Is morality a word

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).

«Morals» redirects here. For the film, see Morals (film).

«Immoralist» redirects here. For the novel, see The Immoralist.

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» or «rightness».

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 or principles.^[5][6][7]

History[edit]

Ethics[edit]

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word «ethics» is «commonly used interchangeably with ‘morality’, and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual.»^[8] Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between ethics and morals.

Philosopher Simon Blackburn writes that «Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is an usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Immanuel Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation of ‘moral’ considerations from other practical considerations.»^[9]

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]

Realism and anti-realism[edit]

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

• Moral realism 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 anti-realism, 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).

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. Practical reason and relevant emotional considerations are both considered important for a decision to be moral.^{[13][neutrality is disputed]}

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.

In-group and out-group[edit]

Some observers hold that individuals apply distinct sets of moral rules to people depending on their membership of an «in-group» (the individual and those they believe to be of the same group) or an «out-group» (people not entitled to be treated according to the same rules). Some biologists, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists believe this in-group/out-group discrimination has evolved because it enhances group survival. This belief has been confirmed by simple computational models of evolution.^[15] In simulations this discrimination can result in both unexpected cooperation towards the in-group and irrational hostility towards the out-group.^[16] Gary R. Johnson and V.S. Falger have argued that nationalism and patriotism are forms of this in-group/out-group boundary. Jonathan Haidt has noted^[17] that experimental observation indicating an in-group criterion provides one moral foundation substantially used by conservatives, but far less so by liberals.

In-group preference is also helpful at the individual level for the passing on of one’s genes. For example, a mother who favors her own children more highly than the children of other people will give greater resources to her children than she will to strangers’, thus heightening her children’s chances of survival and her own gene’s chances of being perpetuated. Due to this, within a population, there is substantial selection pressure exerted toward this kind of self-interest, such that eventually, all parents wind up favoring their own children (the in-group) over other children (the out-group).

Comparing cultures[edit]

Peterson and Seligman^[18] approach the anthropological view looking across cultures, geo-cultural areas and across millennia. They conclude that certain virtues have prevailed in all cultures they examined. The major virtues they identified include wisdom / knowledge; courage; humanity; justice; temperance; and transcendence. Each of these includes several divisions. For instance humanity includes love, kindness, and social intelligence.

Still, others theorize that morality is not always absolute, contending that moral issues often differ along cultural lines. A 2014 PEW research study among several nations illuminates significant cultural differences among issues commonly related to morality, including divorce, extramarital affairs, homosexuality, gambling, abortion, alcohol use, contraceptive use, and premarital sex. Each of the 40 countries in this study has a range of percentages according to what percentage of each country believes the common moral issues are acceptable, unacceptable, or not moral issues at all. Each percentage regarding the significance of the moral issue varies greatly on the culture in which the moral issue is presented.^[19]

Advocates of a theory known as moral relativism subscribe to the notion that moral virtues are right or wrong only within the context of a certain standpoint (e.g., cultural community). In other words, what is morally acceptable in one culture may be taboo in another. They further contend that no moral virtue can objectively be proven right or wrong ^[20] Critics of moral relativism point to historical atrocities such as infanticide, slavery, or genocide as counter arguments, noting the difficulty in accepting these actions simply through cultural lenses.

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 definite.^[21]

Evolution[edit]

The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to sociocultural evolution. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (although to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved «pro-social» emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.

On this understanding, moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and biologically driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, although sophisticated and complex relative to the moralities of other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group’s cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals’ fitness.^[22]

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). Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behaviour such as inbreeding.

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, some vampire bats fail to feed on prey some nights while others manage to consume a surplus. Bats that did eat will 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)

Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (2009) have argued that morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as «a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups.» This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness.^[23] In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.^[24] They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social politics^[25] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.

Christopher Boehm (1982)^[26] 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.

