Ethics

Theoretical

Meta-ethics Normative Descriptive Consequentialism Deontology Virtue ethics Ethics of care Good and evil Morality

Applied

Bioethics Medical Engineering Environmental Human rights Animal rights Legal Media Business Marketing Religion War

Justice Value Right Duty Virtue Equality Freedom Trust Free will Consent

Key thinkers

Aristotle Confucius Aquinas Hume Kant Bentham Mill Kierkegaard Nietzsche Hare Rawls MacIntyre Singer Gilligan

Lists

List of ethics topics List of ethicists

This box:  •  • [ edit]

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behaviour") has three principal meanings. In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. In its second normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny that 'morality' in this sense, refers, is a position known as moral skepticism.^[1] In its third usage 'morality' is synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.^[2] Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), which morals people actually hold to (descriptive ethics), what is the fundamental nature of ethics or morality itself, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and its nature (moral psychology).^[3] In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion. In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie given for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified. In meta-ethics, a key issue is what is meant by the terms right or wrong. Moral realism would hold that the individual is attempting to elucidate some objective moral fact, whereas the various branches of moral non-realism would hold that morality is derived from: the norms of the prevalent society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptivism); strictly speaking false (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position, known as moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.^[4] The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths is known as moral absolutism. Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior. These thinkers typically also emphasise the commonalities in morality found across cultures, for example taboos on incest, prohibitions on in-group killing, etc.

Religion as a source of moral authority

Main article: Divine Command Theory

Religious belief systems usually include the idea of divine will and divine judgment and usually correspond to a moral code of conduct.

Anthropological perspectives

Tribal and territorial moralities

Celia Green has made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.^[5] The latter she characterizes as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person’s territory, including his or her property and dependants, which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective on the individual. These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and ‘flexible’, whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are universal and absolute, such as Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’. Green relates the development of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy of contract over status.

In-Group and Out-Group

Some observers hold that individuals have distinct sets of moral rules that they apply to different groups of people. There is the "ingroup," which includes the individual and those they believe to be of the same culture or race, and there is the "outgroup," whose members are not entitled to be treated according to the same rules. Some biologists, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists believe this ingroup/outgroup difference is an evolutionary mechanism, one which evolved due to its enhanced survival aspects. Gary R. Johnson and V.S. Falger have argued that nationalism and patriotism are forms of this ingroup/outgroup boundary.

Comparing cultures

Fons Trompenaars, author of Did the Pedestrian Die?, tested members of different cultures with various moral dilemmas. One of these was whether the driver of a car would have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie in order to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that different cultures had quite different expectations (from none to almost certain).

Evolutionary perspectives

Main article: Altruism#Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology

Evolutionary biologists start from the assumption that morality is a product of evolutionary forces. On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness). The strength of the maternal bond is one example. Another is the Westermarck effect, seen as underpinning taboos against incest, which decreases the likelihood of inbreeding depression.

Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities. The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)

The evolution of abilities for deception, and social 'politics' have also been studied, in chimpanzees and other group-living organsims.^[6] These have been used, in combination with theories of indirect reciprocal altruism and the importance of reputation, to suggest possible evolutionary bases for moral hypocrisy and gossip in humans.

These explanations for the existence of morality do not, however, necessarily assist in deciding what is truly right for future actions. Should an individual's own morality really be determined by what is best for their genetic offspring (colloquially, but inaccurately, "the good of the species" see group selection) Viewholders counter that evolutionary psychology extends millions of years of empirical justification for our moral sense, provided that sense is indeed innate — more than recorded history could demonstrate. They claim sensible people would behave with morality knowing subconsciously that it has succeeded in the past. Still, an explanation of why and how humans could have a moral basis does not imply that they ought to hold these views.

Neuroscientific and psychiatric perspectives

Mirror-neurons

Research on mirror neurons, since their discovery in 1996^[7], suggests that they may have a strong role to play in empathy. Social neuroscientist Jean Decety thinks that the ability to recognize and vicariously experience what another creature is undergoing was a key step forward in the evolution of social behavior, and ultimately, morality.^[8] The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristic of psychopathy, and this would appear to lend support to Decety's view.^{[9] [10]}

Psychological perspectives

Morality as maladaptive and universal

Phil Roberts, Jr. has offered a perspective in which morality, and specifically the capacity for guilt, is viewed as a maladaptive byproduct of the evolution of rationality:

Guilt is a maladaptive manifestation of our need to justify our existence, in this case by conforming to a shared subconscious theory of rationality in which 'being rational' is simply a matter of 'being objective', as exemplified in the moral maxim, 'Love (intrinsically value) your neighbor as you love (intrinsically value) yourself'. Although none of us can actually measure up to this standard, we nonetheless come to experience feelings of worthlessness (guilt) along with a corresponding reduction in the will to survive (depression) when we deviate from the standard to an unreasonable degree. In other words, a capacity for guilt (having a conscience) is a part of the price we humans have had to pay for having become a little too objective (too rational) for our own good.[1]

Diller

Morality in judicial systems

In most systems, the lack of morality of the individual can also be a sufficient cause for punishment, or can be an element for the grading of the punishment.

