Morality

From Free net encyclopedia

(Redirected from Morals)

See also Ethics.

1 General
2 Evolution of morality
3 Morality in judicial systems
4 Comparative morality among cultures
5 Moral Codes
6 Moral Core
7 Morality, seen as a fiction, and as a process of artificial labelling
8 See also
9 Book sources
10 External links

General

Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. The term is often used to refer to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious, secular (e.g. Humanist) and philosophical communities who share concepts and beliefs, by which people determine whether given actions are right or wrong.

These concepts and beliefs about right and wrong are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behavior of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. Individuals who choose to conform in this way are popularly held to possess "Moral Fibre", whereas those who lack "Moral Fibre" may be labelled as socially degenerate. A "moral" may refer to a particular principle, usually as an informal and general summary with respect to a moral principle, as it is applied in a given human situation.

Morality can thus 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 (through such beliefs characterized by 'the god(s) know what's best for us') morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular situations morality can now be used in reference to such things as lifestyle choices, as these tend to represent an individual's conception of a good life, and the individual usually conforms to a set of beliefs within the lifestyle's community of like-minded people.

The systematic study of morality is a branch of philosophy called ethics. Ethics seeks to address questions such as how one ought to behave in a specific situation ("applied ethics"), how one can justify a moral position ("normative ethics"), and how one should understand the fundamental nature of ethics or morality itself, including whether it has any objective justification ("meta-ethics").

For example, in applied ethics, the question of abortion being morally permissible is a current issue in United States society and politics. A common question in normative ethics is how one would go about justifying a lie, given that they think they are morally justified for the sake of protecting someone from harm. Do the terms "good", "evil", "right", and "wrong" make sense? Meta-ethics asks, how do we justify the existence of "good," or is it all relative and is morality simply a statement of one's preferences (i.e. through "cultural relativism")?

Of course, in any society there is a divergence between the notion of how we ought to behave and the reality of how we behave; so there is a difference between hypothetical punditry and real morality.

[edit]

Evolution of morality

Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that human morality originated from evolutionary processes. An innate tendency to develop a sense of right and wrong helps an individual to survive and reproduce in a species with complex social interactions. Selected behaviors, seen in abstraction as moral codes, are seen to be common to all human cultures, and reflect, in their development, similarities to natural selection and these aspects of morality can be seen in as the basis of some religious doctrine. From this, some also argue that there may be a simple Darwinian explanation for the existence of religion: that, regardless of the validity of religious beliefs, religion tends to encourage behavior beneficial to the species, as a code of morality tends to encourage communality, and communality tends to assist survival.

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.

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.

The evolutionary critique points to the radical ways which morality differs across times and cultures among human beings. Very few activities are always morally wrong across all human societies. For example, some groups still practice forms of infanticide, incest, and paederastry, activities that would be condemned harshly in most Western societies. It has been argued that morality is simply whatever norms are present within a given society at a given time, while the other argument lies in the existence of morality.

An article that focuses on the Biological basis of morality is available at Geeta-kavita.com

[edit]

Morality in judicial systems

The law considers itself independent of morality, even if the law happens to reflect or intends to reflect morality. (Of course, it is not difficult to argue that societal morality is inevitably encoded in law)

In some judicial systems, the word morality concretely means a requirement for the access to certain charges or careers, or for the obtaining of certain licenses or concessions, and generally consists of the absence of previous records on (e.g.) crimes, bankruptcy, political or commercial irregularities.

In some 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.

[edit]

Comparative morality among cultures

There has been considerable work done in studying comparative morality among cultures. To such researchers, morality is not seen as a constant essential "truth" but as a series of values that is influenced by (and influences) the cultural context. This is often called moral relativism.

One well known commentator is Fons Trompenaars, author of Did the Pedestrian Die?, which tested various moral propositions. 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), and in some cultures it mattered whether the pedestrian had died to how much assistance would be expected.

[edit]

Moral Codes

Template:Cleanup-date

Moral codes are often complex statements of right and wrong. Although some people might think that the moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's morals or ethics or for that matter judgment of others' morals. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes.

A common version of a moral code is a legal code which states the penalties or corrective actions associated with any particular act (note that many of the legal codes are built on a foundaton of religion).

A value system, which is the prioritization of the values held by an individual or group, can also be used to form the basis of a moral code.

In some cultures, the relationship between moral and legal codes are often absolute - they're one and the same. Moral codes help drive personal conduct.

