Exploring Morality and Ethics Concepts

Welcome this would be our second class on GS paper 4 that is ethics in the last class we talked about the introduction and the importance of Wehm theory we covered values and attitudes there now in this class we would be moving forward with the two other things that is the morality and the ethics now a very important thing to understand here is morality and ethics are two different things they should not be confused most of the text and most of the references that you would find would have a kind of confusion as to understanding of what is ethics, what is morality. So let's first understand and clear our doubts about what is morality, what is ethics. Then we'll move forward understanding the two concepts in detail and finally we'll have a difference, we'll understand the difference between the two. Now when we talk about morality, it's derived from the word mos which is a Greek word and that implies customs. However, when we talk about ethics, It is derived from a Greek word which is known as ethos and this ethos in Greek means character. So in ethics we talk about character, in morality we talk about customs. So that's the fundamental thing we need to understand. Now coming on to morality, when we say we talk about customs, now these are a set of beliefs that are accepted by a group of individual. a kind of society, a culture or a religion. So a group of people when accepting certain aspects we call those as morality. For example, we say do not cheat. So that's considered a kind of moral behavior or a moral principle which is accepted by a set of people or a human civilization we can say. Similarly, we say we must tell truth. We must be loyal. So all these are kind of moral principles which are affiliated to the family or the group. Now I have an example here. Let's say we consider policemen as a people who are the people who protect us from crime. So when we talk about policemen, we say that they are the people who protect us from crime. Now if I say a policeman committed a crime that means it's a kind of immoral behavior because they are associated with checking around the crime not committing a crime. So that's a kind of immoral behavior which is a deviation from the normal customs or the standards that the society has laid forward. So as we said it explains right and wrong. And what ethics does is it explains the right and the wrong conduct or the character of an individual. So, when we talk about moral behavior we can say moral behavior could be of two types it could be moral absolutism that is a kind of absolute behavior that is accepted by everyone a moral relativism that explains when we say it's good it is good with respect to certain thing when we say it's bad it's bad with regards to certain other parameters so you have kind of parameters that you said set in mind. mind when you talk about relativism but when you talk about absolutism it's a kind of universal declaration so we say universal declaration of human rights is an example of moral absolutism however under relativism we talk about one society as relative to another now coming on to the characters of moral when we talk about characteristics we can divide it in the form of content or form. So when we say content it could be as regard for others so justice, sympathy all those would be example of the content or the higher ideas when we talk about the knowledge sharing the cultures of one civilization to another or in the other form you have morals that those are the ideas or the standards which are explained as law. Now coming on to ethics as we said ethics is derived from the word ethos which means character it talks about an individual not the group as in the case of morality. so here what I I believe is a kind of ethical thing for me. However, my colleague or my family can have a different perspective on the same idea. And therefore, their ethics could be different from my ethics. So, let's say for example, my ethics is punctuality. So, that punctuality is a kind of personal ethic to me. And it's not necessary. This should be the same for my family or same for my colleagues or college. for example so Keynes talked about explaining ethics that a man without ethics is a Wild beast who lose is on his world. So when we talk about philosophy we have four divisions under philosophy and ethics is one of those. Under philosophy we talk about metaphysics, we talk about epistemology, logic and ethics. So of these four branches of philosophy you have. Ethics as one of the branches of philosophy so now morality is not a branch of philosophy however you have ethics as a branch of philosophy that's again very key point to understand Now let's talk about the phone. So under metaphysics we talk about the first principles the basic principles about something the identity of something understanding something knowing something and so on and so forth. about the theory of knowledge and how we are justifying the beliefs and the opinions so those are come under epistemology under logic we deal with reasoning principle or inferences so logic could be of two types deductive logic and inductive logic when we say inductive logic the best way to remember is ISD that is moving from specific to general so under inductive logic we move from a specific phenomena and generalize it However, under deductive logic, we move from a generalist formula that we know and put it on the specific cases. So, that's what is deductive logic. The last is ethics. Now, ethics is a guiding principle to understand the good or the bad or the right or the wrong conduct. So, it's a kind of as we said individual conduct. Now, Aristotle when he tried to talk about at that time he was trying to introduce that good habits are essential for good character. So a tree is known by the fruit it brings out and similarly a good person is known by the character he owns. So therefore it was laid back at the time of Aristotle that ideas of ethical understanding started to take place. So we have an example let's say an interviewer is conducting an interview, he calls you for an interview, he does not ask you a single question and selects you for the position. Is it a- a kind of ethical move or an unethical move it would be definitely an unethical move because the interviewer is considered to be a person who interviews and if he is