essay about moral standards

About Project
Testimonials

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Moral Values

List of essays on moral values, essay on moral values – short essay for kids and children (essay 1 – 150 words), essay on moral values – written in english (essay 2 – 250 words), essay on moral values – for school students (class 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 standard) (essay 3 – 300 words), essay on moral values (essay 4 – 400 words), essay on moral values – importance in society and challenges (essay 5 – 500 words), essay on moral values – how to cultivate and inculcate it in human beings (essay 6 – 600 words), essay on moral values (essay 7 – 750 words), essay on moral values – long essay (essay 8 – 1000 words).

Moral values are the key essence of life and it is these values that come along with us through the journey of life. Moral values are basically the principles that guide our life in the righteous path and do not allow us to do any harm to others.

Audience: The below given essays are especially written for kids, children and school students (Class 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Standard).

Moral values define the humankind. Moral values empower us to stand as the most unique creatures in the whole animal kingdom. These values are the basis to almost every religion. Thousands of years ago, Buddha described the essence of moral values in his sermons and spread it all over the world.

Since our childhood, we are taught about the good habits and their powers by the elders at home and school. Some of the most significant moral values are kindness, honesty, truthfulness, selflessness, compassion, and love.

The things we learn as a child mould us as an adult. That is why it is crucial to inculcate the pious values in the children. For the younger generation to be transformed into citizens with mighty characters, they must possess strong ethical and moral values. Only then, we can dream of making India great and emerge as an ethical leader in the world.

So, from where do we get these moral values?

Moral values are the first thing that every child learns from their homes . What is right and what is wrong is something that we see and learn from our parents as well as from our own experiences. Many religions preach moral values are part of their belief systems.

Importance of Moral Values

Moral values are very important to each and everyone because it is these values that transform us into better human beings.

i. Without knowing and learning moral values, we will not be able to differentiate between good and bad.

ii. Moral values define us and help us to be surrounded by good people.

iii. One who practices moral values will have courage to handle any situation in life.

Role of Parents

Parents of today think that providing all luxuries to their children is their only responsibility. But they miss to offer them the most important wealth – moral values. When parents deny this, they fail in their duty to give a good human being to the society.

Honesty, kindness, truthfulness, forgiveness, respect for others, helping others etc., are some of the moral values that every parent must teach their children.

“It is not what you do for your children , but what you have taught them to do for themselves, that will make them successful human beings” – Ann Landers.

Moral Values are the practices followed by human beings to be good and to live in a society. Moral values or ethics, are taught to us by our parents and teachers. These include being honest, kind, respecting others, helping those in need, being faithful and cooperating with others, to name a few, are good moral values.

What are Moral Values?

The norms of what is right or good and what is wrong or bad, define the moral values which are based on many factors like region, society, religious beliefs, culture etc. These defined norms tell the people how they must act or behave in different situations and expect similar behaviours form others.

Importance of Moral Values:

Moral values give an aim to life. Knowing difference between right and wrong is the foundation to imbibe moral values, which are taught from the birth, and bring out the best in individuals.

Moral Values in Workplace:

In every workplace, people look for individuals with good moral values. For a job interview, the interviewer looks for a candidate with good moral values. Every organization has a defined ethical code of conduct that the people in the organization are expected to follow, in addition to basic societal moral values. Organizations with people having good moral values runs more systematically and efficiently.

Moral Value in coming Generations:

People are not aware or conscious about moral values and have different outlook towards life. Parents and teachers are too busy to inculcate moral values in younger generations.

Conclusion:

Moral values are a type of law defined by the culture, society or other factors, to guide individuals on how to or not to behave in daily life. Sometimes, one may have different views and feel the moral guidelines too harsh or wrong. Such guidelines should be advocated for the good of the society.

Moral values are those characters or values seeded in a person’s mind and behavior towards oneself, others and on the whole. It can be the way a person consider other person’s life and space or the way they value each other’s feelings. The basic moral values like honesty, kindness, respect towards others, helpful mannerism, etc., will be the keys to be noted to judge a person’s character.

Moral values are the main characteristics that define the goodness in a person. These should be taught by the parents and teachers to the kids from their childhood. Moral values will help everyone in taking better decisions in life and attain the heights in an ethical way.

Instead of just thinking about our success and goals, moral values will give us the courage to take into account other’s happiness too. A person with better moral values is motivated and finds all possible ways to spread good vibes in and around them as well. Suppressing the people around you for attaining the goals you desire is the most dangerous violation of moral values.

Importance:

A person without moral values is considered to possess a bad character and the society will start to judge the person due to this behavior. This competitive world of ours has made every moral value in a person to die for their own development and growth. Such inhuman and unethical activities like dishonesty, telling lies for your own benefit, hurting others and even worst things, should be avoided.

Inculcating the importance of moral values in a kid from their growing age will help them in sticking to those values forever. It is a necessity of our society to bear such responsible youths and younger generations with good moral values so that they will help our nation to attain better heights.

This society of ours is filled with immoral people who find every scope to deceive others through their activities. The young ones learn more things by observing their elders and they mimic the way their elders behave. It is the responsibility of elders like parents, teachers, etc., to grow a future generation with more moral values seeded in them by improving their own behavior.

Moral values can be taught to students by making them listen and understand more moral stories and the rewards they will get if they show it to others as well. Such way of teaching will help them grab the importance easily rather than taking mere lectures on moral values.

Introduction:

The society helps individuals to grow in culture and learn through experiences of all aspects of life. Societies instill culture, religion, economy and politics in individual because as people grow up, they tend to pick something from dynamics of life and the societal opinions on certain aspects of life. Moral values are also instilled by a society. The values that a person grows up with are the values that will be displayed in his or her character. Society plays a big role in influencing moral values of individuals. Moral values are a set of principles that enable an individual to distinguish between the proper and improper things or right versus wrong. The moral values that are highly valued in the society are integrity, honesty, loyalty, respect and hard work.

Importance of Moral Values in the Society:

In a society, there is interactions among people and the possession of moral values is important in those interactions. Establishment of good relationships is reliant on good moral values. Values like honesty, trust, faithfulness and loyalty are essential in establishment and sustainability of good relationships. Lack of those values causes strained relationships and misunderstanding among members of the society.

Moral values are important in building the economy. Through determination and hard work, people are able to conduct activities that contribute largely to the economic growth of a society. Also through establishment of good relationships, trade is conducted smoothly and there is teamwork in trade and performance of business transactions. The growth of the economy is important in the life quality in the society.

Moral values also play a role in prevention of conflict and ease in conflict resolution. Good relationships seldom end in conflict and whenever conflict arises, it is minimum and can be resolved easily. In a society that peace thrives, there is growth and development which results in an improved quality of life.

Challenges:

The society is required to thrive in good moral values. Development of moral values is challenged by migration and interactions between different cultures and societies. The interactions dilute the morals of one society through adaption and assimilation of a different culture e.g., westernization in Africa.

Poverty is a challenge to the moral values because it creates vices like theft and deceit among members of the society. In poor economic status, everyone struggles to keep up with the hard times and moral values become a thing of the past due to strive for survival.

Education is both a challenge and promoter for development of moral values. Depending on the environment of education, students pick either good or bad morals. In modern education, students tend to pick immorality because of peer pressure.

Conclusion.

In conclusion, it is evident that moral value are an important consideration in the development of the society. Moral values go a long way in impacting the lives of an individual and the entire society. The development of moral values varies with the environmental exposure in societies. Each society should strive to uphold good moral values.

Moral values cultivated by human beings dignify the worth of human life. The morality existed from time immemorial and sustained among the communities. It amalgamated into the cultures which made the life of human beings secure and advanced. We can observe the ethical integrity in all the aspects of the individual as well as societal discourses. The moral values have been evolving with the inter-personal relationships between human beings as well as intra-personal relationships.

What are the moral values cultivated among us?

Religions have played a vital role in formulating and promoting moral values. The fundamental human values of love, respect, trust, tolerance, compassion, kindness are commonly practiced among people. Love and respect are significant in family relationships.

Love and respects are the cornerstones for the relationship between husband and wife, parents and children, elders and children. The sharing and caring qualities should be encouraged among children to make them compassionate personalities in the future.

The integrity and trust plays a prominent role in maintaining professional relationships. Similarly, kindness and empathy are the two powerful units to measure the gravity of human values. Patience and forgiveness are the right symbols of a human being’s dignity.

The Relevance of Moral Values:

Nowadays, humans tend to be more focused into self-centered life. Whatever happens outside the family roof is least mattered to the modern people. The social commitment of humans towards their community gets ignored for their personal conveniences.

The compassion, brotherhood, and love are hardly found. We do not have time to spend with our parents or even have time to look after our old and sick parents. Husbands leaving their wives and vice versa have become common these days. The increased number of divorces, old age homes, and orphanages clearly show where our compassion and love stay.

The social values like secularism, religious tolerance, and universal fraternity are the most threatened moral values these days. Religious fanatics have made the lives of ordinary people terrible in many places. The violence by the fanatics are the denial of the fundamental rights of people. People do not identify the fellow beings as brothers and sisters instead they seem to recognize others on racial, economic, gender, caste, and religious terms. It affects the balance of our social system.

The increasing terrorism, revolts, violence against children and gender inequalities are the instances of the denial of fundamental rights. The refugees who wander from nations to nations, the war for food and water, robbery, child labor are still prevalent in today’s civilized society. The civilization and culture acquired through education have made our lives more primitive considering the aspect of moral values.

How to inculcate the values among the children?

Although we acquired many information and knowledge, skills and technical knowledge through our education, our curriculum gives less importance to teach human values and moral values to our children. Nowadays, children become addicted to electronic gadgets, social media, and other entertainment modes.

It is our responsibility to teach our children and students human values within our family as well as through the education system. We should help grow moral values like sharing, helping, caring, and being considerate and tolerance in our children and encourage them to practice those at an early age.

Though various cultures have different perspectives towards moral values, the fundamental human values remain the same in every culture. It is relevant to project the human values and cultivate them in our daily lives.

Moral values demand to have conviction, integrity and rational sense to dissect between right and wrong. It is not just a technical understanding of right and wrong. It is more than that. In life, even if things happen against the morale of our best belief, we tend to manage the situation which may be the right decision of the occasion. We can say morally is wrong but it is morally right too, because a concession in the moral standard might have saved a situation here.

Moral values are relative. Standing firm to the moral values should be the motto in everyone’s life. It should satisfy your conscious even if it is disadvantageous. Moral values are subject to change, and it should continue to change upon the progression of society. It should reflect on what we are standing and the kind of impact it can create on others.

Moral values can be said to simply mean the values that are good that our teachers and parents taught us. Some very important moral values include being kind and honest, always trying to help those who are in need, show respect to other people, working with others when there is a need to and faithfulness to a partner or friend. When we imbibe moral values that are good, we are building ourselves to become very good humans. A very good character is synonymous to moral values that are good. Moral values can be basically defined as values that are defined by our society so that they can help in guiding people to live a life that is disciplined. Moral values that are basic like cooperative behaviour, kindness and honesty are most times constant, some other values can change or get modified over time. Other habits that portray good moral values include integrity, helpfulness, love respectfulness, compassion and hard work.

The importance of good moral values in our lives:

Life is full of many different challenges. Each day we live, morals are very necessary in helping us differentiate between things that are wrong and things that are right. Our morals and moral values affect both us and the society around us. Good moral values can help us improve our decision making in life.

Aspects of moral values:

Moral values cut across every area of our lives and even the society at large. For us to be able to have a good society and environment, it is important for each and every one of us to have solid and good moral values. It is important that we respect each other irrespective of the age or social status of the individual we are relating to. This can help in gaining good relations in every aspects and area of life whether it is in the workplace, family or the society. Good moral values can also help us in discovering our true purpose in life.

If it is true that moral values and habits are extremely important and beneficial to us humans, why then do we have a lot of people that do not have any of the moral values and do not follow the rules of morality in this world. Why do we have a lot of crimes happening all around us in the world today? Why is there so much disbelief and distrust among all of us?

The world we live in is an extremely tempting place and there are quick fixes for all of the problems facing us and this eventually turns our attention back to the main problem. Abiding to moral values in this life requires a lot of patience and also sacrifice but eventually, it helps one in analysing the difficulties and problems one faces and help in getting a solution to them.

Overall, someone who is ready and very determined to do their best in following a life that is meaningful in a patient way ends up following moral values without any fear of the person getting judged and such person ends up standing out from among the crowd.

Imbibing and inculcating good moral values:

The best time to imbibe good moral values into a person is when the person is still young and can still learn new characters and habits. Therefore, teachers and parents should endeavour to put in their best efforts into helping students and their children imbibe very solid moral values. Most children are very observant and they copy and learn habits and behaviours of their elder siblings, parents and teachers.

Children are bound to pay solid attention to the manner of action and behaviour of people older than them and they simply do the things they do. Children tend to speak only the truth if they have noticed that the elders around them are always truthful no matter the situation.