Psychology[edit]

In modern moral psychology, morality is sometimes considered to change through personal development. Several psychologists have produced theories on the development of morals, usually going through stages of different morals. Lawrence Kohlberg, Jean Piaget, and Elliot Turiel have cognitive-developmental approaches to moral development; to these theorists morality forms in a series of constructive stages or domains. In the Ethics of care approach established by Carol Gilligan, moral development occurs in the context of caring, mutually responsive relationships which are based on interdependence, particularly in parenting but also in social relationships generally.^[27] Social psychologists such as Martin Hoffman and Jonathan Haidt emphasize social and emotional development based on biology, such as empathy. Moral identity theorists, such as William Damon and Mordechai Nisan, see moral commitment as arising from the development of a self-identity that is defined by moral purposes: this moral self-identity leads to a sense of responsibility to pursue such purposes. Of historical interest in psychology are the theories of psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud, who believe that moral development is the product of aspects of the super-ego as guilt-shame avoidance. Theories of moral development therefore tend to regard it as positive moral development: the higher stages are morally higher, though this, naturally, involves a circular argument. The higher stages are better because they are higher, but the better higher because they are better.

As an alternative to viewing morality as an individual trait, some sociologists as well as social- and discursive psychologists have taken upon themselves to study the in-vivo aspects of morality by examining how persons conduct themselves in social interaction.^{[28][29][30][31]}

Moral cognition[edit]

Moral cognition refers to cognitive processes implicated in moral judgment and decision making, and moral action. It consists of several domain-general cognitive processes, ranging from perception of a morally salient stimulus to reasoning when faced with a moral dilemma. While it’s important to mention that there is not a single cognitive faculty dedicated exclusively to moral cognition,^[32][33] characterizing the contributions of domain-general processes to moral behavior is a critical scientific endeavor to understand how morality works and how it can be improved.^[34]

Cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists investigate the inputs to these cognitive processes and their interactions, as well as how these contribute to moral behavior by running controlled experiments.^[35] In these experiments putatively moral versus nonmoral stimuli are compared to each other, while controlling for other variables such as content or working memory load. Often, the differential neural response to specifically moral statements or scenes, are examined using functional neuroimaging experiments.

Critically, the specific cognitive processes that are involved depend on the prototypical situation that a person encounters.^[36] For instance, while situations that require an active decision on a moral dilemma may require active reasoning, an immediate reaction to a shocking moral violation may involve quick, affect-laden processes. Nonetheless, certain cognitive skills such as being able to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, emotions to oneself, and others is a common feature of a broad range of prototypical situations. In line with this, a meta-analysis found overlapping activity between moral emotion and moral reasoning tasks, suggesting a shared neural network for both tasks.^[37] The results of this meta-analysis, however, also demonstrated that the processing of moral input is affected by task demands.

Regarding the issues of morality in video games, some scholars believe that because players appear in video games as actors, they maintain a distance between their sense of self and the role of the game in terms of imagination. Therefore, the decision-making and moral behavior of players in the game are not representing player’s Moral dogma.^[38]

It has been recently found that moral judgment consists in concurrent evaluations of three different components that align with precepts from three dominant moral theories (virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism): the character of a person (Agent-component, A); their actions (Deed-component, D); and the consequences brought about in the situation (Consequences-component, C).^[39] This, implies that various inputs of the situation a person encounters affect moral cognition.

Neuroscience[edit]

The brain areas that are consistently involved when humans reason about moral issues have been investigated by multiple quantitative large-scale meta-analyses of the brain activity changes reported in the moral neuroscience literature.^{[40][37][41][42]} The neural network underlying moral decisions overlaps with the network pertaining to representing others’ intentions (i.e., theory of mind) and the network pertaining to representing others’ (vicariously experienced) emotional states (i.e., empathy). This supports the notion that moral reasoning is related to both seeing things from other persons’ points of view and to grasping others’ feelings. These results provide evidence that the neural network underlying moral decisions is probably domain-global (i.e., there might be no such things as a «moral module» in the human brain) and might be dissociable into cognitive and affective sub-systems.^[40]

Brain areas[edit]

An essential, shared component of moral judgment involves the capacity to detect morally salient content within a given social context. Recent research implicated the salience network in this initial detection of moral content.^[43] The salience network responds to behaviorally salient events ^[44] and may be critical to modulate downstream default and frontal control network interactions in the service of complex moral reasoning and decision-making processes.