selecting a candidate without interviewing it is unethical on his behalf so ethics is something that comes on to the individual framework however when we talk about morality it's a kind of group behavior so that's So that's the key difference between the two. about ethics or ethical principle as I said punctuality, loyalty, honesty everything to yourself not to the society and when you consider those points personal to yourself then you call those as ethical because it's a kind of individual phenomena or an individual feeling. Now this is one of the very famous definitions that have been laid down by Peter Singer. Now this is important it's important in the paper of ethics that you know at least one our two definitions by the the authors so whenever there is a kind of reference you can jot them down now the key idea in this is ethics is nothing to deal with the factual knowledge that you have rather it's a normative theory and what is a normative theory we will understand in a minute with a trolley problem or the moral dilemma example which we talk about now before moving to that ethics focuses on some things. So let's understand those. So ethics talks about about a connected character it talks about high standard approach so you keep your ethics high to in order to reach or to have a kind of maximum goal attainment then you act in a cogent way that means you have a kind of predictable and a cogent behaviour every time you follow certain rules and laws that are laid down you are also take the responsibility and you feel you are capable of doing certain things in order to pursue or remain a And finally you feel that there is a kind of reasonable obligation that you are facing and because of which you are working around something. Now the trolley problem is a very very interesting problem. Now we have the diagram here. Let's first understand what is the trolley problem or the train problem. Now this is a real question of dilemma. The person standing here has the lever in hand. Now the train is going straight. there are 5 people on the track if this person does not pull the liver what would happen these 5 person would die. If the person switches off the lever or turns the lever what would happen? The path of the train would change and on that path there is just one person and he would die. Now based on this normative theory there are three ways of dealing with this. with this situation what are those three ways the first way is let the train go straight and let these five people die the other option is the person would turn this lever in order to save the life of the other person. these five people or in the third case either of the two options could be picked out considering the fact which would be more beneficial or which would have more better outcomes. So based on that there are three outcomes that are demarcated but before we understand that let's first talk about the two forms of theories that we usually say. So one is the consequentialism and the other is non-consequentialism. Consequentialism theory is a outcome based theory and that says what is the end purpose or the end goal. So the end goal here can be it's better to save the life of 5 people rather than killing 5 people. So what would be the option would be to turn on the lever and change the track of the train. So that way 5 people lives would be saved and that is what is a theory which is known as consequentialism. It's an outcome based theory again I repeat consequentialism is a outcome based theory it is teleological in nature that means it focuses on the end goal or the end purpose and the end purpose is to save as many lives as possible. So that is what is the theory which is known as consequentialism it was laid forward by Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus. Now there are five forms under which we talk about consequentialism. These include egoism where we talk about maintaining the self-interest, eudaemonism which talks about ultimate or achieving happiness, utilitarianism which talks about general good or welfare of as many people as possible, hedonism which talks about satisfaction of one's desire and intellectualism which talks about that knowledge is derived only from pure reason. So all these five forms like So, under consequentialism you try to attain either of these five isms and try to protect the person or try to save as many lives as you can. The next is deontology. Deontology is a theory which is known as rule based theory or obligation based theory and Under that theory you are obliged not to kill this one person because you are obligated because you do not have the permission to kill that one life if the train is going straight you are not a culprit because you are doing nothing and you are not at fault but if you move this liver you become the person at fault and the life of this person who would die would be due to you who is moving the liver so that is what is a rule based or a obligation based theory. that says that this one person should not be killed and most of the Christian laws and Judaic laws are based on dentology. The third law says virtue ethics. Virtue ethics says either of the choice could be picked out based on the outcome considering which is more beneficial for everyone. So based on that you try to pick out what option to go for whether to choose option A or to choose option B and that is what is virtue ethics. So as we saw if we broadly say we can say we either go for consequentialism where we know there is a kind of outcome based approach you aim to save as many lives as you can or the other two falling under non-consequentialism which talks about natural law what naturally is happening let it happen or you have the respect for other people because of the feeling that you have respect for for other people you cannot be a culprit to killing the life of one person which could be killed because of you moving the liver. So that's the basic idea between the two. Now as we said the idea is to move towards a kind of practical discipline. So ethics try to move forward to attain a kind of practical outcome and there is another that we talk about that is a kind of is or dick to that we will discuss further. Now when we talk about ethics and the types of ethics there are four basic types of ethics. We call those as descriptive ethics, meta ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics. talked about what is normative ethics. So normative ethics what we discussed in the trolley example was a kind of normative ethics and here what we are trying to do is we are trying to prescribe actions and not describe describe the actions so we ought not to steal we ought not to tell lie we ought to behave properly so all these are what you are prescribing to do you are not describing your actions you are prescribing what should be done so that is covered under normative ethics now under normative ethics only we talk about Hume's is odd distinction or dichotomy and And under this he tries to say that there is an example that we evolved from meaty eating animals and therefore we ought to eat meat. Now the person who is stating this is saying since we are evolving from meat eating animals we ought to eat meat and there is the place where we say you have the logic gap because the vegetarians would confront this and would say this is not correct and therefore we call it as a is odd dichotomy or is odd dilemma where we say that odd. is often following the is without any kind of explanation or logical statement. So here when we say we evolved from meat eating animals so we ought to eat meat we are just saying this ought is evolving from this is but there is no logical connection between the two. There is no logical statement that can say that since this is correct this ought to be correct. So there is a kind of logic gap that exists. Again when we talk about descriptive statement we can say there exist great disparity of wealth in certain areas of the world. But when I come to a normative statement I would say we ought to equalize the wealth by redistribution of wealth. Now let's say if I am an administrator or I am at an official post what would be I do? I cannot work around this ought statement keeping in mind just this statement. saying that since there is great disparity in the world we must work around redistribution. I must have other parameters in mind that would guide me towards making a policy that would work around redistribution of the wealth and by simple statement stating that since there is disparity there ought to be redistribution of wealth is not correct. So that is a kind of is ought gap or the logic gap that we try to fill under the the normative theory so the normative ethics this was the first aspect that we discussed the normative ethics now let's talk about the remaining three the next is meta ethics the meta ethics talks about the nature of being good so what is the definition of goodness how are moral judgments governed what is the nature of moral judgments all these questions are asked under meta ethics so under meta ethics you either go for cognitive theories or non cognitive theories cognitive means understanding so anything that is based on understanding would fall under cognitive and all other things which are dealing with emotions feelings would go under non cognitive understanding so emotivism is an example of non cognitive approach however under cognitive approach you would have either have moral realism or moral subjectivism. When I say moral subjectivism that means there is kind of personal opinion and its subjective in nature. However, when I talk about moral realism its much more objective and it is either black or white that means its either true or false. So there could be either of the two choices there is nothing in between that could lie in case of moral realism. And further, moral realism can be explained as naturalism or naturalism. non-naturalism moral subjectivism can be explained as ideal observer theory or divine command theory which we will be discussing later as we move forward with more lectures on ethics the next is applied ethics and this is where you have many questions for your upsc under the applied ethics we talk about the theories which deal with the real life situations so this is a real case study and you are a part of it now how would you work around this you have to take an ethical judgment So So that is where you kind of up. All the aspects, all the theories of ethics and we call this as applied ethics. It's an important part for your case studies. The next is descriptive ethics. Descriptive ethics quantifies the. the goodness or the badness, the rightness or the wrongness. So it's the quantification of what you believe about something. So that is what is descriptive ethics. So we talked about the four types of ethics that are existing. Now talking about what is descriptive ethics. the difference between the morality and the ethics. As we said morality talks about customs, ethics talks about character, morality talks about group behavior, ethics talks about individual behavior. Now morality talks about group behavior so it has the right to vary from one group to another, from one culture to another. However ethics would remain the same across groups. Morality is not applied to business. However, ethics is applied to business hence we have a separate section which is known as business ethics. Again morality is usually based on spiritual principles, spiritual guidelines. However, ethics is based on more social basis, more materialistic basis and more realistic basis we could say. Under ethics people are free to think and choose their own principles. However, under moral they can be only designed by groups and individuals can only either accept it or reject it. So, as an individual, if I am a part of certain religion, if I am a part of certain culture, then I can either accept those things that are happening in that religion or culture or I can reject those things. I am not free to think or speak about this. So, that is what is the basic difference between morality and ethics which is again very very important. morality as we said is based on right or wrong however ethics is based on right and wrong conduct so in individual conduct and individual character plays a very very important role under ethics. Here in morality you have expression of generalist statements or general rules that occur however under ethics it's much more abstract because it's an individual's aspect or individual's feeling so it can vary from one person to another. our next lecture on ethics. We will be continuing more lectures on ethics for your GS paper 4 in the upcoming classes. So stay tuned and have a good day ahead.