Likewise, it is important as elders to not be engaged in any form of bad behaviour as the children tend to assume they can also do these things and that they are not wrong because the elders around them are doing it. We should try to always demonstrate good and solid moral values to children around us. The best way to teach children good and solid moral values is through our own actions and habits.

It is very important for us as human beings to bear good and solid moral values like helping others, honesty , righteousness, decency, and even self-decency. People that have great moral values are very indispensable asset to others and even the society at large.

Moral values are the models of good and bad, which direct a person’s conduct and decisions. A person may adopt moral values from society and government, religion, or self. They are also inherited from the family as well.

In past ages, it was uncommon to see couples who lived respectively without the advantage of legal marriage rules. Of late, couples that set up a family without marriage are about as common as conventional wedded couples. There has been a shift in the moral values from time to time. For instance, in earlier times, the laws and ethics essentially originated from the cultures of a family and society as a whole. As society moved into the advanced time, these have largely disintegrated and people today tend to sue their own morals they want to follow.

Definition:

Moral values, as the name says, implies the significance of the moral qualities in the conduct of the kids, the youth and everyone one in life. Primarily the moral values are the qualities which one gains from life through the journey of life. They also depict the standards of what is right and what is wrong for us which we learn in the schools and in the workplace and from our surroundings as well. The beliefs which we gain from the family and the society that directs us how we lead our lives is what moral values are all about.

Moral Values in India:

India is a country which has been known for its values since the ancient times. We start to learn moral values from our family. In India, children are taught to respect their elders, greet them properly whenever they meet them. This a way of showing respect towards the elders. A child knows that he is supposed to obey whatever is asked by the elders. Such a moral value inculcates obedience in the mind of a child. Moral values are important for all of us in order to make us live a life of a good human being.

Important Moral Values in Life:

Although there are numerous moral values which one should follow in life, there are some of them which should be followed by almost everyone in the world. Firstly, always speaking the truth is one such moral value. We should never speak lies no matter what the circumstance is. Also, we should respect our elders. Our elders have seen and experienced the world better than us. It is always good for their blessings and advice in our important decisions. Loyalty towards our work and integrity are other such moral values which should be practised by one and all.

Examples from History:

There have been many examples from history which have depicted the importance and rightful following of moral values in life. One such example which we all are familiar with is from our epic Ramayana. Lord Ram was asked to go to fourteen years in exile just because his father King Dasaratha had granted a wish to the queen Kaikeyi. He could have refused it as well as it was not he who had granted the wish. But just to keep his father’s words he accepted the exile graciously and went into exile. Not only this, his wife Sita and his younger brother Laxman also followed his footsteps as they believed that it was their prime duty to follow him.

The Scenario Today:

Such was the moral value depicted during that period. But, now things are so different. People seem to have forgotten their moral values and are more focused on modern life. There are a number of instances every day where parents are left alone by their children to live a lonely old life. Many of them even die in isolation and there is no one to look after them during the last years. Apart from this, there are frequent quarrels between families over petty matters which could have been avoided if the people remembered the moral values our ancestors stood for.

Nowadays, people smoking and drinking and that too in front of their parents and children is a common sight. This is so against our moral values. We should not teach our children the evils ,such habits can do harm them in later years of their life.

The Remedy Available:

Since there has been a strong drift in the moral values of the people, the government has initiated to make the students learn about moral values in life and their importance to us. In order to execute this, schools of today teach moral values to the children in a greater sense. This is important as the students are the future of tomorrow. If the schools and the families alike teach the children such values from childhood, they shall turn into good human beings when they grow up.

Moral values depict our character to the outer world. They are of extreme importance in our lives. In earlier times, people were so determined to follow these values inherited from our ancestors. Such was their determination that once committed they never went back on their words. But with modernisation and urbanisation, we have seemed to have lost our moral values somewhere. Children disrespecting their parents are a common sight nowadays.

But, we should not blame the children for this. It is perhaps our own upbringing which has led to such immoral practices all over. It is we who should inculcate the moral values in our life first. Children will follow what they observe around them. If they shall see people living in joint families together and respecting each other, even they shall do so when they grow up. If we speak lies to our children even they shall do so. For the children imbibe the habits they see in their parents, teachers, peers at school and others around them.

So, it is we who have to take the first step forward. The children shall surely follow us. Moral values give us character and strength. If each one us practice some moral values in life, there would be peace and harmony all around. Moreover, we shall have a bright future for our next generations as well.

Moral Science , Moral Values , Values

Get FREE Work-at-Home Job Leads Delivered Weekly!

Join more than 50,000 subscribers receiving regular updates! Plus, get a FREE copy of How to Make Money Blogging!

Message from Sophia!

Like this post? Don’t forget to share it!

Here are a few recommended articles for you to read next:

Essay on Discipline
Which is More Important in Life: Love or Money | Essay
Essay on My School
Essay on Solar Energy

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Billionaires

Donald Trump
Warren Buffett
Email Address
Free Stock Photos
Keyword Research Tools
URL Shortener Tools
WordPress Theme

Book Summaries

How To Win Friends
Rich Dad Poor Dad
The Code of the Extraordinary Mind
The Luck Factor
The Millionaire Fastlane
The ONE Thing
Think and Grow Rich
100 Million Dollar Business
Business Ideas

Digital Marketing

Mobile Addiction
Social Media Addiction
Computer Addiction
Drug Addiction
Internet Addiction
TV Addiction
Healthy Habits
Morning Rituals
Wake up Early
Cholesterol
Reducing Cholesterol
Fat Loss Diet Plan
Reducing Hair Fall
Sleep Apnea
Weight Loss

Internet Marketing

Email Marketing

Law of Attraction

Subconscious Mind
Vision Board
Visualization

Law of Vibration

Professional Life

Motivational Speakers

Bob Proctor
Robert Kiyosaki
Vivek Bindra
Inner Peace

Productivity

Not To-do List
Project Management Software
Negative Energies

Relationship

Getting Back Your Ex

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Self-improvement.

Body Language
Complainers
Emotional Intelligence
Personality

Social Media

Project Management
Anik Singal
Baba Ramdev
Dwayne Johnson
Jackie Chan
Leonardo DiCaprio
Narendra Modi
Nikola Tesla
Sachin Tendulkar
Sandeep Maheshwari
Shaqir Hussyin

Website Development

Wisdom post, worlds most.

Expensive Cars

Our Portals: Gulf Canada USA Italy Gulf UK

Privacy Overview

PHILO-notes

Free Online Learning Materials

Moral Standard versus Non-Moral Standard

Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do have moral implications, while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in traditional Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women have to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in many parts of the world, especially in Western societies, most people don’t mind if women barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring dress. The point here is that people in the West may have pitied the Muslim women who wear hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly despicable.

Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in another.

Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on others, which may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we may already know, violence and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing.

How can we address this cultural conundrum?

This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards (that is, of what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral issue―thus, a matter of taste) comes in. This issue may be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but understanding the difference between the two may have far-reaching implications. For one, once we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through the aid of the principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions. Indeed, once we know that particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the pit of cultural reductionism (that is, taking complex cultural issues as simple and homogenous ones) and the unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others. The point here is that if such standards are non-moral (that is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the right to impose them on others. But if such standards are moral ones, such as not killing or harming people, then we may have the right to force others to act accordingly. In this way, we may be able to find a common moral ground, such as agreeing not to steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human beings.

Now, what are moral standards , and how do they differ from non-moral ones ?

Moral Standards and their Characteristics

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally bad. Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as general rules about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say “We are always under the obligation to fulfill our promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say “Helping the poor is good” or “Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely:

moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit

humans, animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder;

moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of

authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong;

moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other

standards and considerations, especially of self-interest;

moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral

standards are fair and just; and

moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and

shame) and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

Non-moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.

As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being.

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”.

Narrative essay topics
Writing a paper about freedom
An argumentative essay synopsis
Analytical essay writing hints
Pro-written custom papers
Paper topic ideas for 7th graders
Philosophy paper writing tips
A brilliant paper writing tutorial
Diversity paper samples
Analytical paper topic ideas
Good custom writing services
Argumentative essay ideas
Discursive essay writing tips
Writing a paper introducing parts
5-paragraph paper synopsis
Writing a good paper conclusion
How-to essay samples
Sample illustration essay outlines
Selecting persuasive essay prompts
Sample third person descriptive essays
Crafting a 7-paragraph comparative paper
Getting sample free essays
Expository essay writing: use of samples
A guide to essay writer selection
Crafting an essay about dogs as pets
Creating a school visual analysis essay
Expository essay writing hints
AP World History essay samples
Finding an outstanding writer
Seeking help with homework papers
Writing agencies specializing in Psychology
Traits of qualified writers
Self help groups: essay hints
Selecting a writing company
Hiring an essay writer
Tips on essay about yourself
Gun controls paper sample
False memories essay sample
Booker T. Washington paper sample
A chorus line paper sample
12 Years A Slave essay
Obamacare paper sample
Manifest Destiny essay sample
Graphic novel essay sample
Mass murders essay example
Drunk driving paper sample
Rustom essay example
Markets in Spanish America essay sample
Death and dying practices essay sample
Hate crimes paper example
Gay marriage essay sample
Abusive relationships paper template
John Keats essay template
Sample essay on family ecology theory
How to manage environmental problems
Woman suffrage
Children and inequality
An essay sample on autism
A Good Man Is Hard To Find
The choice of adoption
The life of Davy Crockett
Atomic theory
Critical thinking's role
Bilingual education
Climate change
Is the progress real?
Immigration reform in the USA
Risky aspects of communication
Personal moral values
Flu vaccine
Types of papers

efficient ideas for academic essay writing

My Moral Values

Introduction.

In the context of personal character, values are intangible qualities that are regarded as worth possessing due to their usefulness, importance or desirability. Virtually all values are morally relative in the sense that a particular value may seem good and beneficial to one person and yet be outright bad or inimical to others. So, values can be moral or otherwise depending on who is making the judgment. Moral values refer to a set of positive standards and principles that tend to guide or determine how a person distinguishes right from wrong, thus regulating his behaviours and choices. Great moral values have one thing in common – they dignify, enhance and protect life for the good of all.

What determines a person’s moral values?

There are three major sources from which we derive our moral values. One of these is from society and government. The customs, cultures and traditions of society as well as the laws enacted by governments all together shape and define the moral values of individuals within the community, whether we are looking at a small town, state, nation or the global community. Events as well as cultural and legal changes inevitably result in changes in the general moral value. Another source of moral value is religion, ideology or creed. The belief system or philosophical leanings of individuals leave in them a set of codes and list of dos and don’ts which shape and concretize their sense of good and evil, right and wrong. In spite of some of its variants with contradictory showings, Christianity rises well above all other religions and philosophies in going beyond a system of dos and don’ts, emphasizing a vital relationship with God through His Son and setting moral values that clearly transcend society’s mores and man’s selfish instincts. A final source from which moral value is derived is from within one’s own self. There is an innate, instinctive tendency to, from within one’s self, distinguish right from wrong. Evidence of this is ably demonstrated by toddlers who watch their parent before going for or against an instruction. As knowledge increases and an individual grows from childhood to adulthood, he strengthens his ability to make choices between the forbidden and acceptable, kind or cruel, generous or selfish, from within his own self. This ability, though untaught, is usually modified or tamed by the earlier two sources of moral values.

My moral values have been largely influenced by my family upbringing, that is, what my parents taught me while growing up and my strong Christian faith. In addition to this, however, there is considerable contribution from my education, personal experience, my appreciation of how government works and cultural integration in our global village of diverse but same humanity. It may not be possible to list them all but the core of my moral values are represented by these few: integrity, love, courage, respect, obedience, responsibility, kindness, fairness, humility, politeness and modesty.

Moral values are only truly valuable when put into action. The essence of knowing and cultivating fine moral values is not to hold them deep within but to put them into action whenever and wherever they are required.

Essay Writing Tips

Bad paper writing agencies
Sociology process analysis paper ideas
US history of religion essay template
Italian traditions essay
Professional paper writing help
Opera & ballet essay example
Choosing a good paper writer
Volunteering essay sample
Environment paper writing rules

Essay Topics

Illustration paper topics
Process paper topic ideas
Argument essay prompts
Arts comparative essay topics

Types of Moral Principles and Examples of Each

Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Steven Gans, MD is board-certified in psychiatry and is an active supervisor, teacher, and mentor at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Jennifer A. Smith / Getty Images

Development

Moral principles are guidelines that people live by to make sure they are doing the right thing. These include things like honesty, fairness, and equality. Moral principles can be different for everyone because they depend on how a person was raised and what is important to them in life.

History of Moral Principles

The history of moral principles dates back to Ancient Greece and Ancient China. Moral principles were important in these societies because they believed that to be successful, people needed a clear sense of right and wrong.

Research on moral principles began with Ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle who wanted to figure out the meaning of virtue. Later, moral principles were studied by philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant.

In the field of psychology, moral principles have been studied in the context of moral development. Psychologists have been interested to understand how children develop a sense of morality and how moral principles are applied in different contexts. For example, psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg studied moral development in boys from different cultures.

In the contemporary world, moral principles still play an important role. They are considered guidelines for living life successfully. For example, honesty is considered a moral principle because it keeps relationships strong.