The explicit making of moral right and wrong judgments coincides with activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC) while intuitive reactions to situations containing implicit moral issues activates the temporoparietal junction area.^[45][43]

Stimulation of the VMPC by transcranial magnetic stimulation, has been shown to inhibit the ability of human subjects to take into account intent when forming a moral judgment. According to this investigation, TMS did not disrupt participants’ ability to make any moral judgment. On the contrary, moral judgments of intentional harms and non-harms were unaffected by TMS to either the RTPJ or the control site; presumably, however, people typically make moral judgments of intentional harms by considering not only the action’s harmful outcome but the agent’s intentions and beliefs. So why were moral judgments of intentional harms not affected by TMS to the RTPJ? One possibility is that moral judgments typically reflect a weighted function of any morally relevant information that is available at the time. Based on this view, when information concerning the agent’s belief is unavailable or degraded, the resulting moral judgment simply reflects a higher weighting of other
morally relevant factors (e.g., outcome). Alternatively, following TMS to the RTPJ, moral judgments might be made via an abnormal processing route that does not take belief into account. On either account, when belief information is degraded or unavailable, moral judgments are shifted toward other morally relevant factors (e.g., outcome). For intentional harms and non-harms, however, the outcome suggests the same moral judgment as to the intention. Thus, the researchers suggest that TMS to the RTPJ disrupted the processing of negative beliefs for both intentional harms and attempted harms, but the current design allowed the investigators to detect this effect only in the case of attempted harms, in which the neutral outcomes did not afford harsh moral judgments on their own.^[46]

Similarly VMPC-impaired persons will judge an action purely on its outcome and are unable to take into account the intent of that action.^[47]

Mirror neurons[edit]

Mirror neurons are neurons in the brain that fire when another person is observed doing a certain action. The neurons fire in imitation of the action being observed, causing the same muscles to act minutely in the observer as are acting grossly in the person actually performing the action. Research on mirror neurons, since their discovery in 1996,^[48] suggests that they may have a role to play not only in action understanding, but also in emotion sharing empathy. Cognitive neuroscientist Jean Decety thinks that the ability to recognize and vicariously experience what another individual is undergoing was a key step forward in the evolution of social behavior, and ultimately, morality.^[49] The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy, and this would appear to lend support to Decety’s view.^[50][51]

Genetics[edit]

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2022)

Moral intuitions may have genetic bases. A 2022 study conducted by scholars Michael Zakharin and Timothy C. Bates, and published by the European Journal of Personality, found that moral foundations have significant genetic bases.^[52] Another study, conducted by Smith and Hatemi, similarly found significant evidence in support of moral heritability by looking at and comparing the answers of moral dilemmas between twins.^[53]

Politics[edit]

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, though the political sphere raises additional problems and challenges.^[54] It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. Moral foundations theory, authored by Jonathan Haidt and colleagues,^[55][56] has been used to study the differences between liberals and conservatives, in this regard.^[17][57] Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tended to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans valued care and fairness less and the remaining three values more. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Haidt also hypothesizes that the origin of this division in the United States can be traced to geo-historical factors, with conservatism strongest in closely knit, ethnically homogeneous 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 its content.

