Conventional sense of morality is fundamental to the character of the person and guided by an internal set of universal ethics which are not bounded by law.  Action may occur in defiance of any law if ‘lack of action’ is considered wrong.

Morals and ethics are rather lofty concepts, but they are somewhat tied together with the more practical concept of ‘sportsmanship’ and ‘fair play’.  In everyday life situations ‘sportsmanship’ and ‘fair play’ are easier to apply as well as understand.  As in a professional game of chess, players would warn each other if they are placing themselves in a check situation when other moves are available.  In other words the game is won or lost based on competition of skill rather than simple errors.  Pride in gamesmanship is achieved when the opponent is left with no other alternative other than to place themselves in check. 

It is the application of ‘fair play’ that is most useful in attempting to develop intimate relationships.  Couples often flounder in their quest for stability when compromise is based on ‘foul play’ rather than ‘fair play’.  However, unlike chess, the outcome can be two winners if fair play is used by each member to achieve compromise. 

Over the next few years the world community will be challenged with cataclysmic financial as well as climatic problems.  Our moral fiber as a nation will be tested to its limits.  If we succumb to the temptation of applying conventional principles of morality to these crises, our nation will eventually fall into the same abyss of obscurity as did the Roman empire.  When our choices are directed by compassion the winds of change cannot weaken our moral fiber.