When can a moral decision be unethical?

Answer 1

It depends on what you mean by "moral" and "ethical." For some, these words mean the same thing. If that is true, then when something is "moral" it must--by definition--be "ethical," meaning that a moral decision can never be unethical.

Often, however, people use "ethical" to refer to what is generally accepted within a society, while "moral" refers to the dictates of a moral principle. In this case, the morally correct thing to do might not be understood by the general public--they might view your action as unethical even though it really is the right thing to do.

Many people, for example, considered the actions of Martin Luther King, Jr., to be unethical when he was leading protests in connection with the Civil Rights Movement. But morally speaking he seemed to be doing the right thing. So his action was moral, yet it was considered unethical.

Personally, I tend to think that "moral" and "ethical" should be roughly equivalent--I'm not sure that a moral decision can ever be unethical. I suspect that when this is the case it means that some people fail to see the moral truth--so their judgment of the act as "unethical" is simply misguided.

But maybe that's just me. ;-)

Answer 2

I'm going to answer your question as though you asked "Can a moral decision be immoral?" That may sound weird, but depending on your ethical system it can. There are two "schools" of ethics: teleological and ontological. The teleological says that you determine whether a decision is moral by looking at the outcome. If you can save 100 people by letting 10 die, that is moral. Ontological says you can only look at the initial decision and not the outcome. In this case a "moral" decision could be immoral. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran minister living in Nazi Germany and a n ontological ethicist. He decided to take part in a plot to assassinate Hitler. He believed that his "moral" decision was immoral because killing is always wrong. (Obviously he did not succeed and was executed for his role in the plot). An ontological ethicist says that you never know the outcome of a decision so you can only do what is right now. For example, a teleologist would say killing is wrong but killing Hitler to save a million lives is moral. Among other things, an ontological ethicist would say "You don't know that killing Hitler would save a million people. Maybe his predecessor would kill 2 million." They would also just say true good can never come from wrong.

Answer 3

Ethics is more concerned with "professional behavior" in many cases, so a moral decision could be considered "unethical" by some/many.
For example, a good number of people believe that a doctor who performs abortions is immoral, even though the ethics of his profession aren't violated by his action.
I could give lots more examples, but I WANT TO BE FIRST.
Darn, I'm only 3rd.

Answer 4

When you take apply moral rules so rigidly it does more harm than good in the situation. For example it is not moral to tell lies, but it would be unethical not to tell a lie if by doing so you would save an innocent life.

Answer 5

Unethical is a concept of discretion and closure on help, regard and loyalty. It is means not to law or employment. Therefore moral is abducted of proper acquaintance and proffesional dilemma. Moral decisions are pro bono for personal distress on account of income and payroll. They could be unethical portraying unauthorized books and reviews, at all on employers, even own.
According to law, moral is unbound on belief and conscious determination, it disapears when deluded into atack or focus upon another persona.
Also according to law ethic is a mere concept to regard trivial issues and artifacts as own, not proper.

Answer 6

Sure -- if the morals are universal (or at least societal) and the ethics re professional, someone could make an ethical violation while doping something morally good on a higher level (a lawyer breaking confidentiality with a client to save 1,000 people).

Answer 7

When the morals of the decision maker are different than those the decision affects. I believe most people aren't trying to violate the rights of others...they just truly believe they are right and the others are wrong. In reality, both are right; both are measuring their morals against different ethical standards.

Answer 8

There is a truism, can't remember who wrote it, but it goes, "you can follow all the rules and still be wrong." For example, it is moral to give directions to wayward travelers, and a wayward traveler asks for directions to Mexico. You tell him, and he thanks you. Is this a good deed, NO!!! Because later, it turns out that wayward travelor turns out to be wanted in fourteen states for bank robbery, assalt, and massive littering violations. Oops. So much for hospitality.

Answer 9

When you work in a hospital and refuse services to an AIDS patient because it is against your religion to aid and abet homosexual fornicators.

Answer 10

I don't know. Sorry.