From Ethics and moral
end the confusion of the senses.
By
Nicolas Madelenat di Florio
From the Society of Literary History of France,
Philosopher.
Before defining the delicate notion of Ethics, I quickly come to ask the specialists in words the meaning of it. Naturally, then, and my random choice, here I am bewildered by the dictionaries, these masterpieces of human intelligence, which should contain all the wisdom of history of thought. However, no definition seems correct. The Dictionary Richelet, yet so full generally recognized by experts as a pearl of finesse, I must point out that ethics and morality are not the same thing. Indeed, at the entrance "Ethics", it gives "feminine name. Corporate; term didactic (teaching and education). Example: The Ethics of Aristotle , his moral works. " Other works, more contemporary astray too. These two concepts are fundamental yet who wants to understand human societies, can be mixed, even confused, which is worse.
The first appearance of the term dates back to Aristotle's Ethics. It is this philosophy that we should mark the beginning of this particular study if the place should be left to humans. I then quickly turned to wonder what gave rise to the idea of clarifying that, for example, life is not an inalienable right but an imperative coupled with the human condition. A history of thought to answer and justify the writing of what would become one of the most important intellectual movements, humanism. But we're not there yet. Aristotle sees Greece waving, and the world tremble under the repeated blows of waves rising, it is the madness of men to destroy. If this particular context of a violent world will generate many ideas from the philosopher, and more widely across the intellectual class of the day.
But the real question of the separation of ethics and morals, the question that occupies me here, must be read, early in Plato when in laws, they questioned the origins of the concept of rules, norms, whether they are interested attributed to a God or any human being 1 . This may seem innocuous at first glance. Yet this is the pinnacle of thought and political criticism in the sense of the word intelligent. Because the policy is primarily the ratio of men to one another (thought not been polluted by the socialist-Marxist nonsense inspired largely by the social contract and other nonsense) and the right balance between their expectations, needs, and what Saint Augustine (354-430) 2 then René Girard (1923 -...) will add, regulation of violence by the state. The instrument state, the machine state is then a simple way of ensuring relative peace and sustainable relationship between individuals. This insistence on the report of the Ethics in human society is permanent in Plato and Aristotle. In his book, the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle can not even imagine that we want to separate invidivu the study of its relation to the other, but also in society. In sum, it is the philia , the report harmonious, peaceful and beneficial to all, it must entrust the task of guiding social organization. This philia dear to Aristotle and logical thinkers, is the ethics that should guide the choice to give everyone a place that suits him, respecting each other and difference.
But then, what about the relationship between ethics and moral terms? I seems to myself away from my original desire the contrary. For by insisting on the Platonic distinction rules of conduct internal and external to man, I already reached the heart of the future division between those words. The universal rule, and beyond all divisions and dogmatic religious followers, it is Ethics, which means that we will respect our neighbor because he is human. The moral, in turn, cut across the specific rules of life among individuals, and change a society, a time, from one group to another. The morals are regarded by philosophers as relative (ie changing, variables), and Ethics as objective (not influenced by individuals), since it does not depend on the human mind but from his own essence, being both internal and external to his being as not being subservient to his time, education.
Ethics then called an interesting approach with a philosophical concept that guided the lives of many philosophers and has been taken over by the Roman thinkers, virtue. Monsieur de Voltaire, in Philosophical Dictionary gives this conscious attitude and provoked an interesting definition, saying it is the sensus communis , and intersected the common sense but also humanity and sensibility. Here is the first confirmed my hypothesis on the applications of Ethics and its fields of competence. It is and should be a beacon prevent vessels (the life of Men), to come crashing on the reefs of their own folly, a safeguard against violence and its manifestations. For corporations, these unwritten codes guardians of social cohesion, to replace the sails and raise the winds of individual wills, making the navigation on the sea of life. One can not be conceived without the other, and both must be kept in their own fields.
Yet, no need to wait to find Voltaire this central idea is that it takes to Virtue entrust the task of directing the lives of mortals like us. A philosopher, a disciple of Socrates, a contemporary forgot to Plato and Aristotle explained very well is Antisthenes, the father of the cynical school of philosophy, first to publicly denounce the social convention as a human creation, not divine (which allowed for example to change his condition, an interesting approach in the land of slavery). So here it is brought to mock Plato, openly, explaining that pride is a consequence of looking the other eye, that same look that is useless flattery when it stresses that a set of social masks and pre-defined roles, in short, it is not free but a slave to these codes by which disregards the principle existence. From Antisthenes course of history, with the help of Plato, will take care to erase education, preferring to avoid vanity and being fought an intelligent approach is proposed instead. This approach, however, taken up by Aristotle, is to obey all his "inner compass", ie the Ethics.
You will be careful, then, to emphasize that I seem confused now, after having denounced, ethics and morals. You will, almost right. For there are times when ethics and morality overlap, de facto. There are rules that can see live these two fundamental concepts. This is true of respect for life, again. This example is particularly interesting for it has a terrible. Explain that everyone will respect the right to be alive on the other may seem slight. Yet many religions erect the ultimate sacrifice as a gesture of submission and adoration. But then, our argument, our argument no longer holds, the structure of thought collapses. That moment has not come. Because on the altar in one of their fellows, and opening his chest to a dagger, the priest is no longer a man but the representative of God. In sum, it rises above the mortal, temporal, which prevents the killing, and the breath of eternal accomplished the ultimate gesture in communion with the divine element it represents. It can no longer go conversely its essence, since the same species seen temporarily changed its nature.
In conclusion, I wish to emphasize the foundation of the concepts presented and defined here. Moralities make us creatures living in society in relative peace. Ethics, in turn, makes us human.
