In its major descriptive usage, 'morality', (from Latin ''moralitas'' "manner, character, proper behaviour") means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. The proper source of this authority is controversial, but society, philosophy, religion, and individual thought / conscience are widely held to be candidates.
'Morality' can also be used in a normative sense to mean that code of conduct which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, given 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 how one would justify a lie given for the sake of protecting someone from harm. A common meta-ethical question is of 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 either 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), is an implied imperative (
prescriptivism) or is literally nonsense (
Error theory).
Moral Vocabulary and Concepts
In sociology,
mores are the 'rules' which govern appropriate behaviour. 'Mores' is a broader concept than morality since it additonally encompasses
custom,
ritual, and
etiquette. Most mores are implicit, forming a shared unconscious understanding of the social world. Moral rules in contrast, by virtue of their importance, are made explicit, in story, myth and code. The understanding of social mores and morality can be seen as important elements of
folk psychology, the set of intuitions and assumptions which govern our grasp of what it means to be a person - a
responsible agent with intentions, desires, and beliefs about the world. Very young children, and people suffering from severe mental illnesses and disabilities are not normally considered to be morally responsible.
[4].
Relativism and absolutism
Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to the standards of a particular belief system, historical context or culture. This position, known as
moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.
[5] 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.
Anthropological Perspectives
Tribal and territorial moralities
Celia Green has made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.
[Green, Celia (2004). ''Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I-XX. ] The latter she characterizes as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person’s territory, including his or 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
Evolutionary biologists start from the assumption that morality is essentially a product of evolutionary forces. On this view, moral codes are founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (
inclusive fitness). As an example, the near-universal taboo against
inbreeding is explained as a means to avoid producing defective offspring. 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 typcially 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 (, 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
Sociopathy and Psychopathy
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.[2]
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 in economic systems
Too often the concept of morality, in particular, societal morality, is separated from the simple morality of ensuring that individuals have clean water, education, housing etc and experience the morality which comes from having some form of secure income sufficient to fulfil basic need. The problem is partly due to studies and disciplines being narrow and thus seeing morality as something which is separate; and partly due to the belief that social and economic justice cannot be furthered without a loss of economic efficiency. This belief is challenged by
binary economics which claims that it creates not only a new economics but also a new justice and a new morality because it is a market economics whose markets work for everybody rather than just a few; and it upholds private property but private property, again, for everybody rather than just a few. A summary might be – a justice which creates efficiency and an efficiency which creates justice.
Morality in politics
The diferences between
liberals and
conservatives is also a field of study of morality. In 2006,
Jonathan Haidt and
Jesse Graham proposed a 5-fold morality model to explain the confrontation between this two groups
[Haidt, Johan and Graham, Jesse (2006). ''When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize''. Social Justice Research. ]. According to this model, the conservatives would make their moral choices using five moral variables (harm, fairness, ingroup, authority, purity), whereas the liberals would use only two (harm, fairness). Haidt also declares that the origen of this division can be traced down to the way the tribal groups form, in contrast with the organization of the
port-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism. (see also
Haidt conference and
discussion on the topic)
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.
Religion and morality
Religious belief systems usually include the idea of divine will and divine
judgment and usually correspond to a moral code of conduct. The forms of honor associated with Medieval Christian
knighthood and the forms of dress associated with some sects of
Islam are examples of this.
In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes.
[7] 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,
[8] 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.
[9] In a response
[Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University ''Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look'' http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS ] 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
[10] [11] [12] — for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.
[13] Modern research in
criminology also acknowledges an ''inverse'' relationship between religion and crime,
[14] with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one).
[15] 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”.
[16]
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.
See also
★
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
Footnotes
1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
2. http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-distinction-between-ethics-and-morals/
3. http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm
4. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/
5. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
6. [1].
7. As is expressed in the review of literature on this topic by: Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students, Conroy, S.J. and Emerson, T.L.N., , , Journal of Business Ethics, 2004 DOI:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09
8. Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look, , Gregory S., Paul, Journal of Religion and Society, 2005
9. Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health, Gerson Moreno-Riaño, , , Journal of Religion and Society, 2006
10. KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion '44' (4), 443-457.
11. SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion '44' (3), 323-348.
12. Regnerus, Mark D. & Burdette, Amy (2006)
RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT FAMILY DYNAMICS. The Sociological Quarterly '47' (1), 175-194.
13. eg a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
14. As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; DOI: 10.1177/0093854806293485
15.
For example:
★ Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263-274.
★ Burkett,S.,& White,M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455-462.
★ Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the “true” relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
★ Cochran,J. K.,& Akers,R. L. (1989). Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198-225.
★ Evans,T. D.,Cullen,F. T.,Burton,V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway,R. G.,Payne,G. L.,& Kethineni,S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43-70.
★ Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251-266.
★ Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952-958.
★ Johnson,B. R.,Larson,D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang,S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377-391.
★ Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323-340.
★ Powell,K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38-47.
16. Baier,C. J.,& Wright,B. R. (2001). “If you love me,keep my commandments”:A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3-21.
Bibliography
★ Walker, Martin G. ''LIFE! Why We Exist...And What We Must Do to Survive'' (
[3] Wiki Book Page) (
[4] 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
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
