Between ethics and morals
11
May
The great difference between ethics and morals is in the
etymological root of the word, while the first derives from the Greek word êthos, which means “character” in some way but linked to the meaning of the polis with which the Greeks were concerned, the second derives from Latin word moralis, which is in a way also “abode” of Being, which the Greeks reflected, but distinctly.
By unveiling (a word that Heidegger’s phenomenology favors) forgetting Being, it means that its “home”, its Dasein is hidden and forgotten by contemporary philosophy, so what is called morality has become almost synonymous with ethics, but not the It’s.
This field in contemporary philosophy is dedicated to understanding human actions (seeing them as moral actions) and this according to a temporal code may be right or wrong, so there is no timeless definition of morality and it becomes similar to the ethical code , the one defined by a moment in human history.
So morality is constantly changing, and ethics is what is established temporarily by some form of consensus, in general, established by state laws, which are also changeable.
There is therefore no discussion of principles and values that are fundamental, the right to life for example, which should be a fundamental value also becomes questionable, in the case of euthanasia and abortion, even death from some type of homicide can be “cool” and it is not.
Nothing justifies an arbitrary end of human life, all human life must be spared and preserved from temporal values, so also the discussion of death in a pandemic, which has a natural cause, can and must be analyzed in the case of social or personal neglect or negligence. .
The discussion of morals as a set of habits and customs of society, without being linked to principles is dangerous and can create rules and laws, which are the establishment of an ethics, which can transgress basic rights: life, human dignity and limits healthy social coexistence.
The philosopher Theodor Adorno defends this view in his book “Minima Moralia” (London: Verso. 1978) and also Peter Sloterdijk will oppose the absolute imperative (not to hinder progress and human action in the sense of creating a more solidary society) to the categorical imperative ( which is an individual’s moral ethical attitude) established by Kant.
In her book “The banality of evil”, Hanna Arendt warned about the concern with what she called “the activities of the life of the spirit”, related to action, ethics and politics, which took a consistent form in the judgment of the Nazi Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, a city that has not only the Judeo-Christian-Islamic symbolism of the great Abramic root, all descend and recognize the symbolism of Abraham as a result of their beliefs, but also a moral code