Examples of moral codes include the golden rule; Wiccan Rede, the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism; the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and the ten Indian commandments.

A related and more advanced (some say more corrupt) concept is an ethical code, which establishes tradeoffs and rationale for making decisions for the greater good. Some of these resemble a moral code, most are less strict and make no special claim to actually distinguish 'right' from 'wrong' in any absolute sense. The ethical code is concerned with weighing all the negative and positive results of an action, and making a decision based upon the greater good for a greater number.

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 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.

[edit]

Moral Core

Template:Cleanup-date

The moral core of an individual is the extent to which that person will apply his or her notions of morality. It is centered on the individual and can be extended to include other people or groups. The individual sees these others within the moral core as deserving to be treated in the same way the individual personally wants to be treated.

The moral core is a principle that can determine how an individual applies particular moral values and beliefs. It is described in some theories of ethics as the limits to the rationality of ethics itself. From this perspective, morals are considered primarily aesthetic notions and not seen as directly sharable.

Persons who fall outside of an individual's moral core are not covered by that individual's notions of morality and do not enjoy its protections. Thus, the concept of a moral core can serve to explain apparent hypocrisy in people who claim to have particular ethical principles. For example, it might be used to explain why someone whose religion forbids murder can nevertheless support involvement in war or imposition of the death penalty for certain crimes. According to this theory, the people whose killing can be justified somehow fall outside the individual's moral core.

A moral core is presumed to be formed by experience, including especially parental moral examples, and the slow growth via cognition of a set of conditionings, inhibitions, and concepts of beauty through his or her entire lifetime. Although it may be demonstrated to train or inspire others, it cannot be shared in any way, and is constantly changing.

Some theories of morality, notably moral relativism, but also branches of theology, hold that there is little value in attempting to share moral cores or even to align moral choices except to the bare minimum needed to prevent conflict.

The opposite belief, imposing various degrees of standardization via a moral code and its enforcement, usually in a legal system, is that such cores either can be shared or are irrelevant to the process of social control and learning proper conduct.

[edit]

Morality, seen as a fiction, and as a process of artificial labelling

It can be argued that in reality, nothing is right or wrong. If this is a godless universe (which it may well be), then there is no external source from which the rightness or wrongness of any particular behaviour or attitude can be derived. No one is in charge. There are no rules. We can do what we like. We can live as we choose, individually, and collectively.

But a world where nothing is right or wrong - where everyone could simply do as they wished without regard to anybody else's needs or wishes - would be chaotic. It would make civilisation impossible. It wouldn't work. So moral codes come into existence. They come into existence because we need them.

In order for civilisation to be possible, attitudes and activities need to be labelled as 'right', 'good', 'correct', etc; and their corresponding opposites need to be labelled as 'wrong', 'bad', 'incorrect', etc. So ideas of morality come into being, to give effect to this process.

What civilisation needs more of (e.g. generosity; honesty; kindness; diligence; consideration for others; hard work, other appropriate behaviour, etc) is labelled as good, right, correct, to be applauded. It is given a positive moral label.

What seems bad for civilisation (e.g. dishonesty, rape, theft, murder, laziness, greed, selfishness, sexual promiscuity, other unhelpful and counterproductive behaviour, etc) is labelled bad; incorrect; decadent; to be condemned, etc. It is given a negative moral label. It is frowned on.

On this basis, 'living a more moral life' generally involves doing those things, and acting in those ways which, if everyone did the same, would tend to improve civilisation.

Conversely, 'living a less moral life' generally involves doing things, and acting in ways, which, if everyone did likewise, would tend to undermine, or work against, a happy civilisation, or would make civilisation impossible.

Grasping that the process of labelling particular behaviour right or wrong is an artificial one made necessary if civilisation is to thrive, is especially necessary because when different people have differing and divergent views on what is to be treated as right or wrong, they forget too easily that nothing is really right or wrong: it is all made-up, really. So their own view on what ought to be treated as 'moral' or 'immoral' may not be automatically correct. Often there is room for argument about what human society needs to treat as right or wrong in its own best interests (e.g. on issues such as homosexuality; abortion; the death penalty; suicide; taxation for particular causes; and so on).

'Ought' we to live in moral ways? Yes, if we want civilisation to work well. If we want a happy world, the way to get there is, to 'be moral': to live lives of morality. So the obligation on each of us to live and behave well can be derived from the end that intelligent people would wish to see achieved on this spinning ball of a planet: that it becomes a happy and civilised place that runs on the rails where everyone can be happy.

[edit]