Ethos is reality

Speciously idle questions.

• Does philosophy have any value to the average person in the real world?
• Should real people care what the professors are professing about evolving knowledge & devolving belief?
• Should you care what the politicians are proposing from the chambers of evolving mercy & devolving justice?

The answer is a resounding “Yes!”
Individuals must take interest in the philosophy that is being considered by the men and women who shape the course of our world. The philosophies in these elite circles may not be changed by our considerations, but, the goal should not be to change the world.  The goal, for each individual, is the recognition of Truth.  This is the power of each person.
We, individually, have & hold the power to evaluate thoughts and accept them or reject them. It is just that simple. If after evaluating the philosophy du jour, we find the conclusion of the thought to be untenable, we may remain in command by holding Truth in our minds, and never abdicating to others who desire to think for us. It is our authority as much as it is our right. As an example of the importance of philosophy to average people
I have been contemplating some underlying thoughts about the spirit of the "Age of Reason" & “Age of Enlightenment”. I recently wrote something about the “ethos of humanity” and my wife asked what I intended to say. So, I found myself explaining what ethos is and why I hadn’t just used the common term, “morality”, to express myself.
However, my answer involves the “Age of Reason”, the “Age of Enlightenment”, and almost all of the thinking that occurred as this era matured into our now “Post-modern” world.  I will resist the temptation to make a doctoral thesis out of “Ethos.” If you haven’t already googled, I will save you a step by linking the Wiki on Ethos. You should notice that in the first paragraph, the Wiki references the Latin equivalent, which is Mores. This is the key to my wife’s question.  I maintain that there is not a true equivalency between the Greek concept of Ethos and the Latin concept of Mores.
The Western world-view changed fundamentally with the "enlightenment" and the results of the change could have been expected, because of the philosophy that took root in the minds of the movers & shakers of the western world. Thoughts have costs and philosophies have consequences.
When one evaluates the ultimate conclusions of a thought and he sees that its end is bleak and hopeless, is he “closed minded” to reject the philosophy from his mind?
Metaphysical Naturalism (aka Ontological Naturalism) has been the dominant philosophy of the modern & post-modern era.  Informally, Wikipedia, until recently, classified Metaphysical Naturalism as a “quasi-religion”. Efforts are made to divorce naturalism from religion, however, note carefully what Wikipedia has to say about Metaphysical Naturalism;

"It is presumably not a religion. In one very important respect, however, it resembles religion: it can be said to perform the cognitive function of a religion. There is that range of deep human questions to which a religion typically provides an answer: ... Like a typical religion, naturalism gives a set of answers to these and similar questions."

The value judgments of Ontological Naturalism are based on matter only.  In the modern/post-modern religion of Ontological Naturalism, there is no rational means of appealing to a dimension beyond the observable cosmos to give a framework for values.
Therefore, Nietzsche reaches into his natural “bag of tricks” for a purpose for mankind and he pulls out Übermensch (Super-Man), while Sigmund Freud found the Ego, Super-ego, and Id.
These carnal/material answers from the naturalist philosophers are essential in order to move mankind beyond deity. Because of this evolution of reason & naturalism, ethos was no longer dominant for providing guidance to the actions of the individual, and it was during this time that mores, conceptually, replaced ethos.
Mankind’s Moral imperatives were to be driven by culture; that is to say that our guiding principles could no longer look to unverifiable deities such as Jesus. Also, with this evolution, it was a reasonable extension to consign determination of mores into the hands of the most logical (reasonable) minds, such as Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, & Engels, et al.
While I do not necessarily credit these men for their great philosophical advancements, neither do I fault them, because the logical progression from the mid 18^th Century “Enlightenment” was foreseeable.
And yet, I see the evolution to mores as a degradation of civilization. People assume that "Mores" & "Ethos" are equivalent concepts, but they are not.

• Mores are driven by 'mob' forces from without, e.g. culture, government, community, neighborhood, & even gangs. 
• Ethos however, is a spiritual element that arises from within; it is an application of an internal standard of reality. The standard is irrational, yet, it is spiritually superior.

Consider how the writer of the book of Romans describes, what I am here recognizing as Ethos. ROMANS 7:19-23 ¹⁹ For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do— this I keep on doing. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. ²¹ So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. ²² For in my inner being I delight in God's law; ²³ but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. Note that the writer continually references “I” in this passage.
However, one can see that in verse twenty, the writer divides himself into two individuals.  Even more importantly, he transforms our understanding by his identification of a true self and a false self. In verse twenty-two the writer further enlightens us about who the true self is. True self is the “inner being”. As a disciple of Jesus, this makes sense.  I see the inner being in myself as the man who exists prior to the modifications from without, i.e. the fall.
Mores seek to convert humans into utilitarian tools for society.

We are so obsessed with doing that we have no time and no imagination left for being. As a result, men are valued not for what they are but for what they do or what they have - for their usefulness. ~Thomas Merton

Ethos maintains the value in the individual’s original essence, by acknowledging the value of all other individuals. The manifestation of Ethos is seen first by our attitude and then by our actions towards others.

What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves? This is the most important of all voyages of discovery, and without it, all the rest are not only useless, but disastrous. ~Thomas Merton

Therefore, I would say that Ethos is who we are in our being, while Mores represent who others demand that we become. Mores should be subservient to Ethos, or did you think I forgot about Nuremberg? What do you think? Let me know.