Types of Moral Principles

There are two types of moral principles: absolute and relative.

Absolute principles are unchanging and universal. They are based on universal truths about the nature of human beings. For example, murder is wrong because it goes against the natural order of things. These are also sometimes called normative moral principles, or those that are generally accepted by society.
Relative principles change depending on the situation. They are based on opinions and circumstances that may change over time or from person to person or for different situations. Relative moral principles depend on a person's beliefs, relative to what people perceive as good or bad in relation to themselves. In other words, when someone says something is good, in most cases they are really saying it is good for them, or perhaps it contributes to their well-being.

Morals Examples

Some examples of absolute moral principles include:

Don't kill.
Speak the truth.
Be careful with what you say and do to others.
Respect the property of others.
Treat people in need or distress as we would want to be treated if our situation were reversed.

Examples of relative moral principles are:

It is morally wrong to spend money on a luxury item .
It is morally right to care for our planet and preserve it for future generations.

How to Adhere to Moral Principles

Many people strive to live by the moral principles they believe in. But, it can be difficult to follow them all of the time, which is what makes following one's own personal moral values even more valuable.

There are many ways that a person might adhere to their moral principles: through thoughts and feelings, actions, or words. Below are some examples.

In thoughts and feelings, a person might strive to be honest by being fair and kind.
With actions, a person might live up to their moral principles by not being violent or aggressive .
In words, someone might observe their moral principles through politeness.

Impact of Moral Principles

Moral principles are important for society because they help people learn how to get along and live well with each other. They teach us that all human beings deserve the same rights, which is why it's not okay to discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity or race. People who follow moral principles also tend to have a better quality of life than those who don't.

Moral principles can also impact an individual's identity and sense of self-worth. For example, someone who is honest may feel that they are a good person because they follow the moral principle to be truthful at all times. And for people with strong values about equality, it might make them feel better about themselves when they don't discriminate against people who are different from them.

Tips to Develop Good Moral Principles

There are various ways to develop moral principles that transcend culture, religion, and country. If you are just starting on your moral journey, you might consider exploring morals in various philosophical texts .

However, there are also many practical steps a person can take to develop good moral principles:

Think about what you would do when faced with an ethical dilemma and why you would make those decisions.
Ask yourself what you think is right or wrong and make sure that your actions are in line with those thoughts.
Watch out for double standards, like being nice to one person while not being so kind to another.
If it helps, write down a list of moral principles and post them where they're easy to see, like on a mirror or in your workspace.
Don't worry if you're not perfectly adhering to your moral principles. The important thing is that you are trying your best.

Pitfalls of Moral Principles

There are some things that can go wrong when following moral principles. Below are some examples of how moral principles may not always guide you toward the best course of action.

First, it's possible to make judgments about others based on your personal values and not theirs. For example, if you think all women should dress conservatively because you believe dressing another way is immoral, then you are passing judgment on others based on your own set of standards.

In addition, it can be hard to tell the difference between a moral principle and something that's cultural or part of your upbringing. For example, you might believe women should defer to their husbands because in your culture everyone has traditionally agreed with this idea for generations; however, if you were born into a different country where people don't think this way, you might not feel that it's morally right.

Finally, sometimes people can use moral principles to justify bad behavior like stealing or hurting others in some way. For example, if you steal because you believe it will help the poor, then your thoughts could be twisted to say that stealing is OK.

A Word From Verywell

In general, moral principles are beneficial both to society and the individual person. However, blindly following moral principles without considering their origin or using your judgment based on the situation can be problematic.

The best course of action is usually to adhere to a loosely defined set of moral principles that align with your beliefs and society as a whole but to also consider each situation individually and weigh the cost of adhering to your morals in terms of its impact on other individuals.

Beauchamp TL. A defense of the common morality . Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2003 Sep;13(3):259-74. doi: 10.1353/ken.2003.0019. PMID: 14577460.

Chattopadhyay S, De Vries R. Respect for cultural diversity in bioethics is an ethical imperative. Med Health Care Philos . 2013;16(4):639-645. doi:10.1007/s11019-012-9433-5

By Arlin Cuncic, MA Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

The Definition of Morality

The topic of this entry is not—at least directly—moral theory ; rather, it is the definition of morality. Moral theories are large and complex things; definitions are not. The question of the definition of morality is the question of identifying the target of moral theorizing. Identifying this target enables us to see different moral theories as attempting to capture the very same thing. And it enables psychologists, anthropologists, evolutionary biologists, and other more empirically-oriented theorists to design their experiments or formulate their hypotheses without prejudicing matters too much in terms of the specific content a code, judgment, or norm must have in order to count as distinctively moral.

There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

Which of these two senses of “morality” a moral philosopher is using plays a crucial, although sometimes unacknowledged, role in the development of an ethical theory. If one uses “morality” in its descriptive sense, and therefore uses it to refer to codes of conduct actually put forward by distinct groups or societies, one will almost certainly deny that there is a universal morality that applies to all human beings. The descriptive use of “morality” is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt 2006; Hauser 2006; De Waal 1996) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals: primarily, but not exclusively, other primates.

Accepting that there are two uses or senses of “morality”—a descriptive sense and a normative sense—does not commit one to holding that the “distinction between descriptions and norms—between what is and what ought to be—is obvious and unbridgeable”, as some have held that it does (Churchland 2011: 185). To see this, note that it is obvious that there is a descriptive sense of morality. That is, it is obvious that one can sensibly describe the moralities of various groups without making any normative claims. And it should be equally obvious that that one might hold that a certain code of conduct would be put forward by all rational people under certain conditions without having any particular views about the nature of the is/ought gap or the possibility of crossing it.

Any definition of “morality” in the descriptive sense will need to specify which of the codes put forward by a society or group count as moral. Even in small homogeneous societies that have no written language, distinctions are sometimes made between morality, etiquette, law, and religion. And in larger and more complex societies these distinctions are often sharply marked. So “morality” cannot be taken to refer to every code of conduct put forward by a society.

In the normative sense, “morality” refers to a code of conduct that would be accepted by anyone who meets certain intellectual and volitional conditions, almost always including the condition of being rational. That a person meets these conditions is typically expressed by saying that the person counts as a moral agent . However, merely showing that a certain code would be accepted by any moral agent is not enough to show that the code is the moral code. It might well be that all moral agents would also accept a code of prudence or rationality, but this would not by itself show that prudence was part of morality. So something else must be added; for example, that the code can be understood to involve a certain kind of impartiality, or that it can be understood as having the function of making it possible for people to live together in groups.

As we’ve just seen, not all codes that are put forward by societies or groups are moral codes in the descriptive sense of morality, and not all codes that would be accepted by all moral agents are moral codes in the normative sense of morality. So any definition of morality—in either sense—will require further criteria. Still, each of these two very brief descriptions of codes might be regarded as offering some features of morality that would be included in any adequate definition. In that way they might be taken to be offering some definitional features of morality, in each of its two senses. When one has specified enough definitional features to allow one to classify all the relevant moral theories as theories of a common subject, one might then be taken to have given a definition of morality. This is the sense of “definition” at work in this entry.

Explicit attempts, by philosophers, to define morality are hard to find, at least since the beginning of the twentieth century. One possible explanation for this is the combined effect of early positivistic worries about the metaphysical status of normative properties, followed (or augmented) by Wittgensteinian worries about definitions of any significant terms whatsoever. Whatever the explanation, when definitions have been offered, they have tended to be directed at the notion of moral judgment (Hare 1952, 1981) rather than at morality itself. However, to the degree that these definitions of moral judgment are adequate, they might, without much effort, be converted into definitions of morality in the descriptive sense. For example, a particular person’s morality might be regarded as the content of the basic moral judgments that person is prepared to accept.

One might use a detailed definition of moral judgment to define morality in a descriptive sense in another way—other than simply as the content of a person’s moral judgments, or the content of the moral judgments that prevail in a certain society or group. In particular, the very features of a judgment that make it qualify as a moral judgment might be transposed from a psychological key to something more abstract. Here is one simplified example. Suppose that a negative judgment of an action only counts as a negative moral judgment if it involves the idea that there is a prima facie case for punishing that action. In that case, a definition of morality in the descriptive sense will include a corresponding idea: that the prohibitions of morality, taken in the descriptive sense, are those that are backed by the threat of punishment. Of course, if one goes this route, other conditions will need to be included, to differentiate morality from criminal law.

What counts as definitional of morality, in either sense of “morality”, is controversial. Moreover, the line between what is part of a definition, in the sense at issue, and what is part of a moral theory, is not entirely sharp. For example, some might regard it as definitional of morality, in the normative sense, that it governs only interpersonal interactions. Others, however, might take this to be a substantive theoretical claim. Some might take it as definitional of “morality” in its descriptive sense that it be a code of conduct that a person or group takes to be most important. But others might say that attention to religion casts doubt on this idea.

“Morality”, when used in a descriptive sense, has an important feature that “morality” in the normative sense does not have: a feature that stems from its relational nature. This feature is the following: that if one is not a member of the relevant society or group, or is not the relevant individual, then accepting a certain account of the content of a morality, in the descriptive sense, has no implications for how one thinks one should behave. On the other hand, if one accepts a moral theory’s account of moral agents, and of the conditions under which all moral agents would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory’s normative definition of “morality”. Accepting an account of “morality” in the normative sense commits one to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform. Because accepting an account of “morality” in the normative sense involves this commitment, it is not surprising that philosophers seriously disagree about which account to accept.

1. Is Morality Unified Enough to Define?

2. descriptive definitions of “morality”, 3. implicit and explicit definitions in allied fields, 4. normative definitions of “morality”, 5.1 morality as linked to norms for responses to behavior, 5.2 morality as linked to advocacy of a code, 5.3 morality as linked to acceptance of a code, 5.4 morality as linked to justification to others, other internet resources, related entries.

An assumption suggested by the very existence of this encyclopedia entry is that there is some unifying set of features in virtue of which all moral systems count as moral systems. But Sinnott-Armstrong (2016) directly argues against an analogous hypothesis in connection with moral judgments, and also seems to take this view to suggest that morality itself is not a unified domain. He points out that moral judgments cannot be unified by any appeal to the notion of harm to others, since there are such things as moral ideals, and there are harmless behaviors that a significant number of people regard as morally wrong: Sinnott-Armstrong gives example such as cannibalism and flag-burning. Whether people who condemn such behaviors morally are correct in those judgments is largely irrelevant to the question of whether they count as moral in the first place.

Sinnott-Armstrong seems right in holding that moral judgments cannot be delimited from other judgments simply by appeal to their content. It seems quite possible for someone to have been raised in such a way as to hold that it is morally wrong for adult men to wear shorts. And it also seems plausible that, as he also argues, moral judgments cannot be identified by reference to any sort of neurological feature common and peculiar to them and them alone. A third strategy might be to claim that moral judgments are those one makes as a result of having been inducted into a social practice that has a certain function. However, this function cannot simply be to help facilitate the sorts of social interactions that enable societies to flourish and persist, since too many obviously non-moral judgments do this.

Beyond the problem just described, attempts to pick out moral codes in the descriptive sense by appeal to their function often seem to be specifying the function that the theorist thinks morality, in the normative sense, would serve, rather than the function that actual moralities do serve. For example, Greene claims that

morality is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation, (2013: 23)

and Haidt claims that

moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible. (2011: 270)

But these claims need to deal with the existence of dysfunctional moralities that do not in fact serve these functions. Perhaps this problem could be alleviated by pointing out that many instances of a kind that have a function—for example, an actual human heart—fail to fulfill that function.

Even if Sinnott-Armstrong’s position is correct with regard to morality in the descriptive sense, there might nevertheless be a code of conduct that, given certain specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational agents. That is, even if the descriptive sense of morality is a family-resemblance notion, vaguely bordered and open-textured, or even if it is significantly disjunctive and disunified, the normative sense might not be. By way of comparison, we might think of the notion of food in two ways: as what people regard as food, and as what they would regard as food if they were rational and fully informed. Certainly there is not much that unifies the first category: not even being digestible or nutritious, since people regard various indigestible and non-nutritious substances as food, and forego much that is digestible and nutritious. But that does not mean that we cannot theorize about what it would be rational to regard as food.

An initial naïve attempt at a descriptive definition of “morality” might take it to refer to the most important code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. But the existence of large and heterogeneous societies raises conceptual problems for such a descriptive definition, since there may not be any such society-wide code that is regarded as most important. As a result, a definition might be offered in which “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward and accepted by any group, or even by an individual. Apart from containing some prohibitions on harming (certain) others, different moralities—when “morality” is understood in this way—can vary in content quite substantially.

Etiquette is sometimes included as a part of morality, applying to norms that are considered less serious than the kinds of norms for behavior that are more central to morality. Hobbes expresses this sort of view when he uses the term “small morals” to describe “decency of behavior, as how one man should salute another, or how a man should wash his mouth or pick his teeth before company”, and distinguishes these from “those qualities of mankind that concern their living together in peace and unity” (1660 [1994]: Chapter XI, paragraph 1). When etiquette is included as part of morality, morality is almost always being understood in the descriptive sense. One reason for this is that it is clear that the rules of etiquette are relative to a society or group. Moreover, there are no plausible conditions under which we could pick out the “correct” rules of etiquette as those that would be accepted by all rational beings.

