A lawyer is asked to defend a person. Lawyer finds out that the person is a criminal. Lawyer's morals will tell him not to defend such a person, but the ethics of his profession tell him that he must properly do his job of defending his client.
@@karmarouaidy7878 The lawyer will be ethical in defending his client (criminal or innocent). You can say that this is the right thing to do because he is working and the only wrong thing is if he does not defend the client. According to the context, this is an ethical not moral issue because he may not defend his client properly and all his co -workers and people will still consider him "ok", meaning the lawyer has two choices and since whichever of the two he chooses will still be okay people think of him it means that this is a logical issue. Often if not all is if you do a task that is exactly opposite of our habits people will consider you “insane”, in that case the issue is moral.
Where do these morals go when they get religion? God is a Judge - everyone knows that Judges do not have the power to forgive a criminal Only the victim has that right A Judge forgiving the criminal is cheating the victim of his rights, twice-raping the victim Amazing that NOT ONE LAWYER OR JUDGE HAS SPOEN UP!
If the lawyer has a moral conflict but no ethical obligation to take the case, the lawyer can refuse to take the case if a guilty plea isn't on the table. The lawyer doesn't defend people, but rights and due process, and thus can still defense the rights and due process of s guilty person, morally and ethically. Ethically the lawyer may not disclose the guilt if the accused unless the accused accepts to take a guilty plea. If the lawyer is a public defendant, the lawyer is obligated to continue with the case, and can both morally and ethically advise the accused to take a guilty plea, but if the accused refuses the lawyer still has to say that the plea of the accused is "not guilty".
Morality police and those who administer morality police should know this, the difference between ethics and morality. Ethics is knowing what is right and wrong with reason and logic. Morality is acting right according to what society decides from traditions, beliefs, , knowledge or the lack of it, norms, prejudice and many other factors.
Well, okay, that’s a point of view. In my maturity as a non religious person, I see them both expressed as how we treat others, so as a practical matter, interchangeable terms. Perhaps too simplistic?
Thank you. This is also my personal distinction between the two. But here is an antithesis: could it be that ethics as defined here is essentially a construct meaning the moral approach of modern/western civilisation (as opposed to other civilisations' morals), and that its claims to supremacy and universal application and ground in absolute truth are strangely familiar to those of many other civilisations: the romans, the muslims, the buddhists etc?
I think of Ethics as Rationally Determined Principles for Human Behavior and Morality as what Human Behavior Acts Out. Said another way Ethics is the Rule Book and Morality is what takes place in the street.
I think I agree with you. Morality is the set of existing community standards of behavior which may have arisen from any number of causes or combination of causes. A community may have one moral standard that arose from the dictates of a monarch, another from the aftermath of a disaster, another as the result of contact with a weaker community, another as a result of contact with a stronger community, _et cetera._ Morality is the community standards of behavior that exist. An ethic, OTOH, is always a rationally determined set of principles for behavior with a particular end good set as a goal of that behavior.
I thought morality is the person's personal values and principles, while the ethics is the rules/principles made and set by society and the community. Am i correct? PLEASE ANSWER.
Morality is the set of existing community standards of behavior which may have arisen from any number of causes or combination of causes. A community may have one moral standard that arose from the dictates of a monarch, another from the persuasion of a "wise man," another from the aftermath of a disaster, another as the result of contact with a weaker community, another as a result of contact with a stronger community, et cetera. Morality is the community standards of behavior that exist. An ethic, OTOH, is always a rationally determined set of principles for behavior with a particular end good set as a goal of that behavior.
No distinction is made between these two terms in philosophy. All the videos like this one trying to maintain a difference are based on differences in usage rather than meaning. Not only that but other videos define the two quite differently. For instance before this one I saw a video making out that morality is individual. Whereas this one makes out that morality comes from external cultural sources.
Or, if you don't have 4 minutes for an 8-second answer... Ethics are the behavioral guidelines adopted by a body of people; morals are the behavioral guidelines adopted by an individual. You're welcome.
Where do morals go when they meet religion? The very same people who say they have EARNED everything they have in their lives, now are ready to get down on their knees, beg & grovel, kiss the right butt to get ahead The very same people who mock Corrupt, Dictator countries for their ways, now adopt the same scum bucket ways to get to Heaven! The very same people who call the likes of Putin, Saddam and their supporters pure evil & scum now embrace a "God" who acts just like these Dictators, rewarding "his" people and abusing the rest Amazing, simply amazing - where do our morals go? Where are the educated? Where are our moral?