2 Augustine of Hippo, City of God .
--------------------------------------------- -----
Some remarks
The perspective of an economist
by Jean-Yves Naudet
Centre Director Research economic ethics
economist has little to add to the philosopher prolegomena on the use of words in the philosophical tradition and the evils engendered by the confusion of words. Ethics is the universal rule, enshrined in the hearts of every man, as shown by the emblematic example of Antigone on unwritten laws, and morality (in the strict sense: the habits) are the application in a given society.
But ethicist contemporary economic is forced to see an evolution in the recent years, which may cause confusion in the minds of readers, as they consult a recent book or a classic of previous centuries. So now we talk about business ethics, business ethics, bioethics, applied ethics that are so variable over time, conversely, the term moral, having been written ("bourgeois morality" for example) is used increasingly to discuss the foundations, principles, they are rooted in God or simply a design and secular humanist. So there is a reversal of the meaning of words in recent works, and if you must miss her, we must be aware to decipher the various texts. This also corresponds to the fact that morality is under used (as they are now the main principles) then becomes ethically almost a hackneyed term (as in "ethics of citizenship" which is an expression of political correctness .)
These problems-of-essential vocabulary being posed (because the confusion of ideas often comes from confusion of terms), the issue of business ethics, as they say so common today, is extremely complex, which explains many apparent disagreements fault clear bases. Consider an example that appeared at the opening of our group de réflexion, dans les premières remarques spontanées sur le mur. Parmi les protestations "éthiques" des membres, la question du profit est apparue en premier, autour des idées "notre société ne pense qu'au profit ou au matérialisme" ou "le profit est illégitime". Le premier point porte sur la confusion des ordres sociaux. Il est évident que la vie de l'homme est multiple. Nous sommes des "homo oeconomicus", portés à l'échange et là l'intérêt joue évidemment un rôle, donc le profit aussi; nous sommes des "homo civis", des citoyens dans l'ordre politique, et là l'essentiel tourne autour de la protection des droits fondamentaux et des vertus civiques of life in society we are the "pater familias", within the Community (associations, family, religion, etc..) where our decisions are based on affection, love, solidarity, feelings. Can we blame the modern world is an overflow of an order on another, when politics invades all (totalitarianism, but also welfare state), or when religion seeks to govern society (theocracy) or when Economy claims respecting any social life, including the rhythms of life. We can not blame the exchange, the market order and economic based on the best interest of everyone; this we must denounce this overflow of an order on another, each area must have its place. is a first point and this is the condition of a harmonious society.
But there is a second point. The market order is based on finding a well-being: food, shelter, clothing, health care, educate, entertainment, travel, ... In some ways (but it is a complex debate about which we shall return), there is a search for a personal interest, or at least what we call his own good: it is not wrong to want a better life and better health , better housing, etc.. This requires means and in a market society, this means revenue. There are various motivations for economic activity, but the gain in income is one of the important motivations. We have seen about the distinction of orders that man, fortunately, was not just for this, but deny that necessity is making the naïve. Gold revenue (outside of the flight, by nature immoral) can only come from our economic activities, direct (wages, interest, profit) or indirectly (social redistribution through taxes and contributions paid out in benefits, on delicate subject which we shall return). Everyone agrees that the salary remunerated work "employee" and that pays interest on savings. And profit?
Denounce profit in itself does make a lot of sincere people, but also the fact that Marxism is based on ignorance of the following fact: in itself, the advantage is that the remuneration of the contractor. The latter, as the employee and the investor, provides services (the chief architect of the large enterprise): it assumes the risk, anticipating future needs, innovation, organization of production, and especially it is one that sees (or thinks is going on, it may be wrong) before other unmet needs and therefore new ways of satisfy. For this, it is legitimate to be paid. But the peculiarity is that it undertakes (except bankruptcy) to save the employee and the risk of a bond variable remuneration: wages and interest are fixed by contract rather profit is a random balance, positive if managed well, negative if it was mismanaged, and this encourages him to manage, but the risk is always present when it has made bad choices. We can not denounce the general principle of profit.
But there is a necessary and perfectly ethical question legitimate when we ask under what conditions this gain has been made: the entrepreneur he deceived his world (the problem of information, fraud, false advertising and it was already great concern in the Middle Ages to the likelihood of faking scales ...); he received a privilege, as an arbitrary protectionism, or a monopoly guaranteed by the state, closed or occupation which distorts competition, etc.. In other words, under what conditions this advantage has been obtained, the he rules of the game have they been correct, which requires high-quality institutions. All Scholastic Medieval discussed these issues around the "right price" before realizing that the result itself was neither fair nor unfair (what a "profit too high"), but the question was whether the rules were fair or rigged: the great debate of outcome justice / procedural justice. There is therefore an ethical question about profit, but it is not about principle (legitimate) but on the modalities for its implementation, and there, indeed, there may be much to criticize.
In conclusion, this example takes advantage of this to say: nobody dares speak medical ethics without knowing a word of how medicine, nobody talks about bioethics without some knowledge of the living and the mechanisms of life to speak of applied ethics, we must understand the application domain. How about ethics of profit, because it was the example, without understanding what the profit. And therefore the prerequisite for any discussion of business ethics, not to be manipulated by ideology, to bring a true value judgments, is to understand the economic mechanisms behind them. Who could speak with such financial ethics, topical, relevant way, and suggest solutions without understanding how the credit or financial markets? That is why in this area there are many a priori , animated by good feelings, even by great generosity, which lead to distorted judgments for lack of technical competence. Moral authorities, as they say, show us the path of modesty required, such as Pope Benedict XVI, to write his last social encyclical, has himself said she was released late because he wanted to understand economic mechanisms before making ethical judgments on them. To judge the ethical economy, we must make the effort to understand the economic mechanisms.