Law is distinguished from morality by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. Although there is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law, laws are often evaluated—and changed—on moral grounds. Some theorists, including Ronald Dworkin (1986), have even maintained that the interpretation of law must make use of morality.

Although the morality of a group or society may derive from its religion, morality and religion are not the same thing, even in that case. Morality is only a guide to conduct, whereas religion is always more than this. For example, religion includes stories about events in the past, usually about supernatural beings, that are used to explain or justify the behavior that it prohibits or requires. Although there is often a considerable overlap in the conduct prohibited or required by religion and that prohibited or required by morality, religions may prohibit or require more than is prohibited or required by guides to behavior that are explicitly labeled as moral guides, and may recommend some behavior that is prohibited by morality. Even when morality is not regarded as the code of conduct that is put forward by a formal religion, it is often thought to require some religious explanation and justification. However, just as with law, some religious practices and precepts are criticized on moral grounds, e.g., that the practice or precept involves discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

When “morality” is used simply to refer to a code of conduct put forward by an actual group, including a society, even if it is distinguished from etiquette, law, and religion, it is being used in a descriptive sense. It is also being used in the descriptive sense when it refers to important attitudes of individuals. Just as one can refer to the morality of the Greeks, so one can refer to the morality of a particular person. This descriptive use of “morality” is now becoming more prominent because of the work of psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt (2006), who have been influenced by the views of David Hume (1751), including his attempt to present a naturalistic account of moral judgments.

Guides to behavior that are regarded as moralities normally involve avoiding and preventing harm to others (Frankena 1980), and perhaps some norm of honesty (Strawson 1961). But all of them involve other matters as well, and Hare’s view of morality as that which is most important allows that these other matters may be more important than avoiding and preventing harm to others (Hare 1952, 1963, 1981). This view of morality as concerning that which is most important to a person or group allows matters related to religious practices and precepts, or matters related to customs and traditions, e.g., purity and sanctity, to be more important than avoiding and preventing harm.

When “morality” is used in a descriptive sense, moralities can differ from each other quite extensively in their content and in the foundation that members of the society claim their morality to have. Some societies may claim that their morality, which is more concerned with purity and sanctity, is based on the commands of God. The descriptive sense of “morality”, which allows for the view that morality is based on religion in this way, picks out codes of conduct that are often in significant conflict with all normative accounts of morality.

A society might have a morality that takes accepting its traditions and customs, including accepting the authority of certain people and emphasizing loyalty to the group, as more important than avoiding and preventing harm. Such a morality might not count as immoral any behavior that shows loyalty to the preferred group, even if that behavior causes significant harm to innocent people who are not in that group. The familiarity of this kind of morality, which makes in-group loyalty almost equivalent to morality, seems to allow some comparative and evolutionary psychologists, including Frans De Waal (1996), to regard non-human animals to be acting in ways very similar to those that are regarded as moral.

Although all societies include more than just a concern for minimizing harm to (some) human beings in their moralities, this feature of morality, unlike purity and sanctity, or accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, is included in everything that is regarded as a morality by any society. Because minimizing harm can conflict with accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, there can be fundamental disagreements within a society about the morally right way to behave in particular kinds of situations. Philosophers such as Bentham (1789) and Mill (1861), who accept a normative account of morality that takes the avoiding and preventing harm element of morality to be most important, criticize all actual moralities (referred to by “morality” in the descriptive sense) that give precedence to purity and loyalty when they are in conflict with avoiding and preventing harm.

Some psychologists, such as Haidt, take morality to include concern with, at least, all three of the triad of (1) harm, (2) purity, and (3) loyalty, and hold that different members of a society can and do take different features of morality to be most important. But beyond a concern with avoiding and preventing such harms to members of certain groups, there may be no common content shared by all moralities in the descriptive sense. Nor may there be any common justification that those who accept morality claim for it; some may appeal to religion, others to tradition, and others to rational human nature. Beyond the concern with harm, the only other feature that all descriptive moralities have in common is that they are put forward by an individual or a group, usually a society, in which case they provide a guide for the behavior of the people in that group or society. In the descriptive sense of “morality”, morality may not even incorporate impartiality with regard to all moral agents, and it may not be universalizable in any significant way (compare MacIntyre 1957).

Although most philosophers do not use “morality” in any of the above descriptive senses, some philosophers do. Ethical relativists such as Harman (1975), Westermarck (1960), and Prinz (2007), deny that there is any universal normative morality and claim that the actual moralities of societies or individuals are the only moralities there are. These relativists hold that only when the term “morality” is used in this descriptive sense is there something that “morality” actually refers to. They claim that it is a mistake to take “morality” to refer to a universal code of conduct that, under certain conditions, would be endorsed by all rational persons. Although ethical relativists admit that many speakers of English use “morality” to refer to such a universal code of conduct, they claim such persons are mistaken in thinking that there is anything that is the referent of the word “morality” taken in that sense.

Wong (1984, 2006, 2014) claims to be an ethical relativist because he denies that there is any universal moral code that would be endorsed by all rational people. But what seems to stand behind this claim is the idea that there are cultural variations in the relative weights given to, for example, considerations of justice and considerations of interpersonal responsibility. And he assumes that those who believe in a universal morality are committed to the idea that “if there is fundamental disagreement, someone has got it wrong” (2014: 339). But Gert (2005) is certainly not a relativist, and it is central to his moral theory that there are fundamental disagreements in the rankings of various harms and benefits, and with regard to who is protected by morality, and no unique right answer in such cases. Wong himself is willing to say that some moralities are better than others, because he thinks that the moral domain is delimited by a functional criterion: among the functions of a morality are that it promote and regulate social cooperation, help individuals rank their own motivations, and reduce harm.

When used with its descriptive sense, “morality” can refer to codes of conduct with widely differing content, and still be used unambiguously. This parallels the way in which “law” is used unambiguously even though different societies have laws with widely differing content. However, when “morality” is used in its descriptive sense, it sometimes does not refer to the code of a society, but to the code of a group or an individual. As a result, when the guide to conduct put forward by, for example, a religious group conflicts with the guide to conduct put forward by a society, it is not clear whether to say that there are conflicting moralities, conflicting elements within morality, or that the code of the religious group conflicts with morality.

In small homogeneous societies there may be a guide to behavior that is put forward by the society and that is accepted by (almost) all members of the society. For such societies there is (almost) no ambiguity about which guide “morality” refers to. However, in larger societies people often belong to groups that put forward guides to behavior that conflict with the guide put forward by their society, and members of the society do not always accept the guide put forward by their society. If they accept the conflicting guide of some other group to which they belong (often a religious group) rather than the guide put forward by their society, in cases of conflict they will regard those who follow the guide put forward by their society as acting immorally.

In the descriptive sense of “morality”, a person’s own morality cannot be a guide to behavior that that person would prefer others not to follow. However, that fact that an individual adopts a moral code of conduct for his own use does not entail that the person requires it to be adopted by anyone else. An individual may adopt for himself a very demanding moral guide that he thinks may be too difficult for most others to follow. He may judge people who do not adopt his code of conduct as not being as morally good as he is, without judging them to be immoral if they do not adopt it. However, such cases do not undermine the restriction; a guide is plausibly referred to as a morality only when the individual would be willing for others to follow it, at least if “follow” is taken to mean “successfully follow”. For it may be that the individual would not be willing for others to try to follow that code, because of worries about the bad effects of predictable failures due to partiality or lack of sufficient foresight or intelligence.

Philosophers, because they do not need to produce operational tests or criteria in the way that psychologists, biologists, and anthropologists do, often simply take for granted that everyone knows what belongs, and does not belong, to the moral domain. This attitude finds expression in the philosopher’s common appeal to intuition, or to what everyone agrees about. For example, Michael Smith (1994) provides a very detailed analysis of normative reasons, but in distinguishing specifically moral reasons from other sorts of reasons, he says only that they are picked out by appeal to a number of platitudes. And he makes no effort to provide anything like a comprehensive list of such platitudes. Moreover, it is very likely that there will be disagreement as to what counts as platitudinous. Or, if it is definitional of “platitude” that it be uncontroversial, it may be that what is platitudinous about morality will be so thin as to fail to separate morality from other domains. Failing to specify which particular criteria one takes to govern one’s own theorizing, and consequently tacitly relying on the idea that everyone already knows what counts as moral, can lead to a number of problems. One, of course, is a conflation of morality with other things (see Machery 2012 on Churchland 2011). Another is that one mistakes one’s own cultural biases for universal truths (Haidt and Kesiber 2010).

Because theorists in psychology and anthropology often need to design questionnaires and other sorts of probes of the attitudes of subjects, they might be expected to be more sensitive to the need for a reasonably clear means of separating moral judgments from other sorts of judgments. After all, examining the specifically moral judgments of individuals is one of the most direct means of determining what the moral code of a person or group might be. But despite this expectation, and roughly half a century ago, Abraham Edel (1962: 56) decried the lack of an explicit concern to delimit the domain of morality among anthropologists, writing that “morality…is taken for granted, in the sense that one can invoke it or refer to it at will; but it is not explained, depicted, or analysed”. One explanation for this that Edel suggested is the same as the explanation for the same phenomenon in Philosophy: “it is assumed that we all know what morality is and no explicit account need be given”. But the danger for those making this assumption, he points out, is that of “merging the morality concept with social control concepts”. Reinforcing this tendency was the influence, in anthropology, of the sociologist Émile Durkheim (1906 [2009]), for whom morality was simply a matter of how a given society enforces whatever social rules it happens to have.

The failure to offer an operational definition of morality or moral judgment may help explain the widespread but dubious assumption in contemporary anthropology, noted by James Laidlaw (2016: 456), that altruism is the essential and irreducible core of ethics. But Laidlaw also notes that many of the features of what Bernard Williams (1985) described as “the morality system”—features that Williams himself criticized as the parochial result of a secularization of Christian values—are in fact widely shared outside of the West. This state of affairs leads Laidlaw to ask the crucial question:

Which features, formal or substantive, are shared by the “morality system” of the modern West and those of the other major agrarian civilizations and literate religions?

This is, to a very close approximation, a request for the definition of morality in the descriptive sense.

Klenk (2019) notes that in recent years anthropology has taken what he terms an “ethical turn”, recognizing moral systems, and ethics more generally, as a distinct object of anthropological study. This is a move away from the Durkheimian paradigm, and includes the study of self-development, virtues, habits, and the role of explicit deliberation when moral breakdowns occur. However, Klenk’s survey of attempts by anthropologists to study morality as an independent domain lead him to conclude that, so far, their efforts do

not readily allow a distinction between moral considerations and other normative considerations such as prudential, epistemic, or aesthetic ones. (2019: 342)

In light of Edel’s worry about a conflation of moral systems with systems of social control, it is interesting to consider Curry (2016), who defends the hypothesis that

morality turns out to be a collection of biological and cultural solutions to the problems of cooperation and conflict recurrent in human social life. (2016: 29)

Curry notes that rules related to kinship, mutualism, exchange, and various forms of conflict resolution appear in virtually all societies. And he argues that many of them have precursors in animal behavior, and can be explained by appeal to his central hypothesis of morality as a solution to problems of cooperation and conflict resolution. He also notes that philosophers, from Aristotle through Hume, Russell, and Rawls, all took cooperation and conflict resolution to be central ideas in understanding morality. It is unclear, however, whether Curry’s view can adequately distinguish morality from law and from other systems that aim to reduce conflict by providing solutions to coordination problems.

Turning from anthropology to psychology, one significant topic of investigation is the existence and nature of a distinction between the moral and the conventional. More specifically, the distinction at issue is between (a) acts that are judged wrong only because of a contingent convention or because they go against the dictates of some relevant authority, and (b) those that are judged to be wrong quite independently of these things, that have a seriousness to them, and that are justified by appeal to the notions of harm, rights, or justice. Elliot Turiel emphasized this distinction, and drew attention to the danger, if one overlooks it, of lumping together moral rules with non-moral “conventions that further the coordination of social interactions within social systems” (1983: 109–111). Those who accept this distinction are implicitly offering a definition of morality in the descriptive sense. Not everyone does accept the distinction, however. Edouard Machery and Ron Mallon (2010) for example, are suspicious of the idea that authority-independence, universality, justification by appeal to harm, justice, or rights, and seriousness form a cluster found together with sufficient regularity to be used to set moral norms apart from other norms. Kelly et al. (2007) are similarly skeptical, and bring empirical evidence to bear on the question.

The psychologist Kurt Gray might be seen as offering an account of moral judgment that would allow us to determine the morality of an individual or group. He and his co-authors suggest that

morality is essentially represented by a cognitive template that combines a perceived intentional agent with a perceived suffering patient. (Gray, Young, & Waytz 2012: 102)

This claim, while quite strong, is nevertheless not as implausibly strong as it might seem, since the thesis is directly concerned with the template we use when thinking about moral matters; it is not directly concerned with the nature of morality itself. In the sense of “template” at issue here, the template we use when thinking about dogs might include having four legs, a tail, and fur, among other things. But that does not mean that an animal must have these features to count as a dog, or even that we believe this.