So ethics is brain based, wile morality is socially based. Ergo, ethics may seem universal, while morality may seem to vary widely, even surprisingly, in different cultures.
All morality must go back to the source! that of a holy creator God!This ultimately must go beyond just family or cultural traditions otherwise it will be seen as relative!
Really, asking an African American person about morality and ethnic is like watching a music video with scantily glad African Americans preaching about the exchange for sex and money. More importantly, these people asking have never worked or lived with them. To asked people in society that are still fighting for all kinds of rights and left out in the jungle to find food and shelter, the last thing on their mind is ethics and morality.
I don't agree with this definition of morality. After all, this definition of morality completely forgets that the objective of morality is to let us know good from evil, not simply what the tradition is. Good and evil went out the window. According to this person, then: 1) Nothing is immoral in a society in which moral values aren't passed down. Thus there's no good or evil judgement. 2) Therefore morality isn't an objective truth. 3) Thus morality is relative, just as good and evil. 4) Therefore, if your reason tells you that it is okay to murder (let's say you follow ethics akin to those of Nazism, racism, or other morally reprehensible doctrines), it is ethical, and if you pass it down as a doctrine to your children but don't pass on the reasons behind it those things also become moral. And yet, the reason for you to do something couldn't be that it is "good", and the reason to avoid it couldn't be that it is "evil". It would all boil down to taste and opinion and impulse. But taste and impulse are irrational. The snake eats its tail.
@@oftenwrongphong i don't have an issue with the murder of pet kittens for meat. It is moral for each species to follow its life cycle. It is moral for each species to fight for its own species. It is morally acceptable to play the part your species has adopted in the food chain. It can't be immoral for a species to do what it has evolved to do to preserve the species. For instance, a dog shouldn't have to forgo eating meat or hunting prey, if proportional to need. The same way, humans did not come with an ability to produce sufficient vitamin B12, or to absorb sufficient iron from plants, or to make do with the methionine in plants. Therefore, it is not immoral for it to obtain it the way it has naturally done so: through the consumption of animal flesh and products.
@@oftenwrongphong by the way, the reasons why we consider it moral to kill some species and not others are usually passed down. The animals that "can't be killed" often serve purposes such as hunting, pest control, company, heat, milk, thread (wool, hair), guardianship, transportation, ornament, symbolism (cultural promotion), hygiene (it's considered harmful to eat, for instance, due to what the animal is willing to eat such as vomit), assigned social role. Not "just because". For the same reason, when the reasons behind the reasons are gone (for instance, a dog becomes a threat to human life instead of an asset) the reason to protect its life are also gone. But, according to this guy, if we produce a generation in which we just teach "you can't kill or eat dogs" and never teach them why then killing or eating dogs becomes immoral.
Wrong. Morality needs a justification, Morality is a Value Judgment, no? What you're claiming is subjectivism, which doesn't work. Ethics are not derived from reason, they're derived from Morality. You can't derive Value Judgments from reason alone, read you're Nietzsche. What you call reason is just Rationale, which is logic and facts, logic and facts can't make a Value Judgment for you, there is an 'I', an 'ego' making the Value Judgment. This is the separation between Knowledge and Belief. My rationality derives knowledge, and my belief guides my knowledge to PROPER action. For instance, 'Stalin killed 10 million people' is a Fact, which through logic I make intelligible, but that's it, I can't say whether or not it was a bad thing Stalin killed 10 million people because the Value Judgment isn't contained in the Fact itself. The Fact is OBSERVED and then JUDGED by my BELIEF, therefore, Ethics is just a fancy word for Morality. I've only got two episodes, but check out my podcast, Philosophy of the World, hosted by me, Jacob Brickner.
Jacob, I will look for your podcast but I do want to point out that, while I agree with your argument, generally speaking, Dr. Obiora draws a distinction that is somewhat different from what you state it to be. He is not making a claim to subjectivism. He is saying that morality is based on tradition and that ethics is based on reason. This means that it is possible that what is now considered moral (meaning that which is based on tradition) was, at one point, ethical (that which is based on reason). Take, for example, the Jewish dietary laws. Today, for those who do not study the origins of the laws, the laws are based on tradition. Dr. Obiora would say that following them is an an example of moral behavior. However, when one takes time to understand the basis of the law, the rationale, to understand the harm it was intended to avoid and the good it was intended to bring, then one who follows those laws is behaving ethically. Would you agree that this is Dr. Obiora's argument? I understand Dr. Obiora to be saying that, basically, that Morals are derived from Ethics. It might be a question of semantics. Otherwise, I do agree that rationality derives knowledge and belief guides knowledge to proper action.
no without moral laws there are ethics - ethics is the whim of the atheistic scientist at worst and at best reflect the Christian morality as taught by JESUS the One True GOD
Beautifully said. I was looking for a way to teach this to my boys. This you just ended my 2-month research... i feel humbled
Morality is best understood as a personal understanding of best practices. Ethics is formalized, usually shared, morality.