So in ethics we talk about character, in morality we talk about customs. So that's the fundamental thing we need to understand. Now coming on to morality, when we say we talk about customs, now these are a set of beliefs that are accepted by a group of individual. a kind of society, a culture or a religion.

So a group of people when accepting certain aspects we call those as morality. For example, we say do not cheat. So that's considered a kind of moral behavior or a moral principle which is accepted by a set of people or a human civilization we can say. Similarly, we say we must tell truth. We must be loyal.

So all these are kind of moral principles which are affiliated to the family or the group. Now I have an example here. Let's say we consider policemen as a people who are the people who protect us from crime.

So when we talk about policemen, we say that they are the people who protect us from crime. Now if I say a policeman committed a crime that means it's a kind of immoral behavior because they are associated with checking around the crime not committing a crime. So that's a kind of immoral behavior which is a deviation from the normal customs or the standards that the society has laid forward. So as we said it explains right and wrong.

And what ethics does is it explains the right and the wrong conduct or the character of an individual. So, when we talk about moral behavior we can say moral behavior could be of two types it could be moral absolutism that is a kind of absolute behavior that is accepted by everyone a moral relativism that explains when we say it's good it is good with respect to certain thing when we say it's bad it's bad with regards to certain other parameters so you have kind of parameters that you said set in mind. mind when you talk about relativism but when you talk about absolutism it's a kind of universal declaration so we say universal declaration of human rights is an example of moral absolutism however under relativism we talk about one society as relative to another now coming on to the characters of moral when we talk about characteristics we can divide it in the form of content or form.

So when we say content it could be as regard for others so justice, sympathy all those would be example of the content or the higher ideas when we talk about the knowledge sharing the cultures of one civilization to another or in the other form you have morals that those are the ideas or the standards which are explained as law. Now coming on to ethics as we said ethics is derived from the word ethos which means character it talks about an individual not the group as in the case of morality. so here what I I believe is a kind of ethical thing for me. However, my colleague or my family can have a different perspective on the same idea.

And therefore, their ethics could be different from my ethics. So, let's say for example, my ethics is punctuality. So, that punctuality is a kind of personal ethic to me. And it's not necessary.

This should be the same for my family or same for my colleagues or college. for example so Keynes talked about explaining ethics that a man without ethics is a Wild beast who lose is on his world. So when we talk about philosophy we have four divisions under philosophy and ethics is one of those.

Under philosophy we talk about metaphysics, we talk about epistemology, logic and ethics. So of these four branches of philosophy you have. Ethics as one of the branches of philosophy so now morality is not a branch of philosophy however you have ethics as a branch of philosophy that's again very key point to understand Now let's talk about the phone. So under metaphysics we talk about the first principles the basic principles about something the identity of something understanding something knowing something and so on and so forth. about the theory of knowledge and how we are justifying the beliefs and the opinions so those are come under epistemology under logic we deal with reasoning principle or inferences so logic could be of two types deductive logic and inductive logic when we say inductive logic the best way to remember is ISD that is moving from specific to general so under inductive logic we move from a specific phenomena and generalize it However, under deductive logic, we move from a generalist formula that we know and put it on the specific cases.

So, that's what is deductive logic. The last is ethics. Now, ethics is a guiding principle to understand the good or the bad or the right or the wrong conduct.

So, it's a kind of as we said individual conduct. Now, Aristotle when he tried to talk about at that time he was trying to introduce that good habits are essential for good character. So a tree is known by the fruit it brings out and similarly a good person is known by the character he owns.

So therefore it was laid back at the time of Aristotle that ideas of ethical understanding started to take place. So we have an example let's say an interviewer is conducting an interview, he calls you for an interview, he does not ask you a single question and selects you for the position. Is it a- a kind of ethical move or an unethical move it would be definitely an unethical move because the interviewer is considered to be a person who interviews and if he is selecting a candidate without interviewing it is unethical on his behalf so ethics is something that comes on to the individual framework however when we talk about morality it's a kind of group behavior so that's So that's the key difference between the two.

about ethics or ethical principle as I said punctuality, loyalty, honesty everything to yourself not to the society and when you consider those points personal to yourself then you call those as ethical because it's a kind of individual phenomena or an individual feeling. Now this is one of the very famous definitions that have been laid down by Peter Singer. Now this is important it's important in the paper of ethics that you know at least one our two definitions by the the authors so whenever there is a kind of reference you can jot them down now the key idea in this is ethics is nothing to deal with the factual knowledge that you have rather it's a normative theory and what is a normative theory we will understand in a minute with a trolley problem or the moral dilemma example which we talk about now before moving to that ethics focuses on some things. So let's understand those.