Political morality is also relevant to the behavior internationally of national governments, and to the support they receive from their host population. The Sentience Institute, co-founded by Jacy Reese Anthis, analyzes the trajectory of moral progress in society via the framework of an expanding moral circle.^[58] Noam Chomsky states that

… if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.
In fact, one of them, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something’s right for me, it’s right for you; if it’s wrong for you, it’s wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.^[59]

Religion[edit]

Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not depend upon religion although for some this is «an almost automatic assumption».^[60] According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality «are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides.»^[61]

Positions[edit]

Within the wide range of moral traditions, religious value systems co-exist with contemporary secular frameworks such as consequentialism, freethought, humanism, utilitarianism, and others. There are many types of religious value systems. Modern monotheistic religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and to a certain degree others such as Sikhism and Zoroastrianism, define right and wrong by the laws and rules set forth by their respective scriptures and as interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith. Other religions spanning pantheistic to nontheistic tend to be less absolute. For example, within Buddhism, the intention of the individual and the circumstances should be accounted for in the form of Merit, to determine if an action is right or wrong termed.^[62] A further disparity between the values of religious traditions is pointed out by Barbara Stoler Miller, who states that, in Hinduism, «practically, right and wrong are decided according to the categories of social rank, kinship, and stages of life. For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and egalitarianism, this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of Hinduism most difficult to understand».^[63]

Religions provide different ways of dealing with moral dilemmas. For example, there is no absolute prohibition on killing in Hinduism, which recognizes that it «may be inevitable and indeed necessary» in certain circumstances.^[64] In monotheistic traditions, certain acts are viewed in more absolute terms, such as abortion or divorce.^[a] Religion is not always positively associated with morality. Philosopher David Hume stated that, «the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man’s morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere.»^[65]

Religious value systems can also be used to justify acts that are contrary to contemporary morality, such as massacres, misogyny and slavery. For example, Simon Blackburn states that «apologists for Hinduism defend or explain away its involvement with the caste system, and apologists for Islam defend or explain away its harsh penal code or its attitude to women and infidels».^[66] In regard to Christianity, he states that the «Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women»,^[67] and notes morally suspect themes in the Bible’s New Testament as well.^[68][e] Elizabeth Anderson likewise holds that «the Bible contains both good and evil teachings», and it is «morally inconsistent».^[69] Christian apologists address Blackburn’s viewpoints^[70] and construe that Jewish laws in the Hebrew Bible showed the evolution of moral standards towards protecting the vulnerable, imposing a death penalty on those pursuing slavery and treating slaves as persons and not property.^[71] Humanists like Paul Kurtz believe that we can identify moral values across cultures, even if we do not appeal to a supernatural or universalist understanding of principles – values including integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness. These values can be resources for finding common ground between believers and nonbelievers.^[72]

Empirical analyses[edit]

Several studies have been conducted on the empirics of morality in various countries, and the overall relationship between faith and crime is unclear.^[b] A 2001 review of studies on this topic found «The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently, no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime.»^[73] Phil Zuckerman’s 2008 book, Society without God, based on studies conducted during 14 months in Scandinavia in 2005–2006, notes that Denmark and Sweden, «which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world», enjoy «among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world».^[74][c]

Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society stated that, «In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies,» and «In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows» with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and «theistic» Portugal.^[75][d] In a response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul’s study.^[76] he concludes that a «complex relationship» exists between religiosity and homicide «with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it». In April 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects’ pro-social sentiments were published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more motivated by their own compassion to perform pro-social behaviors. Religious people were found to be less motivated by compassion to be charitable than by an inner sense of moral obligation.^[77][78]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• Churchland, Patricia Smith (2011). Braintrust : What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13703-2. (Reviewed in The Montreal Review)
• Richard Dawkins, «The roots of morality: why are we good?», in The God Delusion, Black Swan, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-552-77429-1).
• Harris, Sam (2010). The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-1-4391-7121-9.
• Lunn, Arnold, and Garth Lean (1964). The New Morality. London: Blandford Press.
• John Newton, Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century, 2000. ISBN 0967370574.
• Prinz, Jesse (Jan–Feb 2013). «Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response». Philosophy Now.
• Slater S.J., Thomas (1925). «Book I: Morality» . A manual of moral theology for English-speaking countries. Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd.
• Stace, Walter Terence (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.
• Trompenaars, Fons (2003). Did the Pedestrian Die?: Insights from the World’s Greatest Culture Guru. Oxford: Capstone. ISBN 978-1-84112-436-0.
• Yandell, Keith E. (1973). God, man, and religion: readings in the philosophy of religion. McGraw-Hill. containing articles by Paterson Brown:
  • «Religious Morality», (from Mind, 1963).
  • «Religious Morality: a Reply to Flew and Campbell», (from Mind, 1964).
  • «God and the Good», (from Religious Studies, 1967).
• Ashley Welch, «Virtuous behaviors sanction later sins: people are quick to treat themselves after a good deed or healthy act» March 4, 2012.
• Roberto Andorno, «Do our moral judgements need to be guided by principles?» Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2012, 21(4), 457–65.

External links[edit]

• The Definition of Morality, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Boston College’s Morality Lab
• Morality and Judaism, chabad.org
• «The Moral Instinct» by Steven Pinker, The New York Times, 13 January 2008

Morality is a conditional concept of rules, principles, assessments, norms, based on the paradigm of assessments of evil and good, which was formed in a certain period of time. This is a model of social consciousness, a method of regulating the behavior of the subject in society. It develops in both individual and social forms of subjective relations.

The concept of morality from the point of view considered by psychologists is a fragment of the human psyche that has formed at a deep level, which is responsible for assessing events that occur on different planes with a good and bad value. The word morality is often used as a synonym for the word «morality.»

What is moral

The word «morality» originates from the classical Latin language. It is formed from the mos word of the Latin word meaning morale, custom. Referring to Aristotle, Cicero, guided by this meaning, formed the words: «moralis» and «moralitas» — moral and moral, which became equivalent to the expressions from the Greek language: ethics and ethics.

The term “morality” is mainly used to designate the type of behavior of society as integral, but there are exceptions, for example, Christian morality or bourgeois morality. Thus, the term is used only for a limited population. Analyzing the relationship of society in different epochs of existence to the same action, it should be noted that morality is a conditional quantity, variable in connection with the accepted social order. Each nation has its own morality based on the experience gained and traditions.

It was also noted by some scholars that different moral rules apply not only to subjects of different nationalities, but also to subjects belonging to a “foreign” group. The definition of a group of people in the “own”, “alien” vector occurs at the psychological level of the individual’s correlation of himself with this group in various senses: cultural, ethnic, and others. By identifying himself with a specific group, the subject accepts the rules and norms (morality) that are adopted in it, consider such a way of life more fair than following the morality of the whole society.

A person knows a large number of meanings of this concept, which is interpreted from various points of view in various sciences, but its basis remains constant — it is a person’s definition of his actions, society’s actions in the equivalent of “good-bad”.

Morality is created on the basis of the paradigm adopted in a particular society, since the designations “bad or good” are relative and not absolute, and the explanation of morality or immorality of various kinds of acts is conditional.

Morality, as a combination of the rules and norms of society, is formed over a long period on the basis of traditions and laws adopted in a particular society. For comparison, you can use the example associated with the burning of witches — women who were suspected of using magic and the Black Book. In such a period as the Middle Ages, against the background of the adopted laws, such an action was considered a highly moral act, that is, good. In the modern paradigm of adopted laws, such atrocity is considered an absolutely unacceptable and stupid crime in relation to the subject. At the same time, such incidents as holy wars, genocide or slavery can be set up. In their era in a particular society with its laws, such actions were taken as the norm, were considered absolutely moral.

