If someone steals, that is immoral, as we don't want people taking our things!

Morality often aligns with ethics.  But sometimes the "morality" rules serve the interests of just a few or even of an evil purpose, such as Osama Bin Laden's followers. 

I don't give a fig newton for morality, except to the extent I don't want to harm anyone.  An example might be that I support those who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, but I also support those who are seeking a form of making a meaningful commitment that is legal.   I support them both for the good they will do for the individuals involved; they are just conflicting.  And I make my final choice on what I support based on what I think will provide the best overall "net" good.

I don't seek to please everybody, follow even my church's rules (I'm in a kind of non-church church where they just seek to live better lives), or to do what is "socially acceptable", as I prioritize what I think contributes the most to me, first, and then to others.


If the moral code set up corresponds with what is ethical, that is fine. 

But many of the moral codes are from what worked back in the old days but not to what works now.  

Many religions take literally their old writings that served the culture well at the time, especially in the constant warring and dangers of the old days.  Current warring, often done under the guise of morality, is mostly unnecessary now and is in fact harmful. 

Many religions were designed to protect the male so he could concentrate on the difficult job of providing for the family.  Having a wife wear a veil and clothes that hide the figure made sense (and may still do so), but the old fashioned extremes on dealing with some of the issues, such as killing the transgressors, are now nonsensical and certainly unethical.

The other key problem with some morality is that we assume we are correct and others are wrong and/or bad.  And that is certainly unethical in many ways that we use morality to do harm to others.   We are often outraged that the other side is so wrong and immoral, in such issues as right-to-life and right-to-choose and the sanctity of marriage (as the M-word) and the rights of others to have respect and honor their relationships even if they are same-sex.

Who is right? 

Well, either side thinks they are and that therefore the other side is "immoral" - and then they express outrage or disgust at the other side's behavior.  However, both are "right", in a sense, but the real question is "what is ethical" (i.e. what will work).


People do the best they can given their level of knowledge, but I believe that they have an ethical obligation to increase that knowledge so that the greater good of all is achieved.

For instance, people seem to be ignorant about anger, blowing it off at and on others.  There is much harm that is needlessly incurred.  I think people can get more of what they want by not engaging in anger or any form of punishment to get others to do what they want.  I also believe that greater knowledge would serve to disappear the incredibly harmful beliefs where people believe they are threatened by things they just make up in their minds.  Education in that area is an ethical imperative, I believe.  Thus, this website.

May you increase your knowledge and wisdom so that you, and those around you, can experience a whole new level of happiness and fulfillment, operating to dramatically increase the greater good for all involved!

You must make your own decisions based on your version of ethics and what works.  I merely offer my current thinking, hoping that it will help facilitate your decision, whether it agrees with what I purport or not.

     Philosophy Directory

Being Right - One Of The Highest Costs In Life 

Good/Bad, Right/Wrong Vs. Workable - What Is True? 

The Righteous Unthinking Mind Versus The Thinking Mind - And The Effect Of Harmful Ignorance

My Emotional Thinking/Reasoning Tells Me What Is Right - Wanna Bet!!!?

The Scientific Method (And A Worksheet To Use) - The Only Way To Go In Life

Integrity Factor - Maintaining Being True To Oneself, Living In Full Power 

Making The World A Better Place - Without moral superiority but seeking to hear all sides in order to come to a greater solution that is for the greater good.  There is satisfaction in this, but no "ain't I great", for the doing of what is good for the world is a natural cause of feeling happy.  (See Kindness, Generous Actions And Contribution - "A Lasting Impression" (On Oneself.  Contribution, and goodness, cannot be imposed on another person.) 


This is a distinction I am choosing from my investigation of the area.  However, this level of distinction is not always used.

Short version:

Ethics = "What works."  Scientifically what is for the greater good, using, of course, rational assessment where no proof is available.  It is about "good results."

Morality = "good/evil", what is "right/wrong" in one's belief system but often not provable.  It will often use guilt, blame, shame, often in an effort to control people's behaviors for the good of the many.  "Moral judgment" (One would be less likely to use the term "ethical indignation" as, I think, it belongs to morality as in "moral indignation."

Note that "moral reasoning" is akin to "emotional reasoning", but it often targets "the other side" as evil.  See The Righteous Unthinking Mind!!! (And don't sink into doing this!!!!!)

Both are "rules of conduct", but I am using these with tighter distinctions between the two, since they have become interchangeable in use.

Ethics - Primarily "rational" (Scientific), it is about what works for the greatest good; it is about the application in society and the world.  These can be other-dependent, to fit into the culture or group situation. 

Morality - Generally for the greater good, but often of a moral judgment "make wrong" nature; more about personal character, with a connotation of guilt.  Defined:  Conformity to the rules of right conduct, virtuous. Truths distinguishing right from wrong.  

Morality:  "Torture is wrong" is stated as fact such as "snow is white" - and "therefore" it shouldn't be done.

Ethics:  It was necessary to (at least try to) cause (via torture) the person to divulge information because it saved lives
(it produced more good than "bad", therefore the greater good is achieved.)   
I might "feel" bad about the idea of another human being suffering and might make a moral judgment about torture, but letting that rule over the greater good would not be "ethical" - if the ultimate judge is the net results produced.

Although often used without distinction, the difference is illustrated in the idea of "moral outrage", whereas no one would say "I am ethically outraged." 

Another difference is that ethics defines how thing are according to the rules, morals is according to right/wrong and will often fail to distinguish between fact and belief.  The latter can operate off of so-called principles that are simply made up.  Ethics attempts to ascertain principles that line up with reality and facts.


Ethics is doing what creates the most good for those affected. 

However, I would add "without harming oneself", for I think we live in a "real" world.  Ideally, though, we would see that we are totally connected to the total and contributing to the total would be worth giving up our life in some circumstances.

I have never been able to reach that higher level.  So I just try to do what is healthy and positive.  Since I value contributing to others, when I do so, it
contributes to me, so ultimately, as with all behavior, I am being "selfish" - just in a way that serves others, so it is labeled unselfish - oh, that I was so noble. 

(We all operate on a basis of what we believe and/or feel good from; if we act "selflessly", it is a selfish act, in an actual sense, since we are doing what has us feel good according to our value system.  Those who are outraged at others being selfish are operating based on right/wrong morality and the related emotion, rather than objectively looking at reality; sometimes the moral codes imposed are authoritarian and the opposite of other parts of the same moral code system!)

I do seek to operate on an ethical basis within my definition and limits, so I "feel" good about that and I feel that others are very safe and can rely on me never to do harm and to contribute the best I can.

Ethics will tend to be based more on actual physical reality principles - i.e. "what works" to produce the desired result.


Morality codes are those created (made up in the brain, not actually existing in reality, per se, but originally based on intended ethics) by a society to serve its overall purposes.


Chastity rules to preserve relationships, mental health and/or physical health.

Come-to-church rules so that people will be infused with positive, unselfish principles so that they will not do harm.