Dr Obiora has that rare thing - clear explanation without dumbing down. Thank you Dr Obiora.
Thank you for such a simple and clear explanation. This 4 min video was better than the 3 hour lecture we got from our professor.
ruclips.net/video/GTy8xBFM4PI/видео.html
Try this ethics video
your professer needs a job too!
he paid by the hour
youtube paid by click so short answers
@@mmakotal4388 For sure she does! But she needs to be able to teach students and explain concepts to the point. Cheers
A lawyer is asked to defend a person. Lawyer finds out that the person is a criminal. Lawyer's morals will tell him not to defend such a person, but the ethics of his profession tell him that he must properly do his job of defending his client.
It could be the other way around
@@DanielAleksanderJensen i think it could be if it wasnt the ethics "of his profession" so what is right by his profession
@@karmarouaidy7878 The lawyer will be ethical in defending his client (criminal or innocent). You can say that this is the right thing to do because he is working and the only wrong thing is if he does not defend the client. According to the context, this is an ethical not moral issue because he may not defend his client properly and all his co -workers and people will still consider him "ok", meaning the lawyer has two choices and since whichever of the two he chooses will still be okay people think of him it means that this is a logical issue. Often if not all is if you do a task that is exactly opposite of our habits people will consider you “insane”, in that case the issue is moral.
Where do these morals go when they get religion?
God is a Judge - everyone knows that Judges do not have the power to forgive a criminal
Only the victim has that right
A Judge forgiving the criminal is cheating the victim of his rights, twice-raping the victim
Amazing that NOT ONE LAWYER OR JUDGE HAS SPOEN UP!
If the lawyer has a moral conflict but no ethical obligation to take the case, the lawyer can refuse to take the case if a guilty plea isn't on the table. The lawyer doesn't defend people, but rights and due process, and thus can still defense the rights and due process of s guilty person, morally and ethically. Ethically the lawyer may not disclose the guilt if the accused unless the accused accepts to take a guilty plea. If the lawyer is a public defendant, the lawyer is obligated to continue with the case, and can both morally and ethically advise the accused to take a guilty plea, but if the accused refuses the lawyer still has to say that the plea of the accused is "not guilty".
what a most Enlightening and inspiration Dr Obiora is!!!!
Scratching my head for months and found the explanation. Thank you from a upsc aspirant!
Me also
For Ethics
ruclips.net/video/fUxGF3GZZUc/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/GTy8xBFM4PI/видео.html
Try this ethics video
same here too
I really enjoyed this bit of knowledge presented to me in this video. Great work done here
Very well broken down, and not so long that its inaccessible. Love it and thank you.
the best explanation on youtube!!!
Have been searching and finally found the nutshell explanation thanks alot🎉
Thank you for the clarity between Ethics and Morality.
ruclips.net/video/GTy8xBFM4PI/видео.html
Try this ethics video
Thank you Dr. Obiora Ike, for taking your time to make this video!
Morality police and those who administer morality police should know this, the difference between ethics and morality. Ethics is knowing what is right and wrong with reason and logic. Morality is acting right according to what society decides from traditions, beliefs, , knowledge or the lack of it, norms, prejudice and many other factors.
Well, okay, that’s a point of view. In my maturity as a non religious person, I see them both expressed as how we treat others, so as a practical matter, interchangeable terms. Perhaps too simplistic?
thank you may assignment na agad ako
100% understood from you finally. Thank you 🙏 from Nagaland, India.
That's was so clear and is to understand...thanks sir
Very well explained. Thank you!
one of the best explanation and difference’s explained; bravo!
Thank you. This is also my personal distinction between the two.
But here is an antithesis: could it be that ethics as defined here is essentially a construct meaning the moral approach of modern/western civilisation (as opposed to other civilisations' morals), and that its claims to supremacy and universal application and ground in absolute truth are strangely familiar to those of many other civilisations: the romans, the muslims, the buddhists etc?
ruclips.net/video/GTy8xBFM4PI/видео.html
Try this ethics video
I think of Ethics as Rationally Determined Principles for Human Behavior and Morality as what Human Behavior Acts Out. Said another way Ethics is the Rule Book and Morality is what takes place in the street.
