Ethics and Morals

This ongoing fiasco involving Governor Sanford of South Carolina has got me thinking about the difference between ethics and morals.  Now to most people these things are one in the same but when employing them in different areas of life (personal and professional) they take on very different meanings. 

Let’s start with basic definitions for each word.  Ethics is the science of morals in human conduct.  It’s important to note the word ‘science.’  Ethics is basically a pattern of reasoning that determines whether something is right or wrong.  This differs from morals which is when a person is concerned with the distinction between right and wrong and has the ability to conform to the moral standards considered normal for the society in which they live.  Even though every individual has their own set of morals, it essentially boils down to being capable of moral action in day to day life.

Now, as a human being one can be ethical without being moral.  Ethics is simply knowing and understanding the difference between right and wrong, whereas morality is actually having the capacity to choose the right path over the wrong path.  In private life, people usually strive for both.  They try to create a harmonious balance between ethics and morals, in which ethics determines the moral choice by weighing the positive and negative consequences of those choices.  This might prove difficult to some but it is not impossible.  It’s actually harder to be ethical than it is to be moral.  Morality is effortless and requires little thought, since it is simply the act of making a choice – right or wrong.  Ethics involves a lot more thinking since it is the process of determining whether the choice made was right or wrong.   Also, employing ethics in politics is even harder because you have to make a decision not just based on the values of one person (as in one’s own personal life) but instead on the values of a whole State or Nation.  This is why there are always so many people pissed off about political decisions. 

So, how does this relate to the pickle in which Governor Sanford finds himself?  First, it is evident that he is an ethical person, since he has the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad.  However, though his action was immoral, that does not immediately render him an immoral person.  Since we do not have minute details about his personal life we are unable to determine whether or not he is an immoral person, or just a moral person who had a prolonged lapse in judgement.  Regardless, I do not personally believe that having an immoral personal life is grounds for removal or resignation of office.   I know a lot of people who are horribly immoral, but are damn good at their jobs.

Also, we should take into consideration that politics is about ethics; ethics in its most secular form.  The actual practice of politics is quite immoral.  Some people lobby for organizations that want policies that will destroy the environment and endanger people’s lives, and they do so without remorse.  To be in politics you need to have the ability to remove yourself from morals and focus only on ethics.  Thus, what Sanford does in his personal life should not effect his professional standing, UNLESS, like the former Governor of New York Mark Spitzer, he used tax payer money to pay for anything involving his personal life or his mistress.  When one’s personal affairs begin to involve their professional affairs it begins to bridge the gap between morals and ethics which is always disastrous.  It’s not uncommon for most politicians to teeter on that line, and even if they do overstep that boundary, most constituents don’t seem to care unless it is associated with immoral activity.  So, basically, what I’m saying is if Sanford wants to be a rat bastard on his own dime, then it’s no one’s business but his own (and his family’s).

Now, one could also argue that poor judgement in one’s personal affairs can translate to poor judgement in one’s professional affairs, but that’s not always the case.  In Sanford’s case, it seems to me that the people of South Carolina aren’t necessarily upset about his cheating on his spouse so much as they are with the fact that he left the country without telling anyone during an important time in the affairs of the State.  Which will most likely lead to a debate on whether or not those actions were ethical.  Which could end up being grounds for impeachment.  Unfortunately for Sanford, he probably based his gubernatorial campaign on his moral uprightness as a person. 

Which makes me wonder.  Does it really matter if a candidate is moral in their personal life?  It doesn’t mean they will be better at running a State or Nation.  Not to mention, not every decision in politics involves morality.  So, why do some people seem to put so much emphasis on a candidate’s moral standing?

(Note to readers:  Towards the end, I kind of let my train of thought derail.  It’s not too off point though. Enjoy.)