[bckr]

I agree, and I particularly wish that people would use "ethics" instead of "morals" more frequently.

My understanding is that ethics are how we treat other beings, and morals are rules we follow (think "moralizing").

I'm much more interested in the former.

[yboris]

If I'm not mistaken (based on a bunch of philosophy courses I took at Rutgers University a bit over a decade ago), philosophers use "morality" and "ethics" interchangeably - and both terms are, roughly speaking, systems that say what individuals ought to do in situations and in general (and these could be rule based, aka "deontology", or act based aka "act utilitarianism", or virtue based "virtue ethics", etc).

I'm unsure how regular people use "ethics" and "morals", so in any conversation I tend to clarify what I mean by the terms so as to avoid confusion.

My recommendation: utilitarianism is the best ethical framework for life - in every regard. It has a proven track record (advocating for abolition of slavery, women's rights, gay right, animal rights, etc -- all decades or even centuries before these became mainstream).

[Agamus]

I studied some philosophy as an undergraduate. My understanding is this:

Ethical theory tries to answer the question, 'what should we do?' (e.g. death penalty or not?)

Moral theory tries to answer the question, 'why should we do that' (e.g. 'because god says so')

Metaethical theory tries to answer the question, 'what is the 'theory of knowledge' behind that moral theory?' (e.g. 'are there moral facts at all?')