Ethics vs. Morals

In our society today, we have blurred the line between morals and ethics, and have tried to make the two synonymous. But that is not the Truth. Morals deal with "what is," the current reality or state of affairs. Whatever a majority of a given population or sub-set of that population is doing at a given time is moral for that group. Morals change. As an example, at one bleak time in our nation's history, it was moral to own slaves.

Ethics, however, deal with "what ought to be." Ethics is the standard, the plumbline by which we are to judge whether or not something is good or right or True. Ethics transcend mankind, and they do NOT change. If a majority of people in a given society engage in ethical behavior, then morality for that society will line up with what is ethical.

But it is part of our baser human nature to not want to be told when we are wrong. It is why denial is such a universal human condition. The irony is that the very presence of denial is part of the proof of the existence of this ethical standard. After all, if there is no magnetic North, then North becomes whatever I want my compass to say it is. I don't need to defend my decision or actions to anyone.

But picture life in such a world. My friend moves 3 hours away, and then calls up and invites my family to stay with him for a while. He gives me directions to get to his house, and my family and I set out. Ten hours later, we still haven't reached his home. Since in this world, there is no magnetic North, my friend and I are completely free to decide what North, South, East and West mean for us individually, without any external constraints. The problem is that without a transcendent, external standard, my friend and I have lost any ability to communicate directions to one another, and there is no guarantee that we will ever be able to find one another again.

Sadly, this is what many in our society are attempting to usher in. They view ethical standards, grounded in the unchangeable Truth of the Word of God, as burdensome and narrow. What they fail to realize is that it is the very existence of this ethical standard that allows us to come together and have a dialog. You can deny that a standard exists, but that does not make the standard disappear.

But for the sake of argument, if everyone in our society suddenly agreed that there is no ethical standard, we would be plunged into anarchy, because everyone would simply do whatever was right in his own sight. Children who were abused would have no advocate, no protection, no recourse, no justice. Because in order for anyone to determine that their abuser's behavior is "wrong," there must a way to determine what behavior is "right." In this imaginary, standard-free society, might makes right, and there would not be a thing that anyone could do to stop it.