Given the way that Gray et al. think of templates, even if their hypothesis is correct, it would not mean that our psychology requires us to think of the moral as always involving intentional agents and perceiving patients. In line with this, and despite some lapses in which they suggest that “moral acts can be defined in terms of intention and suffering”, (2012: 109) their considered view seems to be only that the dyadic template fits the majority of moral situations, as we conceive them. Moreover, the link between immoral behavior and suffering to which they appeal in defending their general view is sometimes so indirect as to undermine its significance. For example, they fit authority violations into their suffering-based template by noting that “authority structures provide a way of peacefully resolving conflict” and that “violence results when social structures are threatened”. In a similar stretch, they account for judgments that promiscuity is wrong by gesturing at the suffering involved in sexually transmitted diseases (2012: 107).

Another position in cognitive psychology that has relevance for the definition of morality in the descriptive sense takes moral judgment to be a natural kind: the product of an innate moral grammar (Mikhail 2007). If moral judgment is a natural kind in this way, then a person’s moral code might simply consist in the moral judgments that person is disposed to make. One piece of evidence that there is such a grammar is to be found in the relative universality of certain moral concepts in human cultures: concepts such as obligation, permission, and prohibition. Another is an argument similar to Chomsky’s famous “poverty of the stimulus” argument for a universal human grammar (Dwyer et al. 2010; see also Roedder and Harman 2010).

In evolutionary biology, morality is sometimes simply equated with fairness (Baumard et al. 2013: 60, 77) or reciprocal altruism (Alexander 1987: 77). But it is also sometimes identified by reference to an evolved capacity to make a certain sort of judgment and perhaps also to signal that one has made it (Hauser 2006). This also makes morality into something very much like a natural kind, that can be identified by reference to causal/historical processes. In that case, a content-based definition of morality isn’t required: certain central features are all that one needs to begin one’s theorizing, since they will be enough to draw attention to certain psychologically and biologically individuated mechanisms, and the study of morality will be a detailed inquiry into the nature and evolutionary history of these mechanisms.

Those who use “morality” normatively hold that morality is (or would be) the behavioral code that meets the following condition: all rational persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse it. Indeed, this is a plausible basic schema for definitions of “morality” in the normative sense. Although some hold that no code could meet the condition, many theorists hold that there is one that does; we can call the former “moral skeptics” and the latter “moral realists” (see entries on LINK: moral skepticism and moral realism).

Many moral skeptics would reject the claim that there are any universal ethical truths, where the ethical is a broader category than the moral. But another interesting class of moral skeptics includes those who think that we should only abandon the narrower category of the moral—partly because of the notion of a code that is central to that category. These moral skeptics hold that we should do our ethical theorizing in terms of the good life, or the virtues. Elizabeth Anscombe (1958) gave expression to this kind of view, which also finds echoes in the work of Bernard Williams (1985). On the other hand, some virtue theorists might take perfect rationality to entail virtue, and might understand morality to be something like the code that such a person would implicitly endorse by acting in virtuous ways. In that case, even a virtue theorist might count as a moral realist in the sense above.

Consequentialist views might not seem to fit the basic schema for definitions of “morality” in the normative sense, since they do not appear to make reference to the notions of endorsement or rationality. But this appearance is deceptive. Mill himself explicitly defines morality as

the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which [a happy existence] might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured. (1861 [2002: 12])

And he thinks that the mind is not in a “right state” unless it is in “the state most conducive to the general happiness”—in which case it would certainly favor morality as just characterized. And the act-consequentialist J.J.C. Smart (1956) is also explicit that he is thinking of ethics as the study of how it is most rational to behave. His embrace of utilitarianism is the result of his belief that maximizing utility is always the rational thing to do. On reflection it is not surprising that many moral theorists implicitly hold that the codes they offer would be endorsed by all rational people, at least under certain conditions. Unless one holds this, one will have to admit that, having been shown that a certain behavior is morally required, a rational person might simply shrug and ask “So what? What is that to me?” And, though some exceptions are mentioned below, very few moral realists think that their arguments leave this option open. Even fewer think this option remains open if we are allowed to add some additional conditions beyond mere rationality: a restriction on beliefs, for example (similar to Rawls’ (1971: 118) veil of ignorance), or impartiality.

Definitions of morality in the normative sense—and, consequently, moral theories—differ in their accounts of rationality, and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would necessarily endorse the code of conduct that therefore would count as morality. These definitions and theories also differ in how they understand what it is to endorse a code in the relevant way. Related to these differences, definitions of “morality”—and moral theories—differ with regard to those to whom morality applies: that is, those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment. Some hold that morality applies only to those rational beings that have certain specific features of human beings: features that make it rational for them to endorse morality. These features might, for example, include fallibility and vulnerability. Other moral theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, even if these beings do not have these human characteristics, e.g., God.

Among those who use “morality” normatively, virtually all hold that “morality” refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it, though many hold that it protects a larger group. Among such theorists it is also common to hold that morality should never be overridden. That is, it is common to hold that no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral reasons. This claim is trivial if “should” is taken to mean “morally should”. So the claim about moral overridingness is typically understood with “should” meaning “rationally should”, with the result that moral requirements are asserted to be rational requirements. Though common, this view is by no means always taken as definitional. Sidgwick (1874) despaired of showing that rationality required us to choose morality over egoism, though he certainly did not think rationality required egoism either. More explicitly, Gert (2005) held that though moral behavior is always rationally permissible , it is not always rationally required . Foot (1972) seems to have held that any reason—and therefore any rational requirement—to act morally would have to stem from a contingent commitment or an objective interest. And she also seems to have held that sometimes neither of these sorts of reasons might be available, so that moral behavior might not be rationally required for some agents. Finally, moral realists who hold desire-based theories of reasons and formal, means/end theories of rationality sometimes explicitly deny that moral behavior is always even rationally permissible (Goldman 2009), and in fact this seems to be a consequence of Foot’s view as well, though she does not emphasize it.

Despite the fact that theorists such as Sidgwick, Gert, Foot, and Goldman do not hold that moral behavior is rationally required, they are by no means precluded from using “morality” in the normative sense. Using “morality” in the normative sense, and holding that there is such a thing, only entails holding that rational people would put a certain system forward; it does not entail holding that rational people would always be motivated to follow that system themselves. But to the degree that a theorist would deny even the claim about endorsement, and hold instead that rational people might not only fail to act morally, but might even reject it as a public system, that theorist is either not using “morality” in a normative sense, or is denying the existence of morality in that sense. Such a theorist may also be using “morality” in a descriptive sense, or may not have any particular sense in mind.

When “morality” is used in its normative sense, it need not have either of the two formal features that are essential to moralities referred to by the descriptive sense: that it be a code of conduct that is put forward by a society, group, or individual, or that it be accepted as a guide to behavior by the members of that society or group, or by that individual. Indeed, it is possible that morality, in the normative sense, has never been put forward by any particular society, by any group at all, or even by any individual. This is partly a consequence of the fact that “morality” in the normative sense is understood in terms of a conditional that is likely to be counterfactual: it is the code that would be endorsed by any fully rational person under certain conditions.

If one is a moral realist, and one also acknowledges the descriptive sense of “morality”, one may require that descriptive moralities at least approximate, in some ways, morality in the normative sense. That is, one might claim that the guides to behavior of some societies lack so many of the essential features of morality in the normative sense, that it is incorrect to say that these societies even have a morality in a descriptive sense. This is an extreme view, however. A more moderate position would hold that all societies have something that can be regarded as their morality, but that many of these moralities—perhaps, indeed, all of them—are defective. That is, a moral realist might hold that although these actual guides to behavior have enough of the features of normative morality to be classified as descriptive moralities, they would not be endorsed in their entirety by all moral agents.

While moral realists do not claim that any actual society has or has ever had morality as its actual guide to conduct, “natural law” theories of morality claim that any rational person in any society, even one that has a defective morality, is capable of knowing what general kinds of actions morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows. In the theological version of natural law theories, such as that put forward by Aquinas, this is because God implanted this knowledge in the reason of all persons. In the secular version of natural law theories, such as that put forward by Hobbes (1660), natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. Natural law theorists also claim that morality applies to all rational persons, not only those now living, but also those who lived in the past.

In contrast to natural law theories, other moral theories do not hold quite so strong a view about the universality of knowledge of morality. Still, many hold that morality is known to all who can legitimately be judged by it. Baier (1958), Rawls (1971) and contractarians deny that there can be an esoteric morality: one that judges people even though they cannot know what it prohibits, requires, etc. For all of the above theorists, morality is what we can call a public system : a system of norms (1) that is knowable by all those to whom it applies and (2) that is not irrational for any of those to whom it applies to follow (Gert 2005: 10). Moral judgments of blame thus differ from legal or religious judgments of blame in that they cannot be made about persons who are legitimately ignorant of what they are required to do. Act consequentialists seem to hold that everyone should know that they are morally required to act so as to bring about the best consequences, but even they do not seem to think judgments of moral blame are appropriate if a person is legitimately ignorant of what action would bring about the best consequences (Singer 1993: 228). Parallel views seem to be held by rule consequentialists (Hooker 2001: 72).

The ideal situation for a legal system would be that it be a public system. But in any large society this is not possible. Games are closer to being public systems and most adults playing a game know its rules, or they know that there are judges whose interpretation determines what behavior the game prohibits, requires, etc. Although a game is often a public system, its rules apply only to those playing the game. If a person does not care enough about the game to abide by the rules, she can usually quit. Morality is the one public system that no rational person can quit. The fact that one cannot quit morality means that one can do nothing to escape being legitimately liable to sanction for violating its norms, except by ceasing to be a moral agent. Morality applies to people simply by virtue of their being rational persons who know what morality prohibits, requires, etc., and being able to guide their behavior accordingly.

Public systems can be formal or informal . To say a public system is informal is to say that it has no authoritative judges and no decision procedure that provides a unique guide to action in all situations, or that resolves all disagreements. To say that a public system is formal is to say that it has one or both of these things (Gert 2005: 9). Professional basketball is a formal public system; all the players know that what the referees call a foul determines what is a foul. Pickup basketball is an informal public system. The existence of persistent moral disagreements shows that morality is most plausibly regarded as an informal public system. This is true even for such moral theories as the Divine Command theory and act utilitarianism, inasmuch as there are no authoritative judges of God’s will, or of which act will maximize utility, and there are no decision procedures for determining these things (Scanlon 2011: 261–2). When persistent moral disagreement is recognized, those who understand that morality is an informal public system admit that how one should act is morally unresolvable, and if some resolution is required, the political or legal system can be used to resolve it. These formal systems have the means to provide unique guides, but they do not provide the uniquely correct moral guide to the action that should be performed.

An important example of a moral problem left unsettled by the informal public system of morality is whether fetuses are impartially protected by morality and so whether or under what conditions abortions are allowed. There is continuing disagreement among fully informed moral agents about this moral question, even though the legal and political system in the United States has provided fairly clear guidelines about the conditions under which abortion is legally allowed. Despite this important and controversial issue, morality, like all informal public systems, presupposes agreement on how to act in most moral situations, e.g., all agree that killing or seriously harming any moral agent requires strong justification in order to be morally allowed. No one thinks it is morally justified to cheat, deceive, injure, or kill a moral agent simply in order to gain sufficient money to take a fantastic vacation. Moral matters are often thought to be controversial because everyday decisions, about which there is no controversy, are rarely discussed. The amount of agreement concerning what rules are moral rules, and on when it is justified to violate one of these rules, explains why morality can be a public system even though it is an informal system.

By using the notion of an informal public system, we can improve the basic schema for definitions of “morality” in the normative sense. The old schema was that morality is the code that all rational persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse. The improved schema is that morality is the informal public system that all rational persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse. Some theorists might not regard the informal nature of the moral system as definitional, holding that morality might give knowable precise answers to every question. This would have the result that conscientious moral agents often cannot know what morality permits, requires, or allows. Some philosophers deny that this is a genuine possibility.

On any definition of “morality”, whether descriptive or normative, it is a code of conduct. However, on ethical- or group-relativist accounts or on individualistic accounts—all of which are best regarded as accounts of morality in the descriptive sense—morality often has no special content that distinguishes it from nonmoral codes of conduct, such as law or religion. Just as a legal code of conduct can have almost any content, as long as it is capable of guiding behavior, and a religious code of conduct has no limits on content, most relativist and individualist accounts of morality place few limits on the content of a moral code. Of course, actual codes do have certain minimal limits—otherwise the societies they characterize would lack the minimum required degree of social cooperation required to sustain their existence over time. On the other hand, for moral realists who explicitly hold that morality is an informal public system that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents, it has a fairly definite content. Hobbes (1660), Mill (1861), and most other non-religiously influenced philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition limit morality to behavior that, directly or indirectly, affects others.