The formation of morality is directly related to the evolution of the diverse ethnic groups of mankind in its social key. Scientists studying the social evolution of peoples consider morality as the result of the influence of the forces of evolution on the group as a whole and on a person individually. Based on their representation, the behavioral norms prescribed by morality change during the evolution of mankind, ensuring the survival of species and their reproduction, contribute to the guaranteed success of evolution. Along with this, the subject forms the “pro-social” fundamental part of the psyche. As a result, a feeling of responsibility for what is done, a feeling of empathy , guilt.

Accordingly, morality is a certain set of behavioral norms, which is formed over a long period of time, under the influence of environmental conditions at a certain moment forms a set of established ideological norms that contribute to the development of human cooperation. It also aims to avoid the individualism of the subject in society; the formation of groups united by a common worldview. Sociobiologists consider this point of view in a number of types of social animals; there is a desire to change the behavior of those striving to survive and preserve their own species during the evolutionary period. Which corresponds to the formation of morality, even in animals. In man, moral standards are developed more sophisticatedly and variedly, but they are also concentrated on preventing individualism in behavior, which contributes to the formation of nationalities and accordingly increases the chances of survival. It is believed that even such norms of behavior as parental love are consequences of the evolution of human morality — this type of behavior increases the survival rate of offspring.

Studies of the human brain by sociobiologists determine that the parts of the cerebral cortex of the subject that are involved in the period of human occupation by moral issues do not form a separate cognitive subsystem. Often, during the period of solving moral problems, brain regions that localize the neural network that are responsible for the subject’s ideas about the intentions of others are involved. The neural network is also involved, which is responsible for the individual representing the emotional experience of other personalities. That is, when solving moral problems, a person uses those parts of his brain that correspond to empathy and empathy, this indicates that morality is aimed at developing mutual understanding between subjects (the ability of an individual to see things through the eyes of another subject, to understand his feelings and experiences). According to the theory of moral psychology, morality as such develops and changes in the same way as personality is formed. There are several approaches to understanding the formation of morality on a personal level:

— cognitive approach (Jean Piaget, Lorenz Kolberg and Elliot Turiel) — morality in personal development goes through several constructive stages or areas;

— biological approach (Jonathan Heidt and Martin Hoffman) — morality is considered against the background of the development of the social or emotional component of the human psyche. An interesting approach to the development of the doctrine of morality as a psychological component of personality is the approach of the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, who suggested that morality is formed as a consequence of the desire of the “super-ego” to get out of shame and guilt.

What are moral standards?

Fulfillment of moral standards is the moral duty of the subject, violation of these measures of behavior is a feeling of moral guilt.

The norms of morality in society are generally accepted measures of the subject’s behavior that arise from established morality. The totality of these norms forms a certain system of rules, which in all respects differ from the normative systems of society such as: customs, rights and ethics.

In the early stages of formation, moral standards were directly associated with religion, which prescribes to moral standards the meaning of divine revelation. Each religion has in its possession a set of certain moral norms (commandments) binding on all believers. Failure to comply with the prescribed moral standards in religion is considered a blessing. In various world religions, there is a certain pattern in accordance with moral standards: theft, murder, adultery, falsehood are undeniable rules of behavior for believers.

Researchers involved in the study of the formation of moral norms have put forward several directions in understanding the meaning of these norms in society. Some believe that compliance with the rules prescribed in morality is a priority in the guise of other norms. The followers of this direction, attributing certain properties to these moral standards: universality, categoricalness, immutability, cruelty. The second direction, which is studied by scientists, suggests that the attribution of absolutism, universality and commitment to moral standards, acts as a kind of fanaticism .

In the form of manifestation, some moral norms in society have similarities with legal norms. So the principle of “do not steal” is common to both systems, but by asking why the subject follows this principle, one can determine the direction of his thinking. If the subject follows the principle because he is afraid of legal liability, then his act is legal. If the subject confidently follows this principle, because theft is a bad (evil) act, the vector of the direction of his behavior follows the moral system. There are precedents in which compliance with moral standards is contrary to law. The subject, considering it his duty, for example, to steal the medicine in order to save his loved one from death, is acting morally right, while absolutely breaking the law.

