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.