Morality

Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).^[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.^[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness", "appropriateness" or "rightness".

For the capacity of a group's members to maintain belief in the face of opposition or hardship, see Morale. For the novella, see Morality (novella).

Moral philosophy includes meta-ethics, which studies abstract issues such as moral ontology and moral epistemology, and normative ethics, which studies more concrete systems of moral decision-making such as deontological ethics and consequentialism. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."^[3]^[4]

Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards and/or principles.^[5]^[6]^[7]

Descriptive and normative[edit]

In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores from a society that provides these codes of conduct in which it applies and is accepted by an individual. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.^[10]

In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.^[10]

is the class of theories which hold that there are true moral statements that report objective moral facts. For example, while they might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape individuals' "moral" decisions, they deny that those cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior. This may be the philosophical view propounded by ethical naturalists, but not all moral realists accept that position (e.g. ethical non-naturalists).^[11]

Moral realism

Moral , on the other hand, holds that moral statements either fail or do not even attempt to report objective moral facts. Instead, they hold that moral sentences are either categorically false claims of objective moral facts (error theory); claims about subjective attitudes rather than objective facts (ethical subjectivism); or else do not attempt to describe the world at all but rather something else, like an expression of an emotion or the issuance of a command (non-cognitivism).

anti-realism

Philosophical theories on the nature and origins of morality (that is, theories of meta-ethics) are broadly divided into two classes:

Some forms of non-cognitivism and ethical subjectivism, while considered anti-realist in the robust sense used here, are considered realist in the sense synonymous with moral universalism. For example, universal prescriptivism is a universalist form of non-cognitivism which claims that morality is derived from reasoning about implied imperatives, and divine command theory and ideal observer theory are universalist forms of ethical subjectivism which claim that morality is derived from the edicts of a god or the hypothetical decrees of a perfectly rational being, respectively.

Anthropology[edit]

Morality with practical reasoning[edit]

Practical reason is necessary for the moral agency but it is not a sufficient condition for moral agency.^[12] Real life issues that need solutions do need both rationality and emotion to be sufficiently moral. One uses rationality as a pathway to the ultimate decision, but the environment and emotions towards the environment at the moment must be a factor for the result to be truly moral, as morality is subject to culture. Something can only be morally acceptable if the culture as a whole has accepted this to be true. Both practical reason and relevant emotional factors are acknowledged as significant in determining the morality of a decision.^[13]

Tribal and territorial[edit]

Celia Green made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.^[14] She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person's territory, including his or her property and dependents, 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' and Geisler's graded absolutism. Green relates the development of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy of contract over status.

(2011). Braintrust : What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13703-2. (Reviewed in The Montreal Review)

Churchland, Patricia Smith

"The roots of morality: why are we good?", in The God Delusion, Black Swan, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-552-77429-1).

Richard Dawkins

(2010). The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-1-4391-7121-9.

Harris, Sam

Lunn, Arnold, and Garth Lean (1964). The New Morality. London: Blandford Press.

John Newton, Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century, 2000. 0967370574.

ISBN

(Jan–Feb 2013). "Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response". Philosophy Now.

Prinz, Jesse

Slater S.J., Thomas (1925). . A manual of moral theology for English-speaking countries. Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd.

"Book I: Morality"

(1937). The Concept of Morals. New York: The MacMillan Company; Reprinted 1975 by permission of Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., and also reprinted by Peter Smith Publisher Inc, January 1990. ISBN 978-0-8446-2990-2.

Stace, Walter Terence

(2003). Did the Pedestrian Die?: Insights from the World's Greatest Culture Guru. Oxford: Capstone. ISBN 978-1-84112-436-0.

Trompenaars, Fons

God, man, and religion: readings in the philosophy of religion

Ashley Welch, March 4, 2012.

"Virtuous behaviors sanction later sins: people are quick to treat themselves after a good deed or healthy act"

"Do our moral judgements need to be guided by principles?" Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2012, 21(4), 457–65.