Exploring the formation of moral standards, scientists came to a certain classification:

— norms affecting the existence of the individual as a biological being (murder);

— norms on the independence of the subject;

— norms of social conflicts ;

— norms of trust (fidelity, truthfulness);

— norms relating to the dignity of the subject (honesty, justice);

— privacy standards;

— norms about other norms of morality.

Moral functions

Man is a creature with freedom of choice and he has every right to choose the path to following moral standards, or vice versa. Such a choice of a person who puts good or evil on the scales is called moral choice. Having such freedom of choice in real life, the subject is faced with a difficult task: to follow personal needs or blindly follow what is due. Having made a choice for himself, the subject bears certain moral consequences, for which the subject himself is responsible, both to society and to himself.

Analyzing the features of morality, we can extract several of its functions:

— Regulation function. Following moral principles leaves a definite mark in the consciousness of the individual. The formation of certain behaviors (what is allowed and what is not allowed) occurs from an early age. This kind of action helps the subject to adjust his behavior in line with utility not only for himself, but also for society. Moral norms are able to regulate the individual beliefs of the subject to the same degree of interaction between groups of people, which favors the preservation of culture and stability.

— Evaluation function. Actions and situations occurring in a social society, morality, evaluates in the aspect of good and evil. The actions that have taken place are evaluated for their usefulness or negativity for further development, for this, from the moral side, each action is evaluated. Thanks to this function, the subject forms the concept of belonging to society and develops its own position in it.

— The function of education. Under the influence of this function, a person develops an awareness of the importance of not only his needs, but also the needs of the people who surround him. There is a feeling of empathy and respect, which contributes to the harmonious development of relationships in society, an understanding of the moral ideals of another individual, contributes to a better understanding of each other.

— Control function. Determines the control of the use of moral norms, as well as the condemnation of their consequences at the level of society and the individual.

— Integration function. Following moral standards unites mankind in a single group, which supports the survival of man as a species. It also helps to maintain the integrity of the spiritual world of the individual. The key functions of morality are: evaluative, educational and regulatory. They reflect the social significance of morality.

Morality and ethics

The term ethics comes from the Greek word ethos. The use of this word denoted the actions or actions of a person who were personally authoritative for himself. Aristotle defined the meaning of the word ethos as the virtue of the character of the subject. Subsequently, it was said that the word «ethicos» is ethical, meaning something related to the temperament or disposition of the subject. The appearance of such a definition entailed the formation of a science of ethics — studying the virtues of the character of the subject. In the culture of the ancient Roman empire was the word «moralis» — defining a wide range of human phenomena. Later, a derivative of the term “moralitas” appeared — referring to customs or character. Analyzing the etymological content of these two terms («moralitas» and «ethicos»), it should be noted that their meanings coincide.

Many people know that such concepts as «morality» and ethics «are close in meaning, as often they are considered interchangeable. Many people use these concepts as extensions of each other. Ethics, first of all, is a philosophical trend that studies moral issues. Often the expression «ethics» is used to denote specific moral principles, traditions, customs that exist among subjects of a limited group of society. The Kant system considers the word moral, using it to denote the concepts of duty, principles of behavior and obligations. The word «ethics» uses Aristotle’s system of reasoning to denote virtue, the inseparability of moral and practical considerations.

The concept of morality as a system of principles forms a set of rules that are based on many years of practice, and allows a person to determine the style of behavior in society. Ethics is a section of philosophy and theoretical justification of these principles. In the modern world, the concept of ethics has preserved the original designation as a science in the ranks of philosophy studying the properties of man, real phenomena, rules and norms, which are the norms of morality in society.

Sometimes, acting in a moral manner means individuals must sacrifice their own short-term interests to benefit society. Individuals who go against these standards may be considered immoral.

