@memimemi
I agree with your statement that people's views on morals vary. (This is called Cultural relativism and has been scientifically documented.)
This is of course because most views on morals are opinions, invalid and or nonsense. Views on morals are derived not from morals but from views on morals. As such they are as varied as perspectives (everyone should have at least 3).
I also agree with your statement that people's ethics tend to agree when the share the same end. Ethics are the result of logic and information about a situation being applied the the situation. Access to information can vary but logic is rather constant.
Though I agree with everything you've said here, it's not the point at which I was aiming.
I don't see the difference between peoples' views on morality, and morality itself. On the surface, there seems to be a divide - but does it hold under scrutiny? Whether one ascribes to a moral standard/law due to one's culture or due to the nature of the moral law itself makes no difference - unless we postulate the supernatural as the highest authority (as many do, but that's a different debate), both the culture
and the moralist(s) within it are mistaking a value judgement for a [super]natural law.
And that's where the distinction between morals and ethics becomes especially useful - both are imposed value systems, but the targeted values are different in kind. The moral value judgement relates to 'how ought
all people, whether 'all' is defined as 'my people' or 'all humans,' act or not act; the ethical is concerned with 'how ought
I act?' Morality is, by nature, paradoxical: it demands personal responsibility for the views and values of the society one finds oneself in, as an accident of birth. Ethical action is concerned with personal responsibility, regardless of the normative powers of society.
A prime cultural example of the difference would be the contrast of the Abrahamic traditions (the hundreds of commandments throughout Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus, for example) and the Dharmic traditions of Buddhism (the Eightfold path).
To question morality is to question the society which imposes it; to question an ethos is to question the reasoning of the single human who ascribes to it. The former is inherently political; the latter allows but does not require any interaction with the rest of society.
Cultural Relativism is not only a salient point, when discussing morality; it is, I argue,
the salient point. When dealing with ethics, it may or may not be, depending on the justification used for a particular ethical standpoint.
Views on morals *are* morals - our value judgements on morality are the defining characteristic of morality
qua morality. This is why, in a moralistic society, it is not a valid argument to say 'but I don't agree that (x) is [right/wrong].' If a society holds the culturally relativistic view that, say, having a pet dragon is immoral, one's reasons for keeping a dragon chained in the backyard are irrelevant to the [good/evil/right/wrong] value 'thou shalt not keep dragons.'
My bias, I'm sure, is showing, but I contend that absolute morality ((x) is inherently [good/evil]) is chimera: were there such a thing, how would any particular society or person be able to demonstrate it, without another being able to contend the exact opposite? (cf. the entire history of humanity's adventures into absolutist religiosity)
I agree with the thrust of Nietzsche's arguments - ALL morals, by nature, are reflections of the values humans impose on the world - and in the imposition of value, opinion is functionally the equivalent of fact. What matters is the power attributed to those values, whether by a society upon another, a subset of a society upon another, or even a long-dead society upon everyone.
Another way of exploring the difference is to note that morality requires an entity to be in a powerful enough position to punish, censure, or otherwise enforce it; ethics require one to do so to oneself. If there were such a thing as a self-evident, absolute morality, one would expect a different consequence: morality would be self-enforcing (such as in the Hindi conception of Karma). One who failed to follow a self-evident, absolute morality, would be a non-existent entity - there could be no such thing as cultural relativism, just as there are no examples of humans living without a liver (or a machine that functions the same way).
In my (conditional) analysis, morality is ethical thinking taken too far - an overdose by society on a personalized medication, if you will.
Thoughts/contentions/refutations?