The claim that morality only governs behavior that affects others is somewhat controversial, and so probably should not be counted as definitional of morality, even if it turns out to be entailed by the correct moral theory. Some have claimed that morality also governs behavior that affects only the agent herself, such as taking recreational drugs, masturbation, and not developing one’s talents. Kant (1785) may provide an account of this wide concept of morality. Interpreted this way, Kant’s theory still fits the basic schema, but includes these self-regarding moral requirements because of the particular account of rationality he employs. However, pace Kant, it is doubtful that all moral agents would put forward a universal guide to behavior that governs behavior that does not affect them at all. Indeed, when the concept of morality is completely distinguished from religion, moral rules do seem to limit their content to behavior that directly or indirectly causes or risks harm to others. Some behavior that seems to affect only oneself, e.g., taking recreational drugs, may have a significant indirect harmful effect on others by supporting the illegal and harmful activity of those who benefit from the sale of those drugs.

Confusion about the content of morality sometimes arises because morality is not distinguished sufficiently from religion. Regarding self-affecting behavior as governed by morality is supported by the idea that we are created by God and are obliged to obey God’s commands, and so may be a holdover from the time when morality was not clearly distinguished from religion. This religious holdover might also affect the claim that some sexual practices such as homosexuality are immoral. Those who clearly distinguish morality from religion typically do not regard sexual orientation as a moral matter.

It is possible to hold that having a certain sort of social goal is definitional of morality (Frankena 1963). Stephen Toulmin (1950) took it to be the harmony of society. Baier (1958) took it to be “the good of everyone alike”. Utilitarians sometimes claim it is the production of the greatest good. Gert (2005) took it to be the lessening of evil or harm. This latter goal may seem to be a significant narrowing of the utilitarian claim, but utilitarians always include the lessening of harm as essential to producing the greatest good and almost all of their examples involve the avoiding or preventing of harm. It is notable that the paradigm cases of moral rules are those that prohibit causing harm directly or indirectly, such as rules prohibiting killing, causing pain, deceiving, and breaking promises. Even those precepts that require or encourage positive action, such as helping the needy, are almost always related to preventing or relieving harms, rather than promoting goods such as pleasure.

Among the views of moral realists, differences in content are less significant than similarities. For all such philosophers, morality prohibits actions such as killing, causing pain, deceiving, and breaking promises. For some, morality also requires charitable actions, but failure to act charitably on every possible occasion does not require justification in the same way that any act of killing, causing pain, deceiving, and breaking promises requires justification. Both Kant (1785) and Mill (1861) distinguish between duties of perfect obligation and duties of imperfect obligation and regard not harming as the former kind of duty and helping as the latter kind of duty. For Gert (2005), morality encourages charitable action, but does not require it; it is always morally good to be charitable, but it is not immoral not to be charitable.

Even if the plausible basic schema for definitions of “morality” in the normative sense is accepted, one’s understanding of what morality is, in this sense, will still depend very significantly on how one understands rationality. As has already been mentioned, morality, in the normative sense, is sometimes taken to prohibit certain forms of consensual sexual activity, or the use of recreational drugs. But including such prohibitions in an account of morality as a universal guide that all rational persons would put forward requires a very particular view of rationality. After all, many will deny that it is irrational to favor harmless consensual sexual activities, or to favor the use of certain drugs for purely recreational purposes.

One concept of rationality that supports the exclusion of sexual matters, at least at the basic level, from the norms of morality, is that for an action to count as irrational it must be an act that harms oneself without producing a compensating benefit for someone—perhaps oneself, perhaps someone else. Such an account of rationality might be called “hybrid”, since it gives different roles to self-interest and to altruism. An account of morality based on the hybrid concept of rationality could agree with Hobbes (1660) that morality is concerned with promoting people living together in peace and harmony, which includes obeying the rules prohibiting causing harm to others. Although moral prohibitions against actions that cause harm or significantly increase the risk of harm are not absolute, in order to avoid acting immorally, justification is always needed when violating these prohibitions. Kant (1797) seems to hold that it is never justified to violate some of these prohibitions, e.g., the prohibition against lying. This is largely a result of the fact that Kant’s (1785) concept of rationality is purely formal, in contrast with the hybrid concept of rationality described above.

Most moral realists who offer moral theories do not bother to offer anything like a definition of morality. Instead, what these philosophers offer is a theory of the nature and justification of a set of norms with which they take their audience already to be acquainted. In effect, they tacitly pick morality out by reference to certain salient and relative uncontroversial bits of its content: that it prohibits killing, stealing, deceiving, cheating, and so on. In fact, this would not be a bad way of defining morality, if the point of such a definition were only to be relatively theory-neutral, and to allow theorizing to begin. We could call it “the reference-fixing definition” or “the substantive definition” (see Prinz and Nichols 2010: 122).

Some, including Hare (1952, 1963), have been tempted to argue against the possibility of a substantive definition of morality, on the basis of the claim that moral disapproval is an attitude that can be directed at anything whatsoever. Foot (1958a, 1958b), argued against this idea, but the substantive definition still has the drawback is that it does not, somehow, seem to get at the essence of morality. One might suggest that the substantive definition has the advantage of including Divine Command theories of morality, while such theories might seem to make trouble for definitions based on the plausible schema given above. But it is plausible to hold that Divine Command theories rest on Natural Law theories, which do in fact fit the schema. Divine Command theories that do not rest on Natural Law might make trouble for the schema, but one might also think that such theories rest instead on a confusion, since they seem to entail that God might have made it immoral to act beneficently.

5. Variations

As one gives more substance and detail to the general notions of endorsement, rationality, and the relevant conditions under which rational people would endorse morality, one moves further from providing a definition of morality in the normative sense, and closer to providing an actual moral theory. And a similar claim is true for definitions of morality in the descriptive sense, as one specifies in more detail what one means in claiming that a person or group endorses a system or code. In the following four subsections, four broad ways of making the definitions of morality more precise are presented. They are all sufficiently schematic to be regarded as varieties of definition, rather than as theories.

Expressivists about morality do not take there to be any objective content to morality that could underwrite what we above called “the substantive definition”. Rather, they explicitly recognize the existence of significant variation in what rules and ideals different people put forward as morality in the normative sense. And they doubt that this variation is compatible with moral realism. Consequently, they need to offer some unifying features of these different sets of rules and ideals, despite variation in their content. As a result of this pressure, some expressivists end up offering explicit accounts of a distinctively moral attitude one might hold towards an act token or type. These accounts can of course be taken to underwrite various forms of morality in the descriptive sense. But they can also be taken to provide the basis of one form of moral realism.

To see how an expressivist view can be co-opted by a moral realist of a certain sort, consider Allan Gibbard’s (1990) moral expressivism. Gibbard holds that moral judgments are expressions of the acceptance of norms for feeling the emotions of guilt and anger. One can accept Gibbard’s view of what it is to endorse a moral claim without accepting the view that, in conflicts, all disagreements are faultless. That is, even a moral realist can use Gibbard’s view of the nature of moral judgment, and extract from it a definition of morality. Used by such a theorist, Gibbard’s view entails that morality, in the normative sense, is the code that is picked out by the correct set of norms for feeling guilt and anger: that is, the norms a rational person would endorse. This is equivalent to accepting the plausible general schema for a definition of “morality” given above, and understanding endorsement in a special sense. To endorse a code in the relevant way, on this definition, is to think that violations of its norms make guilt and anger appropriate.

Closely related to Gibbard’s account is one according to which the norms of relevance are not norms for the emotions, but are norms for other reactions to behavior. For example, a person’s morality might be the set of rules and ideals they regard as picked out by appropriate norms for praise and blame, and other social sanctions (Sprigge 1964: 317). In fact, reference to praise and blame may be more adequate than reference to guilt and anger, since the latter seem only to pick out moral prohibitions, and not to make room for the idea that morality also recommends or encourages certain behaviors even if it does not require them. For example, it is plausible that there is such a thing as supererogatory action, and that the specification of what counts as supererogatory is part of morality—whether in the descriptive or normative sense. But it does not seem likely that we can account for this part of morality by appeal to norms for guilt and anger, and it is not at all clear that there are emotions that are as closely linked to supererogation as guilt and anger are to moral transgression. On the other hand, it seems plausible that norms for praising action might help to pick out what counts as supererogatory.

Another version of the present strategy would replace talk of praise and blame with talk of reward and punishment. This view would take morality to be a system that explained what kinds of actions are appropriately rewarded and—more centrally—punished. This sort of view, which remains closely related to Gibbard’s suggestion, can also be regarded as fitting the general schema given above. On this view, the notion of endorsing a code is unpacked in terms of the acceptance of norms for reward and punishment. Skorupski (1993), following Mill (1861), advocates a definition of morality along these lines, though he then understands punishment primarily in terms of blame, and understands blame as very closely linked to emotion—indeed, merely having the emotion can count as blaming—so that the resulting view is similar to Gibbard’s in one important way, at least when one focuses on moral wrongness.

It is certainly plausible that it is appropriate to feel guilt when one acts immorally, and to feel anger at those who act immorally towards those one cares about. It is even plausible that it is only appropriate, in some particular sense of “appropriate”, to feel guilt and anger in connection with moral transgressions. So norms for guilt and anger may well uniquely pick out certain moral norms. And similar claims might be made about norms for praise and blame. However, it is not equally clear that morality is properly defined in terms of emotions or other reactions to behavior. For it may be, as Skorupski emphasizes, that we need to understand guilt and anger, and praise and blame, in terms of moral concepts. This worry about direction of explanation seems less pressing for the notions of reward and punishment. These responses to behavior, at least in themselves , might simply be understood in terms of the meting out of benefits and harms. Of course they will only count as reward and punishment when they are linked to someone’s having followed or violated a rule that all rational people would want to see enforced by such responses.

One way of understanding the notion of endorsement is as advocacy. Advocating a code is a second- or third-personal matter, since one advocates a code to others. Moreover, it is consistent with advocating a code, that one does not plan on following that code oneself. Just as asserting something one believes to be false still counts as asserting it, hypocritical advocacy of a code still counts as advocacy of that code. When endorsement is understood as advocacy, it can be used in definitions of morality, in the descriptive sense, as long as it is the morality of a group or society. And advocacy can also be used as an interpretation of endorsement when providing a definition of morality in the normative sense. Of course those who accept a definition of morality in any of these senses—as the code that a group or society endorses, or as the code that would be universally advocated by all rational agents under certain conditions—do not hold that the advocacy would necessarily, or even probably, be hypocritical. But they do hold that the important thing about a moral code—what picks it out as a moral code—is that it would be put forward by all the relevant agents, not that it would be followed by all of them. The notion of advocacy has less of a place in a descriptive account of a single person’s morality, since when someone is hypocritical we often deny that they really hold the moral view that they advocate.

Mill (1861), in addition to offering a moral theory, takes pains to explain how morality differs from other normative systems. For him, norms that simply promote utility are norms of expediency. In order to qualify as morally wrong, an act must be one that ought to be punished. Thinking that an act of a certain kind ought to be punished is a third-personal matter, so it seems plausible to put Mill’s view of what is definitional of morality into the category being discussed in this section. It is worth noting that hypocrisy is, for Mill, not only a possibility, but—given the present sorry state of moral education—virtually unavoidable. That is because being motivated to advocate punishment for a certain kind of act is quite different from being motivated to refrain from that same kind of act. Advocating punishment for a certain kind of act might be one’s utility-maximizing choice, while actually performing that kind of act (trying, of course, to avoid detection) might also be utility-maximizing. And for Mill what determines what a person will advocate, and how a person will act, are the foreseeable consequences for that person .

Bernard Gert’s (2005) moral view also operates with a definition of morality that understands endorsement as advocacy, in the sense of putting forward as a guide for all rational agents. Gert offers the following two conditions as those under which all rational persons would put forward a universal guide for governing the behavior of all moral agents. The first condition is that they are seeking agreement with all other rational persons or moral agents. The second condition is that they use only those beliefs that are shared by all rational persons: for example, that they themselves are fallible and vulnerable and that all those to whom morality applies are also fallible and vulnerable. The second condition rules out both religious beliefs and scientific beliefs since there are no religious beliefs or scientific beliefs that all rational persons share. This condition is plausible because no universal guide to behavior that applies to all rational persons can be based on beliefs that some of these rational persons do not share.

Another way of understanding the notion of endorsement is as acceptance. Unlike advocating a code, accepting a code is a first-personal matter. It might include intending to conform one’s own behavior to that code, feeling guilty when one does not, and so on. One cannot hypocritically accept a code. Indeed, hypocrisy is simply a matter of advocating a code one does not accept. So this notion of endorsement is available to someone who is trying to provide a definition of morality in the descriptive sense, even when considering a single person’s morality.

Paradigmatic views in the natural law tradition starting with Aquinas hold both that the laws of morality have their source in God, and that these laws constitute the principles of human practical rationality (Finnis 1980; MacIntyre 1999). Views in this tradition may be seen as using the basic schema for definitions of morality in the normative sense, understanding endorsement as acceptance. Members of this tradition typically hold that all rational persons know what kinds of actions morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows. It is central to Aquinas’s view that morality is known to all those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment, even if they do not know of the revelations of Christianity. This is why Aquinas holds that knowing what morality prohibits and requires does not involve knowing why morality prohibits and requires what it does.

