I finally figured out the difference between "immoral" and "unethical".
For years people have tried to nitpick at me by saying those two words have different meanings. Looking at dictionaries hasn't helped me. Way too many definitions of "immoral" reference "ethics" and way too many definitions of "unethical" reference "morals." So I figured the nitpickers were just making shit up, as many nitpickers do. But I figured it out!
"Immoral" is a word REPUBLICANS use. "Unethical" is a word DEMOCRATS use.
Ta-daaaa!
For years people have tried to nitpick at me by saying those two words have different meanings. Looking at dictionaries hasn't helped me. Way too many definitions of "immoral" reference "ethics" and way too many definitions of "unethical" reference "morals." So I figured the nitpickers were just making shit up, as many nitpickers do. But I figured it out!
"Immoral" is a word REPUBLICANS use. "Unethical" is a word DEMOCRATS use.
Ta-daaaa!
no subject
People generally use the word "unethical" when the context is business-type dealings, and "immoral" when it deals with interpersonal relationships and non-biz type things.
So cheating on your husband is immoral, and taking advantage of a company position to benefit a side business you own is unethical (like a doctor referring patients to an MRI center he partly owns, though they can get it cheaper, faster elsewhere.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Now I'm better prepared the next time I teach this class. :)
no subject
no subject
So I might say something was "immoral" if I thought it were always, in all circumstances, wrong (although I probably wouldn't because it's got too many religious connotations), but that something were "unethical" if I thought it might sometimes be justified, but not in the situation in question.
That said:
"Immoral" is a word REPUBLICANS use. "Unethical" is a word DEMOCRATS use.
You are exactly right.
no subject
no subject
In a sense it also explains things like why Slavery, supported by the Bible, lasted as long as it did. People who take their morality (and ethics) based on a book can say "See! It's okay to do this because the Book says so!" and feel that their morality is justified. Also explains why there are Christian who smoke cigarettes, but won't drink. The Bible doesn't say that tobacco is bad for you, but it does talk against "strong drink."
Anyway, I'll be thinking about this all day.
no subject
(And yes, Republicans would be the ones with the tendency toward black-and-white thinking.)
no subject
But then, if I had to pick, I suppose I'd say I was Democratic :). I'm not terribly fond of either side of two-party politics, but...
no subject
no subject
I've been using a definition that came from one of Theodore Sturgeon's stories: morals are about your own survival, ethics are about your species' survival.
ripping something out quickly...
I think that the general basis is that morals are handed down from on high. God said that it is wrong, so doing it is immoral.
Ethics tend to be based on treating your fellow man fairly. They can generally be derived from some permutation of the golden rule.
Conservatives (or authoritarians) tend to believe that morals are important, and that if you live a moral life (follow the rules) being ethical will follow.
Liberals, (or non-authoritarians) believe in workng out what is right based on principles like the golden rule. What authority says is not as important as doing the right thing.
no subject
My usual division is along the absolute/relative line. That is, the more a particular "X is wrong" seems to need a "for Y-type people to do in Z circumstances" in order to be true, the more I consider it a statement of ethics rather than morals.
This is most explicitly true for professional ethics, of course. It's a violation of professional ethics for a lawyer to discuss a case with the judge in private, but I wouldn't be inclined to call it immoral.
Which means, for me, that to say something is "unethical" without a context established is to say something somewhat incoherent.
no subject