Philosophy Now Forum

Morality is subjective in that everyone has their own priorities, and ethics is objective in that some priorities are prerequisites for others and more universally shared. You must account at minimum for the differences in priority and scale.

Must we?
Okay.
Morality is subjective. Even when dictated by a religious canon to large congregations, each individual member is held personally accountable by a personal deity for how well or poorly they adhere to its tenets. In [Christian] theory, no member of the congregation or of the community at large, has the right to judge any other member's moral conduct.
Ethics is a standard applied to interactions among members of a society, whether in business, political or personal transactions. Adherence to that code of conduct is judged by, and is open to judgment by all members of the society.
The legal code is third separate entity. While both morality and ethics contribute to making the law, neither is wholly embodied by the law, and both transcend the law.
And, much as philosophers may yearn for a universal set of rights and wrongs, there can be no such thing. Codes of conduct vary by the world-view, enlightenment and power dynamics of each society and by the exigencies of its environment.

[quote=Skip post_id=484654 time=1607875462 user_id=6255]
Must we?
Okay.
Morality is subjective. Even when dictated by a religious canon to large congregations, each individual member is held personally accountable by a personal deity for how well or poorly they adhere to its tenets. In [Christian] theory, no member of the congregation or of the community at large, has the right to judge any other member's moral conduct.
Ethics is a standard applied to interactions among members of a society, whether in business, political or personal transactions. Adherence to that code of conduct is judged by, and is open to judgment by all members of the society.
The legal code is third separate entity. While both morality and ethics contribute to making the law, neither is wholly embodied by the law, and both transcend the law.
And, much as philosophers may yearn for a universal set of rights and wrongs, there can be no such thing. Codes of conduct vary by the world-view, enlightenment and power dynamics of each society and by the exigencies of its environment.
[/quote]

I take morality to be more personal and ethics to be more formal as well. The legal code seeks to be ethical only to the extent people understand ethics, which is basically not at all, and is not interfered with by non-rational political interests, which is ubiquitous, so no, the law doesn't count. The very fact that both ethics and morality transcend the law indicates that the law is a compromise of some kind, and The Truth, a prerequisite for justice, only loses in compromise.. But that's political theory, and i digress.

While there may be no ultimate ethics, that's not really what ethics intends, at least not for anyone with the slightest epistemological understanding of transcendence. Words that reference, or intend, the "ultimate" of something are mere placeholders, and not pragmatic. The exercise of morality, whether personally or socially, is a direction, not a destination. We cannot account for AI consciousness, for example, because we don't know how it will work, but that doesn't mean ethics can never be formalized sufficiently for all intents and purposes of the moment. I daresay, well-minded people can also anticipate and forgo certain ethical problems of the future, if given the power to do so effectively.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 5:16 pm I take morality to be more personal and ethics to be more formal as well.

The distinction is not about formality. The distinction is between soul and citizenship. Morality is the standard of behaviour demanded by your own spiritual well-being and your relationship to the world, regardless of whether it affects other people or not. Ethics is the standard of behaviour demanded by a society of its members toward one another.
Eg. It's immoral to pollute a river, simply because it is river.
It is unethical to pollute a river, because other people may drink it or eat poisoned fish.

The legal code seeks to be ethical only to the extent people understand ethics, which is basically not at all

What makes you think that??? Every human being, right down to the age of about three can tell you what's a right and wrong way to treat others. It's not complicated! The only reason legal terminology makes it seem complicated is that legislation and jurisprudence have to encompass all foreseeable examples of malfaisance - and even so, judges must exercise discretion, because not all behaviour is adequately covered by the legal code.

The very fact that both ethics and morality transcend the law indicates that the law is a compromise of some kind,

All social interaction is compromise. Social decision-making on a national scale is a compendium of compromises.
The law is simply a practical guideline for maintaining enough harmony for a society to function.

and The Truth, a prerequisite for justice, only loses in compromise..

That's certainly a digression! Unsupported by definitions.

The exercise of morality, whether personally or socially, is a direction, not a destination. We cannot account for AI consciousness, for example, because we don't know how it will work, but that doesn't mean ethics can never be formalized sufficiently for all intents and purposes of the moment.

A number of ethical system have been formalized. The obstacle is not in the nature of ethics, but in the nature of humans. We change our environment, our societies, our world-view, our priorities - and therefore our conception of correct behaviour.
Ethical structures are built and knocked down regularly - like all kind of monuments.

I daresay, well-minded people can also anticipate and forgo certain ethical problems of the future, if given the power to do so effectively.

Who gives this power?