Definition: 'Ethics' is the systematic philosophical study of morality.
But what's the difference between ethics and morality? Don't they mean the same thing? Not really. Given our definition we should be able to infer that 'ethics' names a field of inquiry while 'morality' names the object of that inquiry. Thus, we need to offer a definition of morality so we know what, exactly, is being studied in Ethics. Broadly speaking, we can define morality as follows:
Definition: 'Morality' is the code, or codes, of behavior acceptable within a particular group at a particular time.
However, there are several different kinds of behavioral codes that are recognized within communities and we need to distinguish them from one another, even though they are related. First of all, there is the law. A legal code represents the minimum acceptable behavior of a particular group. Those members of a society who are unwilling to abide by the law are sanctioned by the community as a whole. Secondly, there is the moral code. The moral code represents a much broader set of behavioral controls which is identifiable by the inverse proportion to the severity of the sanctions associated with the legal code. That is, societies tend to be more tolerant of moral violations than of violations of the law. We don't use economic sanctions or restrictions of liberty for those who act immorally. Finally, there is etiquette which represents the broadest possible set of behavioral expectations of a society. Those who violate the etiquette codes suffer the least serious sanctions of all. While one might insult a host or bring disgrace to Miss Manners, violations of politeness are not treated as harshly as either violations of the law or the moral code. What each of these codes have in common is their attempt to control the behavior of individuals within society. The distinction between each code seems to be located in the severity of the punishments associated with each kind of violation.
The distinction between law and morality, however, is not as simple as it might seem. There are, for example, many laws that reflect moral standards, and many moral standards that are enshrined within the legal code of a society. For example, it can be argued that it is both illegal and immoral to commit murder, that the very same action is a violation of both codes. On the other hand, there are certainly cases of illegal actions that are not necessarily immoral, and immoral acts that are not illegal. So, while it's not an easy thing to draw a distinction between the legal and the moral, we must attempt to do so if we're to give a good analysis of morality. Attempting to draw the distinction between the legal and the moral, and to understand exactly what makes some social prescriptions part of the moral code as opposed to the legal code, is in large part, what some philosophers do. Thus, we can think of an ethicist (i.e., someone who does Ethics) as a philosopher who investigates the nature of morality. Ethicists are interested in the following kinds of questions:
These four questions represent the foundation of Ethics; these are the basic questions, or problems, of ethical theory.
Now we should also note that a person may study Ethics without being moral, just as a person may be moral without knowing anything about Ethics. This should not be too surprising since we see many similar examples: an ornithologist studies birds without being one! However, what normally motivates the study of Ethics is a deep desire to know what is right and wrong and to be able to consistently apply that knowledge in all aspects of our lives. It would be frustrating, to say the least, to be condemned to go through life guessing at which actions are proper and which not. And yet, if one doesn't study Ethics, or at least put together some elementary ethical system, this is precisely what one must do. In fact, most people have some ethical system, some intellectual framework that guides their behavior. This is usually a patchwork system made of scraps taken from different sources. But if Ethics is given very little thought one is as likely as not to end up with an inconsistent set of beliefs which will collapse upon itself with only moderate external pressure, i.e., when we encounter a moral crisis. To avoid this, we need to apply philosophical scrutiny to our so-called moral behavior. Only then can we have some assurance that we are behaving as we ought.
Definition: 'Normative Ethics' is that part of ethical theory which deals with systematic articulation and justification of our moral intuitions.
The second major part of ethical theory tells us nothing about how to live the moral life. Thus, it is generally labeled 'Non-Normative' as it gives us no guidance. Non-Normative Ethics deals with the second pair of basic questions listed above: the nature of moral language (generally labeled 'Metaethics'), and the objectivity of the codes articulated under the normative side of ethical theory. While I will offer a brief introduction to the problem of moral language, we will focus our attention on the more perplexing (and more interesting) problem of the objectivity of moral codes which is called 'Descriptivism'.
We're going to divide our investigation of Ethics according to the division between the Normative and Non-Normative parts of the theory: first, we will look at a general problem (or 'meta problem') for any ethical theory to consider - are moral systems objective features of the world, or are they the subjective creations of particular individuals, cultures, or species (sometimes called Moral Relativism)? This is part of what we've called 'Non-Normative Ethics'. Second, we'll investigate the normative side of Ethics and the three main types of theories which are part of this part of the ethical enquiry. We will accomplish this by reading representatives from each of the three normative families (Aristotle - Virtue Ethics, John S. Mill - Consequentialism, and Kant - Deontology).