Those who belong to the natural law tradition also hold that reason endorses acting morally. This sort of endorsement of course has a cognitive component. But it is also motivational. Aquinas does not hold that knowledge of morality is always effective: it can be blotted out by evil persuasions or corrupt habits. But if reason is not opposed by such forces, any rational person would not only know what was prohibited and required by morality, but would follow those prohibitions and requirements. So, for natural law theorists, endorsement amounts to acceptance.

The lack of an explicit and widely accepted definition of morality may partially explain the resilience of act-consequentialist accounts of morality. Without an explicit definition, it may be easier to ignore the fact that act-consequentialist theories are not particularly concerned with interpersonal interactions, but typically apply just as well to desert island scenarios as to individuals who live in societies. In any case, it has been recognized that in order to combat consequentialism, it would be helpful to have something like a plausible definition of morality that made it clear that the subject matter of morality is something different from simply the goodness and badness of consequences. T.M. Scanlon (1982, 1998), applying this strategy, suggests that the subject matter of morality—what we are talking about, when we talk about morality—is a system of rules for the regulation of behavior that is not reasonably rejectable based on a desire for informed unforced general agreement.

Scanlon’s suggestion regarding the subject matter of morality can easily be seen as an instance of the general schema given above. His “system of rules” is a specific kind of informal public system; he understands endorsement by all rational people as non-rejection by all reasonable people; and he offers a specific account of the conditions under which moral agents would reach the relevant agreement. But Scanlon also places very heavy emphasis on the fact that if he is right about the subject matter of morality, then what compliance with moral norms allows us to do is to justify our behavior to others in ways that they cannot reasonably reject. Indeed, the ability to justify ourselves to reasonable people is a primary source of moral motivation for Scanlon (see also Sprigge 1964: 319). This might seem to suggest a somewhat different definitional claim about morality: that morality consists in the most basic norms in terms of which we justify ourselves to others. But it is plausible that this purportedly definitional claim is better thought of as a corollary of Scanlon’s particular version of the general schema, with endorsement understood as non-rejection. For, if morality is the system of norms that would be endorsed in this way, we can justify our actions to others by pointing out that even they, were they reasonable, would have endorsed rules that allowed our behavior.

Stephen Darwall’s (2006) moral view can also be seen as flowing from a version of the general schema, and yielding claims about justifiability to others. Darwall claims that morality is a matter of equal accountability among free and rational beings. On his view, I behave morally towards you to the degree that I respect the claims you have authority to make on me. Darwall also holds that I will respect those claims if I acknowledge certain assumptions to which I am committed simply in virtue of being a rational, deliberating agent. As a result, his view is that morality—or at least the morality of obligation—is a “scheme of accountability” (a certain sort of informal public system) that all rational people will endorse. Unlike Scanlon’s view, however, Darwall’s view makes use of a stronger sense of endorsement than non-rejection. Specifically, it includes the recognition of the reasons provided by the authoritative demands of other people. And that recognition is positively motivational.

Both Scanlon’s and Darwall’s views emphasize the social nature of morality, taken in the normative sense: Scanlon, by reference to justification to others; Darwall, by appeal to the relevance of second-personal reasons. But Darwall builds a responsiveness to second-personal reasons into the relevant notion of rationality, while Scanlon simply makes the empirical claim that many people are motivated by a desire to justify themselves to others, and notes that his definition of morality will yield rules that will allow one to do this, if one follows them. The sort of definition described in section 5.1 also makes the social nature of morality essential to it, since it centrally features the notion of a response to the behavior of others. The definitions described in sections 5.2 and 5.3 do not entail the social nature of morality, since it is possible to accept, and even to advocate, a code that concerns only self-regarding behavior. But on any plausible account of rationality a code that would be advocated by all moral agents will govern interpersonal interactions, and will include rules that prohibit causing harm without sufficient reason. Only the definition offered in section 5.3 therefore can be taken as realistically compatible with an egoistic morality.

Alexander, Richard, 1987, The Biology of Moral Systems , New York: Routledge.
Anscombe, G. E. M., 1958, “Modern Moral Philosophy”, Philosophy , 33(124): 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943
Aquinas, Thomas, c.1270, Summa Theologiae , Paris.
Baier, Kurt, 1958, The Moral Point of View , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Baumard, Nicolas, Jean-Baptiste André, and Dan Sperber, 2013, “A Mutualistic Approach to Morality: The Evolution of Fairness by Partner Choice”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 36(1): 59–78. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11002202
Bentham, Jeremy, 1789, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , New York: Prometheus Books, 1988.
Brink, David, 1997, “Kantian Rationalism: Inescapability, Authority, and Supremacy”, in Ethics and Practical Reason , Garrett Cullity and Berys Gaut (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 255–291.
Churchland, Patricia, 2011, Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Curry, Oliver Scott, 2016, “Morality as Cooperation: A Problem-Centred Approach”, in The Evolution of Morality , Todd K. Shackelford and Ranald Hansen (eds.), Cham: Springer, pp. 27–51. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_2
Darwall, Stephen, 2006, The Second-person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
De Waal, Frans, 1996, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Doris, John M. and The Moral Psychology Research Group (eds.), 2010, The Moral Psychology Handbook , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582143.001.0001
Durkheim, Émile, 1906 [2009], “La Détermination du fait moral”. Collected in Sociologie et Philosophie , Paris: Félix Alcan, 1924. Translated as “The Determination of Moral Facts” in Sociology and Philosophy , David Pocock (ed. and trans.), 1953, Reprinted Routledge revivals. London: Routledge, 2009, pp. 16–31.
Dworkin, Ronald, 1986, Law’s Empire , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Dwyer, Susan, Bryce Huebner, and Marc D. Hauser, 2010, “The Linguistic Analogy: Motivations, Results, and Speculations”, Topics in Cognitive Science , 2(3): 486–510. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01064.x
Edel, Abraham, 1962, “Anthropology and Ethics in Common Focus”, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland , 92(1): 55–72. doi:10.2307/2844321
Finnis, John, 1980, Natural Law and Natural Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foot, Philippa, 1958a, “Moral Beliefs”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 59: 83–104. doi:10.1093/aristotelian/59.1.83
–––, 1958b, “Moral Arguments”, Mind , 67(268): 502–513. doi:10.1093/mind/LXVII.268.502
–––, 1972, “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives”, The Philosophical Review , 81(3): 305–316. doi:10.2307/2184328
Frankena, William, 1963, “Recent Conceptions of Morality”, in G. Nakhnikian and H. Castañeda (eds.), Morality and the Language of Conduct , Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, pp. 1–24.
–––, 1973, Ethics , Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
–––, 1980, Thinking about Morality , Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gert, Bernard, 2005, Morality: Its Nature and Justification , Revised Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibbard, Allan, 1990, Wise Choices, Apt Feelings , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldman, Alan H., 2009, Reasons from Within: Desires and Values , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199576906.001.0001
Gray, Kurt, Liane Young, and Adam Waytz, 2012, “Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality”, Psychological Inquiry , 23(2): 101–124. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2012.651387
Greene, Joshua, 2013, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and The Gap between Us and Them , New York: Penguin.
Haidt, Jonathan, 2006, The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom , New York: Basic Books.
–––, 2011, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion , New York: Pantheon.
Haidt, Jonathan and Selin Kesebir, 2010, “Morality”, in S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology , 5th Edition, Hobeken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 797–832.
Hare, R.M., 1952, The Language of Morals , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1963, Freedom and Reason , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1981, Moral Thinking , New York: Oxford University Press.
Harman, Gilbert, 1975, “Moral Relativism Defended”, The Philosophical Review , 84(1): 3–22. doi:10.2307/2184078
Hauser, Marc, 2006, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong , New York: Harper Collins.
Hobbes, Thomas, 1660 [1994], Leviathan , edited by Edwin Curly, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
–––, 1658 and 1651 [1991], Man and Citizen , (translations of six chapters of De Homine (1658) and all of De Cive (1651)), edited by Bernard Gert, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1991.
Hooker, Brad, 2001, Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule Consequentialist theory of Morality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hume, David, 1751 [1975], Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals , edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge, 3 rd edition revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Kant, Immanuel, 1785 and 1797 [1993], Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: with On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns , 3 rd edition, translated by J. Ellington, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.
Kelly, Daniel, Stephen Stich, Kevin J. Haley, Serena J. Eng, and Daniel M. T. Fessler, 2007, “Harm, Affect, and the Moral/Conventional Distinction”, Mind & Language , 22(2): 117–131. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00302.x
Klenk, Michael, 2019, “Moral Philosophy and the ‘Ethical Turn’ in Anthropology”, Zeitschrift Für Ethik Und Moralphilosophie , 2(2): 331–353. doi:10.1007/s42048-019-00040-9
Laidlaw, James, 2016, “The Interactional Foundations of Ethics and the Formation and Limits of Morality Systems”, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory , 6(1): 455–461. doi:10.14318/hau6.1.024
Liao, S. Matthew (ed.), 2016, Moral Brains. The Neuroscience of Morality , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199357666.001.0001
–––, 1999, Dependent Rational Animals , Chicago: Open Court.
Machery, Edouard, 2012, “Delineating the Moral Domain”, Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition , Logic and Communication, 7(1): 1–14. doi:10.4148/biyclc.v7i0.1777
Machery, Edouard and Ron Mallon, 2010, “The Evolution of Morality”, in Doris and The Moral Psychology Research Group 2010: 3–46.
MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1957, “What Morality Is Not”, Philosophy , 32(123): 325–335. doi:10.1017/S0031819100051950
Mikhail, John, 2007, “Universal Moral Grammar: Theory, Evidence and the Future”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 11(4): 143–152. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.007
Mill, John Stuart, 1861 [2002], Utilitarianism , edited by G. Sher, Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002.
Moore, G.E., 1912, Ethics , New York: H. Holt.
–––, 1903, Principia Ethica , New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Prinz, Jesse, 2007, The Emotional Construction of Morals , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Prinz, Jesse and Shaun Nichols, 2010, “Moral Emotions”, in Doris and The Moral Psychology Research Group 2010: 111–146.
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roedder, Erica and Gilbert Harman, 2010, “Linguistics and Moral Theory”, in Doris and The Moral Psychology Research Group 2010: 273–296.
Scanlon, T. M., 1982, “Contractualism and Utilitarianism”, in Utilitarianism and Beyond , Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103–128. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611964.007
–––, 1998, What We Owe to Each Other , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 2011, “What is Morality?” in J. Shephard, S. Kosslyn, and E. Hammonds (eds.), The Harvard Sampler: Liberal Education for the Twenty-First Century , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 243–66.
Sidgwick, Henry, 1874, Methods of Ethics , Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1981.
Singer, Peter, 1993, Practical Ethics , 2 nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (ed.), 2008, Moral Psychology Volume 1, The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations and Innateness , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
–––, 2016, “The Disunity of Morality”, in Liao 2016: 331–354.
Skorupski, John, 1993, “The Definition of Morality”, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement , 35: 121–144. doi:10.1017/S1358246100006299
Smart, J. J. C., 1956, “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 6(25): 344–354. doi:10.2307/2216786
Smith, Michael, 1994, The Moral Problem , Oxford: Blackwell.
Sprigge, Timothy L. S., 1964, “Definition of a Moral Judgment”, Philosophy , 39(150): 301–322. doi:10.1017/S0031819100055777
Strawson, P. F., 1961, “Social Morality and Individual Ideal”, Philosophy , 36(136): 1–17. doi:10.1017/S003181910005779X
Thomson, J.J. and G. Dworkin (eds.), 1968, Ethics , New York: Harper & Row.
Toulmin, Stephen, 1950, An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turiel, Elliot, 1983, The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warnock, Geoffrey, 1971, The Object of Morality , London: Methuen.
Westermarck, Edward, 1960, Ethical Relativity , Paterson, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams.
Williams, Bernard, 1985, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy , London: Fontana.
Wong, David B., 1984, Moral Relativity , Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
–––, 2006, Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195305396.001.0001
–––, 2014, “Integrating Philosophy with Anthropology in an Approach to Morality”, Anthropological Theory , 14(3): 336–355. doi:10.1177/1463499614534554
Wren, T.E. (ed.), 1990, The Moral Domain: Essays in the Ongoing Discussion Between Philosophy and the Social Sciences , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Ethics and Morality

Morality, Ethics, Evil, Greed

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person’s choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the individual to include what is determined to be right, and wrong, for a community or society at large.

Ethics is concerned with rights, responsibilities, use of language, what it means to live an ethical life, and how people make moral decisions. We may think of moralizing as an intellectual exercise, but more frequently it's an attempt to make sense of our gut instincts and reactions. It's a subjective concept, and many people have strong and stubborn beliefs about what's right and wrong that can place them in direct contrast to the moral beliefs of others. Yet even though morals may vary from person to person, religion to religion, and culture to culture, many have been found to be universal, stemming from basic human emotions.