I think I agree with you. Morality is the set of existing community standards of behavior which may have arisen from any number of causes or combination of causes. A community may have one moral standard that arose from the dictates of a monarch, another from the aftermath of a disaster, another as the result of contact with a weaker community, another as a result of contact with a stronger community, _et cetera._ Morality is the community standards of behavior that exist. An ethic, OTOH, is always a rationally determined set of principles for behavior with a particular end good set as a goal of that behavior.
Thanx, good and straight forward explanation
That is an excellent explanation thank you.
ruclips.net/video/GTy8xBFM4PI/видео.html
Try this ethics video
Woww i love this man . He is a good teacher
Thank you so much you are cool in your presentation 👍👍🙏
I thought morality is the person's personal values and principles, while the ethics is the rules/principles made and set by society and the community. Am i correct? PLEASE ANSWER.
Thank you so much. Best Explanation
Thanks very much! Was looking about and picked the most scholarly looking fellow ✌️
Great explanation!
I understand very well and the explanation is very simple and clear
thankyou so much for this short explanation of such a long confusing topic!!
Thankyou from a Forensic Science student.
thankx for such a clear explanation
Thank you a lot sir for this explanation
Thank you for your explanation 😊😊
Thank you.what about values mean?
So like ethics would be cultural and moral would be personal?
Teach me and I will live! What an excellent explanation Dr. Obiora. Your time is greatly appreciated. Best to you!
Morality is the set of existing community standards of behavior which may have arisen from any number of causes or combination of causes. A community may have one moral standard that arose from the dictates of a monarch, another from the persuasion of a "wise man," another from the aftermath of a disaster, another as the result of contact with a weaker community, another as a result of contact with a stronger community, et cetera. Morality is the community standards of behavior that exist. An ethic, OTOH, is always a rationally determined set of principles for behavior with a particular end good set as a goal of that behavior.
Perfect explanation
Well explained
Very clear. Excellent.
No distinction is made between these two terms in philosophy. All the videos like this one trying to maintain a difference are based on differences in usage rather than meaning.
Not only that but other videos define the two quite differently. For instance before this one I saw a video making out that morality is individual. Whereas this one makes out that morality comes from external cultural sources.
yes, me too. It's confusing.
Thank you so much sir for this video
Well spoken to 😊
Brilliantly explained
❤
Thanks so much for this sir 👐
amazing video
Just look it up.
Wonderful..
Thank
Thank you
Somehow complicated
Thank you man
wut ot i tu du
Or, if you don't have 4 minutes for an 8-second answer...
Ethics are the behavioral guidelines adopted by a body of people; morals are the behavioral guidelines adopted by an individual.
You're welcome.
Thank you!
Good explanation sir..tq
Where do morals go when they meet religion?
The very same people who say they have EARNED everything they have in their lives, now are ready to get down on their knees, beg & grovel, kiss the right butt to get ahead
The very same people who mock Corrupt, Dictator countries for their ways, now adopt the same scum bucket ways to get to Heaven!
The very same people who call the likes of Putin, Saddam and their supporters pure evil & scum now embrace a "God" who acts just like these Dictators, rewarding "his" people and abusing the rest
Amazing, simply amazing - where do our morals go?
Where are the educated? Where are our moral?
Congratulations
thanks sir
So ethics is brain based, wile morality is socially based. Ergo, ethics may seem universal, while morality may seem to vary widely, even surprisingly, in different cultures.
Exactly!
1:56
🎉
All morality must go back to the source! that of a holy creator God!This ultimately must go beyond just family or cultural traditions otherwise it will be seen as relative!
Sorry that is not corect, that meens Moral has no ethics and ethics has no borders of Moral, so ethic is the development Part of moral
Morality is God/conscience driven Ethics is mans attempt at morality
😎✌️
Really, asking an African American person about morality and ethnic is like watching a music video with scantily glad African Americans preaching about the exchange for sex and money. More importantly, these people asking have never worked or lived with them. To asked people in society that are still fighting for all kinds of rights and left out in the jungle to find food and shelter, the last thing on their mind is ethics and morality.
I don't agree with this definition of morality. After all, this definition of morality completely forgets that the objective of morality is to let us know good from evil, not simply what the tradition is. Good and evil went out the window.
