Morality and Ethics
It often happens that, when faced with a values judgment, one cannot simultaneously observe the conventions of both morality and ethics. The tenets of the first may preclude even contemplation of the second.
I admit I take liberties – which, as I have no credentials in philosophy, may not be mine to take – with the definitions of those terms. What I call moralism would more appropriately be called the deontological approach to ethics, while I reserve the broader term, ethics, for what philosophers call the consequentialist approach. I prefer to avoid polysyllabic terminology and use words with which everyone is familiar, but which few have examined closely.
Moral judgment (or deontological ethics, if you must) stems from certain unquestioned and unquestionable laws, such as the Ten Commandments or the tenets of supply-side economics.[1] The proponents of the moral approach tend to judge actions as either observant or offensive of those laws and, therefore, either good or evil. If it is a sin to lie or to indulge in premarital or extra-marital sex, then it is wrong in every case. Morality admits of no mitigating circumstances.[2] If, as many believe, lowering taxes will result in an actual increase in tax revenue, then the mere fact that tax revenue falters is absolutely irrelevant and can be explained away in the footnotes.
(Consequentialist) ethics demands the examination of the possible consequences of an action, and the inference that a proposed action is – not good or evil – but better or worse than either inaction or an alternative action. Though overly simplistic, the phrase, “The end justifies the means.” is often applied.[3] The ethical approach requires a good deal more cerebration than does moralism, and results in far less certainty. Practitioners of the ethical approach tend to agonize over decisions and to equivocate. And, while the moralist will never have to admit an error in judgment,[4] the ethicist must bear the full weight of the consequences of his actions.
It would be wrong to infer that moralists will always disagree with consequential ethicists, or that either moralists or ethicists always agree among themselves. Moralists will choose different unquestionable laws upon which to base their moral judgments. For instance, people holding diametrically opposed positions may base their judgments on different passages from the same source. The “two and seventy jarring sects” consult the same holy book. Ethicists, on the other hand, can never be certain about possible consequences of a particular action; they may not even agree about which consequences would be preferable.
It is not my place to judge whether one approach is superior to the other – that one is the right way to reason and the other wrong. I will say only that moralists make better politicians, but ethicists make better leaders.
[1] You will notice that, by my definition, morality is not necessarily an outgrowth of religion, though I maintain that the Chicago school of economics is more a priesthood than a science.
[2] Though many moralists do reserve some latitude when judging their own indiscretions.
[3] It is overly simplistic in that it assumes a single end for the action in question. In the real world, any action will have an incalculable number of consequences, all of which should be weighed against the assumed consequences of all available alternatives.
[4] Consider President George W. Bush’s inability to answer, when asked during a press conference, what his biggest mistake had been. The moralist cannot admit that any action dictated by his moralism might be a mistake.