Especially in the systems where modesty (i.e., with reference to sexual crimes) is legally protected or otherwise regulated, the definition of morality as a legal element and in order to determine the cases of infringement, is usually left to the vision and appreciation of the single judge and hardly ever precisely specified. In such cases, it is common to verify an application of the prevalent common morality of the interested community, that consequently becomes enforced by the law for further reference.

The government of South Africa is attempting to create a Moral Regeneration movement. Part of this is a proposed Bill of Morals, which will bring a biblical-based "moral code" into the realm of law. This move by a nominally secular democracy has attracted relatively little criticism.

Morality and politics

If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level, politics can be seen as addressing the same question at the social level. It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham have studied the differences between liberals and conservatives, in this regard.^[11][12][13] According to their model, political conservatives make their moral choices using five moral variables (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity), whereas liberals use only two (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). Haidt also hypothesizes that the origin of this division in the United States can be traced to geohistorical factors, with conservatism strongest in closely knit, ethnically homogenous communities, in contrast to port-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism.

Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fiber", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labeled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one common morality, regardless of in what it consists.

Moral codes

Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.

Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality". Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.

Moral codes are often complex definitions of right and wrong that are based upon well-defined value systems. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, ofttimes they are one and the same.

Examples of moral codes include the Golden Rule; the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism; the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at ;the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures; the ten Indian commandments; and the principle of the Dessek.

Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems (e.g. Taoism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive — part of human politics.

Moral Psychology

Religiosity and Morality

In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes.^[14] Although a recent study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,^[15] an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.^[16] In a response ^[17] to the study by Paul, Gary F. Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study. His conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that there is a correlation (and perhaps a causal relationship) of higher homicide rates, not with Christianity, but with dualism in Christianity, that is to say with the proportion of the population who believe the devil and hell exist. Excerpt: "A multiple regression analysis reveals a complex relationship with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it." Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior^{[18] [19] [20]} — for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.^[21] Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime,^[22] with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one).^[23] Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”.^[24]

See also

• Ethics
• Secular ethics
• Mores
• Ethos
• Norms
• Moral relativism
• Moral absolutism
• Consequentialism
• Deontology
• Applied ethics
• Moral particularism
• Guilt
• Criticism of Atheism
• Criticism of Religion
• Conscience
• Kohlberg's stages of moral development
• Public morality
• The ends justify the means
• Moral Zeitgeist

Footnotes

Bibliography

• Walker, Martin G. LIFE! Why We Exist...And What We Must Do to Survive ( Wiki Book Page) (http://www.meaninginmylife.com Web Site), Dog Ear Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-59858-243-7
• Trompenaars, Fons. Did the Pedestrian Die? ISBN 1-84112-436-2

External links

• Fairness Judgments: Genuine Morality or Disguised Egoism? Psychological Article on Fairness (registration required)
• Morals and Conscience in Society
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Definition of Morality
• Objective Morality An evolutionary approach
• Christian and Muslim debates on Morality
• Morality and Judaism chabad.org
• An article that focuses on the Biological basis of morality is available at Geeta-kavita.com
• Wiki site for discussing and taking action on shared morals (WorldMoralMovement.org)
• Morals and Ethics in Islam
• Understanding the Islam, Christianity Debate
• How Sex Was Made A Sin

  •  • [ e] Philosophy
  Topics	|  Eastern philosophy Western philosophy  |  History of philosophy (ancient • medieval • modern • contemporary)
  Lists	Basic topics Topic list Philosophers Philosophies Glossary Movements More lists
  Branches	Aesthetics Ethics Epistemology Logic Metaphysics Political philosophy
  Philosophy of	Education Economics Geography Information History Human nature Language Law Literature Mathematics Mind Philosophy Physics Psychology Religion Science Social science Technology War
  Schools	Analytic philosophy Aristotelianism Continental Philosophy Critical theory Deconstructionism Deontology Dialectical materialism Dualism Empiricism Epicureanism Existentialism Hegelianism Hermeneutics Humanism Idealism Kantianism Logical Positivism Marxism Materialism Monism Neoplatonism New Philosophers Nihilism Ordinary language Phenomenology Platonism Positivism Postmodernism Poststructuralism Pragmatism Presocratic Rationalism Realism Relativism Scholasticism Skepticism Stoicism Structuralism Utilitarianism Virtue ethics