According to this person, then:
1) Nothing is immoral in a society in which moral values aren't passed down. Thus there's no good or evil judgement.
2) Therefore morality isn't an objective truth.
3) Thus morality is relative, just as good and evil.
4) Therefore, if your reason tells you that it is okay to murder (let's say you follow ethics akin to those of Nazism, racism, or other morally reprehensible doctrines), it is ethical, and if you pass it down as a doctrine to your children but don't pass on the reasons behind it those things also become moral. And yet, the reason for you to do something couldn't be that it is "good", and the reason to avoid it couldn't be that it is "evil". It would all boil down to taste and opinion and impulse. But taste and impulse are irrational. The snake eats its tail.
easier to understand if you take #4 and change "murder" to "murder chickens, but not pet kittens for meat".
@@oftenwrongphong i don't have an issue with the murder of pet kittens for meat.
It is moral for each species to follow its life cycle. It is moral for each species to fight for its own species. It is morally acceptable to play the part your species has adopted in the food chain.
It can't be immoral for a species to do what it has evolved to do to preserve the species. For instance, a dog shouldn't have to forgo eating meat or hunting prey, if proportional to need. The same way, humans did not come with an ability to produce sufficient vitamin B12, or to absorb sufficient iron from plants, or to make do with the methionine in plants. Therefore, it is not immoral for it to obtain it the way it has naturally done so: through the consumption of animal flesh and products.
@@oftenwrongphong by the way, the reasons why we consider it moral to kill some species and not others are usually passed down. The animals that "can't be killed" often serve purposes such as hunting, pest control, company, heat, milk, thread (wool, hair), guardianship, transportation, ornament, symbolism (cultural promotion), hygiene (it's considered harmful to eat, for instance, due to what the animal is willing to eat such as vomit), assigned social role. Not "just because". For the same reason, when the reasons behind the reasons are gone (for instance, a dog becomes a threat to human life instead of an asset) the reason to protect its life are also gone. But, according to this guy, if we produce a generation in which we just teach "you can't kill or eat dogs" and never teach them why then killing or eating dogs becomes immoral.
Ethics studies morality. Its a scientifical discipline. He missed that one.
Wrong. Morality needs a justification, Morality is a Value Judgment, no? What you're claiming is subjectivism, which doesn't work. Ethics are not derived from reason, they're derived from Morality. You can't derive Value Judgments from reason alone, read you're Nietzsche. What you call reason is just Rationale, which is logic and facts, logic and facts can't make a Value Judgment for you, there is an 'I', an 'ego' making the Value Judgment. This is the separation between Knowledge and Belief. My rationality derives knowledge, and my belief guides my knowledge to PROPER action. For instance, 'Stalin killed 10 million people' is a Fact, which through logic I make intelligible, but that's it, I can't say whether or not it was a bad thing Stalin killed 10 million people because the Value Judgment isn't contained in the Fact itself. The Fact is OBSERVED and then JUDGED by my BELIEF, therefore, Ethics is just a fancy word for Morality. I've only got two episodes, but check out my podcast, Philosophy of the World, hosted by me, Jacob Brickner.
Jacob, I will look for your podcast but I do want to point out that, while I agree with your argument, generally speaking, Dr. Obiora draws a distinction that is somewhat different from what you state it to be. He is not making a claim to subjectivism. He is saying that morality is based on tradition and that ethics is based on reason. This means that it is possible that what is now considered moral (meaning that which is based on tradition) was, at one point, ethical (that which is based on reason). Take, for example, the Jewish dietary laws. Today, for those who do not study the origins of the laws, the laws are based on tradition. Dr. Obiora would say that following them is an an example of moral behavior. However, when one takes time to understand the basis of the law, the rationale, to understand the harm it was intended to avoid and the good it was intended to bring, then one who follows those laws is behaving ethically. Would you agree that this is Dr. Obiora's argument? I understand Dr. Obiora to be saying that, basically, that Morals are derived from Ethics. It might be a question of semantics.
Otherwise, I do agree that rationality derives knowledge and belief guides knowledge to proper action.
That background music is annoying and makes this video sound like a cheap marketing ad rather than a serious answer.
no without moral laws there are ethics - ethics is the whim of the atheistic scientist at worst and at best reflect the Christian morality as taught by JESUS the One True GOD
Morality comes from GOD.
It's Ethics I believe not Morality.
What if God is imoral?
I don't know man. I'm not racist. But he was trying to exaggerate the African accent. Doooz