So ethics talks about about a connected character it talks about high standard approach so you keep your ethics high to in order to reach or to have a kind of maximum goal attainment then you act in a cogent way that means you have a kind of predictable and a cogent behaviour every time you follow certain rules and laws that are laid down you are also take the responsibility and you feel you are capable of doing certain things in order to pursue or remain a And finally you feel that there is a kind of reasonable obligation that you are facing and because of which you are working around something. Now the trolley problem is a very very interesting problem. Now we have the diagram here. Let's first understand what is the trolley problem or the train problem.

Now this is a real question of dilemma. The person standing here has the lever in hand. Now the train is going straight.

there are 5 people on the track if this person does not pull the liver what would happen these 5 person would die. If the person switches off the lever or turns the lever what would happen? The path of the train would change and on that path there is just one person and he would die. Now based on this normative theory there are three ways of dealing with this. with this situation what are those three ways the first way is let the train go straight and let these five people die the other option is the person would turn this lever in order to save the life of the other person.

these five people or in the third case either of the two options could be picked out considering the fact which would be more beneficial or which would have more better outcomes. So based on that there are three outcomes that are demarcated but before we understand that let's first talk about the two forms of theories that we usually say. So one is the consequentialism and the other is non-consequentialism. Consequentialism theory is a outcome based theory and that says what is the end purpose or the end goal.

So the end goal here can be it's better to save the life of 5 people rather than killing 5 people. So what would be the option would be to turn on the lever and change the track of the train. So that way 5 people lives would be saved and that is what is a theory which is known as consequentialism. It's an outcome based theory again I repeat consequentialism is a outcome based theory it is teleological in nature that means it focuses on the end goal or the end purpose and the end purpose is to save as many lives as possible.

So that is what is the theory which is known as consequentialism it was laid forward by Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus. Now there are five forms under which we talk about consequentialism. These include egoism where we talk about maintaining the self-interest, eudaemonism which talks about ultimate or achieving happiness, utilitarianism which talks about general good or welfare of as many people as possible, hedonism which talks about satisfaction of one's desire and intellectualism which talks about that knowledge is derived only from pure reason. So all these five forms like So, under consequentialism you try to attain either of these five isms and try to protect the person or try to save as many lives as you can. The next is deontology.

Deontology is a theory which is known as rule based theory or obligation based theory and Under that theory you are obliged not to kill this one person because you are obligated because you do not have the permission to kill that one life if the train is going straight you are not a culprit because you are doing nothing and you are not at fault but if you move this liver you become the person at fault and the life of this person who would die would be due to you who is moving the liver so that is what is a rule based or a obligation based theory. that says that this one person should not be killed and most of the Christian laws and Judaic laws are based on dentology. The third law says virtue ethics. Virtue ethics says either of the choice could be picked out based on the outcome considering which is more beneficial for everyone.

So based on that you try to pick out what option to go for whether to choose option A or to choose option B and that is what is virtue ethics. So as we saw if we broadly say we can say we either go for consequentialism where we know there is a kind of outcome based approach you aim to save as many lives as you can or the other two falling under non-consequentialism which talks about natural law what naturally is happening let it happen or you have the respect for other people because of the feeling that you have respect for for other people you cannot be a culprit to killing the life of one person which could be killed because of you moving the liver. So that's the basic idea between the two. Now as we said the idea is to move towards a kind of practical discipline.

