Ethics vs. Morality

'Ethics' and 'Morality' are two terms that are often appear in the same breath and used interchangeably. But, as briefly touched upon in a previous discussion, there is a subtle but significant distinction between them. The former, from the Greek, means 'habits', while the latter, from the Latin, means 'customs'. While both pertain to social conduct, the latter refers to impersonal norms, while the former, personal ones. Customs are general behavioral practices which anyone is to follow, e. g. the Ten Commandments are addressed to all. In contrast, habits are characteristics that are specific to a given person, e. g. the same action might be an example of Courage when performed by one person, but reckless coming from someone less physically capable. Similarly, they can involve two differing applications of Reason. In Kantian Morality, Reason universalizes, i. e. posits actions that can only be performed by anybody and everybody, while in Aristotelian Ethics, Reason moderates, i. e. establishes intra-personal equilibrium in one's conduct. But, as Kant himself implicitly asserts, Ethics is of wider scope and deeper import. For, he shows that in order for Morality to have any meaning at all, it must be interiorized by a subject, or, in other words, Morality must be incorporated into Ethics. However, he has difficulties with the converse; his Reason has no basis for distinguishing one subject from another, which means that it is indifferent to personal histories and pursuits of happiness. Thus, Ethics can entail Morality, but not vice versa. Also, Ethics can help resolve one of the more vexing theoretical problems associated with the latter. Morality prescribes what one ought to do, and what one ought to do is what anybody would do. These are what count as Morally 'good' deeds. But such a definition fails to account for 'superogatory' actions, namely acts that are 'beyond the call of duty', i. e. not what just anyone would do. Indeed, some Moralists have gone so far as to deny the existence of such a category of acts, in order to resolve the systematic problems that they pose. However, Ethics easily accommodates those kinds of deeds without stripping of them their extraordinariness: one person's Courage is not necessarily another's, so a courageous act can be both Good with respect to them without it being what anyone ought to do. So, again, Ethics and Morality are different, most notably insofar as the latter might be an aspect of the former, which defines the more general scope of conduct cultivation.