Part of my problem stems from a need to define things, words especially. How can we ever know we’re talking about the same thing unless we define it? Since I dabble in Philosophy, the question of ethics comes up fairly often. The only problem that I have is that the definition seems to root itself in morals. The whole thing becomes circular at that point. How can we define good or right conduct unless we define good and right?
I believe that the solution depends not on the definition, since both morals and ethics are interested in good and right conduct, but the focus of those standards. The easiest answer seems to be that morality is an internally focused set of standards, controlling what/why we act a certain way. We think of people with a moral compass and high or low moral standards. The quality may be judged by an external standard, but it is still internally focused.
Ethical conduct is the judgement of how good or fair our interaction with others is. The usage of the word is a strong indicator, ethics in the workplace or ethical conduct towards others, how do we treat others, based on a set of rules. As our society grows, it also seems that ethical conduct is judged legalistically, as opposed to morally.
There is a case study often presented in ethics classes that illustrates some of this. The Case of Malden Mills. A textile manufacturer paid his employees during the time it took to rebuild a mill that was damaged in a fire. This made for wonderful press and a feel-good point in class where ethical conduct could also be good business. Sadly, the rest of the story is that Malden Mills was forced to declare bankruptcy in 2001, so now everyone is unemployed. (Malden Mills, Malden Mills Bankruptcy, The Mensch of Malden Mills)
The recent case of former President Trump, being charged civilly for an act that didn’t cause harm, reeks of unethical conduct. The case was not the result of criminality or complaint but appears to be nothing more than an attempt to keep a disagreeable person from becoming president again. Did the Judge act ethically to protect people from a perceived threat? Or was it simply an immoral act and abuse of power?
As tentative answers, I would like to suggest very simple definitions.
Morality – an internalized standard of conduct, normally propagated through society and religion.
Ethics – a legalistic and externally focused standard of conduct, judged by interactions.
Good – the amount of benefit or joy produced by an action.
Right – A correct action taken without reference to the benefit produced.
The New Word Wars 
I would suggest that good could be defined more succinctly as protecting and promoting life, liberty, and happiness in that order.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe that those goals fall within the definition of producing benefits or joy. I am not disagreeing, simply expanding on the idea that a good action produces a benefit. It becomes complicated in the aggregate. Whose perspective do we observe from? This is an ongoing train of thought, or maybe stream of consciousness is a better label for my exploration.
Please, continue to comment. I appreciate being able to have additional, alternative perspectives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is difficult to promote morals and ethics without concrete examples. That is why I suggested the “inalienable rights.” They give me a modern vibe of “all the law and prophets hang on these commandments.” There are things that definitely pervert and destroy those rights and if I had to draw basic lines between good and evil that is where I would start. The world of course has a lot of gray area, so some actions for or against those rights can be more or less justified considering the particular situation. I still think they make good ground rules.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m wallowing in the mud of esoteric and intangible thought, trying to find the root cause for our actions and definitions that encompass foundational truths.
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are mostly intangible. Life being a partial exception. The Constitutional concept is that a person should not be deprived of their life without due process and protection under the law. Should another violate the right to life, they are punished by the community. Except for the individual’s decision to obey law or community standards of conduct, it is not a question of morality.
I am going to argue in Morality 5, that there is no moral or ethical standard when conduct is enforced by community disapproval or law. The internal decision is at the same level of a child to either engage in conduct or refrain to avoid punishment.
LikeLike