So ethics try to move forward to attain a kind of practical outcome and there is another that we talk about that is a kind of is or dick to that we will discuss further. Now when we talk about ethics and the types of ethics there are four basic types of ethics. We call those as descriptive ethics, meta ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics.

talked about what is normative ethics. So normative ethics what we discussed in the trolley example was a kind of normative ethics and here what we are trying to do is we are trying to prescribe actions and not describe describe the actions so we ought not to steal we ought not to tell lie we ought to behave properly so all these are what you are prescribing to do you are not describing your actions you are prescribing what should be done so that is covered under normative ethics now under normative ethics only we talk about Hume's is odd distinction or dichotomy and And under this he tries to say that there is an example that we evolved from meaty eating animals and therefore we ought to eat meat. Now the person who is stating this is saying since we are evolving from meat eating animals we ought to eat meat and there is the place where we say you have the logic gap because the vegetarians would confront this and would say this is not correct and therefore we call it as a is odd dichotomy or is odd dilemma where we say that odd.

is often following the is without any kind of explanation or logical statement. So here when we say we evolved from meat eating animals so we ought to eat meat we are just saying this ought is evolving from this is but there is no logical connection between the two. There is no logical statement that can say that since this is correct this ought to be correct. So there is a kind of logic gap that exists.

Again when we talk about descriptive statement we can say there exist great disparity of wealth in certain areas of the world. But when I come to a normative statement I would say we ought to equalize the wealth by redistribution of wealth. Now let's say if I am an administrator or I am at an official post what would be I do? I cannot work around this ought statement keeping in mind just this statement.

saying that since there is great disparity in the world we must work around redistribution. I must have other parameters in mind that would guide me towards making a policy that would work around redistribution of the wealth and by simple statement stating that since there is disparity there ought to be redistribution of wealth is not correct. So that is a kind of is ought gap or the logic gap that we try to fill under the the normative theory so the normative ethics this was the first aspect that we discussed the normative ethics now let's talk about the remaining three the next is meta ethics the meta ethics talks about the nature of being good so what is the definition of goodness how are moral judgments governed what is the nature of moral judgments all these questions are asked under meta ethics so under meta ethics you either go for cognitive theories or non cognitive theories cognitive means understanding so anything that is based on understanding would fall under cognitive and all other things which are dealing with emotions feelings would go under non cognitive understanding so emotivism is an example of non cognitive approach however under cognitive approach you would have either have moral realism or moral subjectivism.

When I say moral subjectivism that means there is kind of personal opinion and its subjective in nature. However, when I talk about moral realism its much more objective and it is either black or white that means its either true or false. So there could be either of the two choices there is nothing in between that could lie in case of moral realism. And further, moral realism can be explained as naturalism or naturalism. non-naturalism moral subjectivism can be explained as ideal observer theory or divine command theory which we will be discussing later as we move forward with more lectures on ethics the next is applied ethics and this is where you have many questions for your upsc under the applied ethics we talk about the theories which deal with the real life situations so this is a real case study and you are a part of it now how would you work around this you have to take an ethical judgment So So that is where you kind of up.

All the aspects, all the theories of ethics and we call this as applied ethics. It's an important part for your case studies. The next is descriptive ethics. Descriptive ethics quantifies the.

the goodness or the badness, the rightness or the wrongness. So it's the quantification of what you believe about something. So that is what is descriptive ethics.

So we talked about the four types of ethics that are existing. Now talking about what is descriptive ethics. the difference between the morality and the ethics. As we said morality talks about customs, ethics talks about character, morality talks about group behavior, ethics talks about individual behavior. Now morality talks about group behavior so it has the right to vary from one group to another, from one culture to another.

However ethics would remain the same across groups. Morality is not applied to business. However, ethics is applied to business hence we have a separate section which is known as business ethics. Again morality is usually based on spiritual principles, spiritual guidelines. However, ethics is based on more social basis, more materialistic basis and more realistic basis we could say.

Under ethics people are free to think and choose their own principles. However, under moral they can be only designed by groups and individuals can only either accept it or reject it. So, as an individual, if I am a part of certain religion, if I am a part of certain culture, then I can either accept those things that are happening in that religion or culture or I can reject those things. I am not free to think or speak about this.

So, that is what is the basic difference between morality and ethics which is again very very important. morality as we said is based on right or wrong however ethics is based on right and wrong conduct so in individual conduct and individual character plays a very very important role under ethics. Here in morality you have expression of generalist statements or general rules that occur however under ethics it's much more abstract because it's an individual's aspect or individual's feeling so it can vary from one person to another. our next lecture on ethics.

We will be continuing more lectures on ethics for your GS paper 4 in the upcoming classes. So stay tuned and have a good day ahead.

Transcript for:Exploring Morality and Ethics Concepts

Transcript for:
Exploring Morality and Ethics Concepts