It may be helpful to differentiate between related terms, such as immoral, nonmoral, and amoral. Each has a slightly different meaning:

• Immoral: Describes someone who purposely commits an offensive act, even though they know the difference between what is right and wrong
• Nonmoral: Describes situations in which morality is not a concern
• Amoral: Describes someone who acknowledges the difference between right and wrong, but who is not concerned with morality

How Morals Are Established

Morality isn’t fixed. What’s considered acceptable in your culture might not be acceptable in another culture. Geographical regions, religion, family, and life experiences all influence morals. 

Scholars don’t agree on exactly how morals are developed. However, there are several theories that have gained attention over the years:

• Freud’s morality and the superego: Sigmund Freud suggested moral development occurred as a person’s ability to set aside their selfish needs were replaced by the values of important socializing agents (such as a person’s parents).
• Piaget’s theory of moral development: Jean Piaget focused on the social-cognitive and social-emotional perspective of development. Piaget theorized that moral development unfolds over time, in certain stages as children learn to adopt certain moral behaviors for their own sake—rather than just abide by moral codes because they don’t want to get into trouble.
• B.F. Skinner’s behavioral theory: B.F. Skinner focused on the power of external forces that shaped an individual’s development. For example, a child who receives praise for being kind may treat someone with kindness again out of a desire to receive more positive attention in the future.
• Kohlberg’s moral reasoning: Lawrence Kohlberg proposed six stages of moral development that went beyond Piaget’s theory. Through a series of questions, Kohlberg proposed that an adult’s stage of reasoning could be identified.

Morals That Transcend Time and Culture

Most morals aren’t fixed. They usually shift and change over time.

Ideas about whether certain behaviors are moral—such as engaging in pre-marital sex, entering into same-sex relationships, and using cannabis—have shifted over time. While the bulk of the population once viewed these behaviors as “wrong,” the vast majority of the population now finds these activities to be “acceptable.”

In some regions, cultures, and religions, using contraception is considered immoral. In other parts of the world, some people consider contraception the moral thing to do, as it reduces unplanned pregnancy, manages the population, and reduces the risk of STDs.

Examples of Morals

The following are common morality examples that you may have been taught growing up, and may have even passed on to younger generations:

• Be polite
• Have empathy
• Don’t steal
• Tell the truth
• Treat others as you want to be treated

People might adhere to these principles by:

• Being an upstanding citizen
• Doing volunteer work
• Donating money to charity
• Forgiving someone
• Not gossiping about others
• Offering their help to others

To get a sense of the types of morality you were raised with, think about what your parents, community and/or religious leaders told you that you «should» or «ought» to do.

Morality vs. Ethics

Some scholars don’t distinguish between morals and ethics. Both have to do with “right and wrong.”

For example, your community may not view premarital sex as a problem. But on a personal level, you might consider it immoral. By this definition, your morality would contradict the ethics of your community.

Morality and Laws

Both laws and morals are meant to regulate behavior in a community to allow people to live in harmony. Both have firm foundations in the concept that everyone should have autonomy and show respect to one another.

Legal thinkers interpret the relationship between laws and morality differently. Some argue that laws and morality are independent. This means that laws can’t be disregarded simply because they’re morally indefensible.

Others believe law and morality are interdependent. These thinkers believe that laws that claim to regulate behavioral expectations must be in harmony with moral norms. Therefore, all laws must secure the welfare of the individual and be in place for the good of the community.

There may be times when some people argue that breaking the law is the “moral” thing to do. Stealing food to feed a starving person, for example, might be illegal but it also might be considered the “right thing” to do if it’s the only way to prevent someone from suffering or dying.

A Word From Verywell

It can be helpful to spend some time thinking about the morals that guide your decisions about things like friendship, money, education, and family. Understanding what’s really important to you can help you understand yourself better and it may make decision making easier.

Last Updated:
29 Mar 2023
— Updated example sentences