The Science of Being Virtuous
Understanding Amorality
The Stages of Moral Development

Those who are considered morally good are said to be virtuous, holding themselves to high ethical standards, while those viewed as morally bad are thought of as wicked, sinful, or even criminal. Morality was a key concern of Aristotle, who first studied questions such as “What is moral responsibility?” and “What does it take for a human being to be virtuous?”

We used to think that people are born with a blank slate, but research has shown that people have an innate sense of morality . Of course, parents and the greater society can certainly nurture and develop morality and ethics in children.

Humans are ethical and moral regardless of religion and God. People are not fundamentally good nor are they fundamentally evil. However, a Pew study found that atheists are much less likely than theists to believe that there are "absolute standards of right and wrong." In effect, atheism does not undermine morality, but the atheist’s conception of morality may depart from that of the traditional theist.

Animals are like humans—and humans are animals, after all. Many studies have been conducted across animal species, and more than 90 percent of their behavior is what can be identified as “prosocial” or positive. Plus, you won’t find mass warfare in animals as you do in humans. Hence, in a way, you can say that animals are more moral than humans.

The examination of moral psychology involves the study of moral philosophy but the field is more concerned with how a person comes to make a right or wrong decision, rather than what sort of decisions he or she should have made. Character, reasoning, responsibility, and altruism , among other areas, also come into play, as does the development of morality.

The seven deadly sins were first enumerated in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I, and represent the sweep of immoral behavior. Also known as the cardinal sins or seven deadly vices, they are vanity, jealousy , anger , laziness, greed, gluttony, and lust. People who demonstrate these immoral behaviors are often said to be flawed in character. Some modern thinkers suggest that virtue often disguises a hidden vice; it just depends on where we tip the scale .

An amoral person has no sense of, or care for, what is right or wrong. There is no regard for either morality or immorality. Conversely, an immoral person knows the difference, yet he does the wrong thing, regardless. The amoral politician, for example, has no conscience and makes choices based on his own personal needs; he is oblivious to whether his actions are right or wrong.

One could argue that the actions of Wells Fargo, for example, were amoral if the bank had no sense of right or wrong. In the 2016 fraud scandal, the bank created fraudulent savings and checking accounts for millions of clients, unbeknownst to them. Of course, if the bank knew what it was doing all along, then the scandal would be labeled immoral.

Everyone tells white lies to a degree, and often the lie is done for the greater good. But the idea that a small percentage of people tell the lion’s share of lies is the Pareto principle, the law of the vital few. It is 20 percent of the population that accounts for 80 percent of a behavior.

We do know what is right from wrong . If you harm and injure another person, that is wrong. However, what is right for one person, may well be wrong for another. A good example of this dichotomy is the religious conservative who thinks that a woman’s right to her body is morally wrong. In this case, one’s ethics are based on one’s values; and the moral divide between values can be vast.

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg established his stages of moral development in 1958. This framework has led to current research into moral psychology. Kohlberg's work addresses the process of how we think of right and wrong and is based on Jean Piaget's theory of moral judgment for children. His stages include pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional, and what we learn in one stage is integrated into the subsequent stages.

The pre-conventional stage is driven by obedience and punishment . This is a child's view of what is right or wrong. Examples of this thinking: “I hit my brother and I received a time-out.” “How can I avoid punishment?” “What's in it for me?”

The conventional stage is when we accept societal views on rights and wrongs. In this stage people follow rules with a good boy and nice girl orientation. An example of this thinking: “Do it for me.” This stage also includes law-and-order morality: “Do your duty.”

The post-conventional stage is more abstract: “Your right and wrong is not my right and wrong.” This stage goes beyond social norms and an individual develops his own moral compass, sticking to personal principles of what is ethical or not.

Prosecution for war crimes is not only about deterring future crimes, also about preventing anger that continues across the generations.

Review: The film’s carefully mapped-out confusion seems to reflect director Alex Garland’s key point--war, civil or international, ultimately blurs crucial moral distinctions.

Explore vital strategies to drive transparency and ethical leadership in the era of AI.

Measles—from personal experience to a 21st-century global public health crisis. How did we get here and what can we do about it?

Blind allegiance to consistency can hinder decision-making and reinforce biases. Discover how steadfastness and adaptability shape our moral compass.

What Taylor Swift’s new album, COVID-19 vaccines, and the 2020 election can teach us about patience.

A Personal Perspective: Ten years after its publication, Being Mortal by Atul Gawande remains as relevant as ever. Perhaps more so.

You've just been served a subpoena. You let your client know so they can file a motion to quash the subpoena. The client asks you to file for them. What's your next move?

Let's empower people to work with simple principles that instill ethical commitments deep into their DNA.

Personal Perspective: Critics accuse popular books on Stoicism of pandering to a general audience. But what's the harm of the public reading ideas about life and ethics?

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Essay On Values

Essay on Moral Values

500+ words essay on moral values.

Moral values are considered an essential aspect of human life. Moral values determine one’s nature, behaviour and overall attitude towards life and other people. In our lives, our decisions are primarily based on our values. The choices we make in our lives impact us and our society, organisation and nation. It is believed that a person with good values makes wise decisions that benefit everyone. On the contrary, people who have no moral values think only of themselves. They don’t care about others’ needs or society and make choices based solely on their needs. They create an unfriendly and sometimes unsafe environment around themselves.

Importance of Moral Values

The value of a person reflects their personality. Moral values help us understand the difference between right and wrong, good and evil and make the right decisions and judgements. They empower and drive a person to be a better human being and work for the betterment of society. Some moral values a person can inculcate in themselves are: dedication, honesty, optimism, commitment, patience, courtesy, forgiveness, compassion, respect, unity, self-control, cooperation, care and love. A person becomes humble and dependable with good values. Everyone looks up to a person with good values, whether personally or professionally.

If a person has good values, he spreads love, joy, and positive vibes. A person with good values works for the upliftment of society, along with taking care of their life. Such people are always considerate of the needs of others and understand the importance of unity and teamwork. They don’t lose their temper very easily and forgive others. People with good values are an asset to the organisation they work in and the society they live in.

Values Must Be Imbibed

We need to imbibe good values to function as humans and live in a society. Good values include dedication towards work, honesty, respect, commitment, love, helping others, taking responsibility for others’ deeds and acting responsibly. All these values are essential for the positive growth of an individual.

If you want to become a true leader and inspire others, you need to have good values. People always show respect and love to a person with good values. Additionally, they’ll trust and depend on a person of good values because they get proper advice and opinion from such a person.

Ethics Must Be Followed

A person with good values behaves ethically. We often hear of an ethical code of conduct. These are a set of rules or codes an individual is expected to follow. For example, talking politely with others, respecting elders/co-workers, handling difficult situations calmly, maintaining discipline and acting responsibly. Following these ethics helps create a healthy and safe work environment. So, it is essential for everyone to follow the ethical code of conduct.

The Role of Parents and Teachers

Moral values are not just born in a person but must be taught and inculcated right from childhood. When we talk about raising or nurturing children with good values, the credit goes to parents and teachers. It is their responsibility to teach children good values and should make them understand why it’s necessary to follow ethical behaviour. Schools should also take the responsibility to have a separate class dedicated to teaching ethics and moral values from the beginning. They should also train the students so that they imbibe these values.

An individual should imbibe good moral values to do well both in their professional and personal lives. A person with good values is also recognised among the crowd and is always appreciated for his behaviour and attitude towards others. On the contrary, people who lack good values often get into trouble and are not accepted in society. So, we should make sure that we teach our children good values and ethical behaviour from an early age. It is our responsibility to make our future generation learn moral values and ethics. This will help them become good human beings and upstanding citizens of the world. Additionally, it will give them the strength and courage to achieve great things in their lives.

The importance of moral values cannot be overstated. A nation with a high proportion of good values will undoubtedly progress and develop more rapidly than where people lack values. Moral values nurture us individually, build strong character and help create a better world around us.

We hope you found this essay on moral values useful. Find more CBSE Essays on various topics at BYJU’S. Also, get access to interactive videos and study material to ace the exams.

Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Counselling

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

Home ›
Reviews ›

My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility

Fischer, John Martin, My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility , Oxford University Press, 2006, 260pp, $45.00 (hbk), ISBN 0195179552.

Reviewed by Ishtiyaque Haji, University of Calgary

Moral responsibility has a number of requirements including a control (or freedom), an "authenticity" (or ownership), and an epistemic requirement. The twelve highly insightful and commandingly influential essays in My Way largely address one or more aspects of the first two requirements. The introductory essay is new; the remaining eleven, common currency in the free will literature, have been reprinted with or without minor changes. The fourth and ninth are co-authored, the former with Mark Ravizza, the latter with Eleonore Stump. Rather than give a chapter-by-chapter summary, it will be more helpful to articulate the work's central themes.

A champion of compatibilism, Fischer accepts the conclusion of the Consequence Argument that determinism is incompatible with two-way or regulative control . But he argues that responsibility does not presuppose this species of control largely (though not exclusively) by invoking Frankfurt examples. Responsibility, he proposes, demands only one-way guidance control that can be exemplified in the actual sequence of events culminating in conduct; actions, omissions, and their consequences are symmetric in not requiring alternative possibilities for responsibility. Fischer argues, in addition, against the view that causal determinism in the actual sequence directly--that is, quite apart from expunging alternatives--undermines responsibility. The conclusion of this stream of reasoning is that responsibility can be safeguarded against what some have taken to be the most serious of determinism's threat to it: "genuine" alternatives are non-existent in a determined world.

Fischer seeks to deflect two other alleged threats of determinism to responsibility. One "direct" argument for incompatibilism invokes some version of a transfer of non-responsibility principle. Letting p and q be variables that range over propositions, and taking 'NR( p )' to abbreviate ' p and no one is (now), or ever has been morally responsible for the fact that p ,' one incarnation of this principle says that if NR( p ), and NR(if p , then q ), then NR( q ). If determinism is true, the non-relational facts of the past and the laws entail all present and future truths. But owing to no one's being responsible for the past and the laws, and no one's being responsible for its being the case that the past and the laws entail all future events, it follows from an application of the transfer principle that no one is ever morally responsible for one's behavior. The argument is direct because, if sound, it secures the incompatibility of determinism and responsibility independently of any premise to the effect that responsibility requires alternative possibilities. Fischer, though, rejects this argument by producing counterexamples against various versions of the transfer principle. These examples are, roughly, Frankfurt cases involving simultaneous overdetermination. So, for instance, Betty may well be morally responsible for destroying an enemy camp at a certain time, but even without her scheming, an avalanche for which no one is responsible would still have destroyed the camp at that time.

A second direct argument draws on the thought that a person is responsible for something only if he is an ultimate originator of that thing. This condition attempts to capture the idea that if our actions originate in sources, such as the distant past and the natural laws, over which we lack any sort of control, then we are not responsible for these actions. In response, Fischer proposes that there are compatibilist and incompatibilist notions of ultimate origination. He argues that it is not obvious that moral responsibility requires a conception of origination that involves causal indeterminism, especially if one renounces the thesis that responsibility presupposes regulative control.

It is one thing to argue for responsibility's requiring only one-way guidance control, quite another to develop and defend a substantive account of such control. Rising to the task, Fischer (and his co-author Ravizza) propose that guidance control has two components, neither of which determinism impugns. A distinction is presupposed between the kind of "mechanism"--roughly, the type of process--that actually causally issues in the agent's behavior and other sorts of mechanism. The reasons-responsiveness component requires that the mechanism that produces the action be appropriately sensitive to reasons. The ownership component requires that the mechanism be the agent's own. Briefly put, an agent has guidance control in performing an action if and only if the action issues from his own, moderately reasons-responsive mechanism.

Moderate reasons-responsiveness consists in regular reasons-receptivity, and at least weak reasons-reactivity, of the actual-sequence mechanism that leads to action. Reasons-receptivity is the capacity to recognize the reasons that exist, and reasons-reactivity is the capacity to translate reasons into choices (and subsequent behavior). Regular reasons-receptivity involves an understandable pattern of actual and hypothetical reasons-receptivity. A mechanism of the agent that issues in the agent's performing some action in the actual world is weakly reasons-reactive if there is some possible world with the same laws in which a mechanism of this very kind is operative in the agent, there is sufficient reason to do otherwise, the agent recognizes this reason, and the agent does otherwise for this reason.

It is possible for an agent's actions to issue from a moderately reasons-responsive mechanism whose primary constituents have been induced externally by clandestine manipulation, hypnosis, brainwashing, and so forth. Intuitively, in cases of this sort the agent is not morally responsible for the pertinent actions. Such cases impel Fischer and Ravizza to theorize that the way in which the agent's springs of action are acquired has a pronounced bearing on responsibility; responsibility is, consequently, an essentially "historical" phenomenon. Fischer and Ravizza's prognosis is that in these troubling cases, the mechanism that issues in action is not the "agent's own", the agent having failed to take responsibility for it. Reasons sensitivity, thus, requires supplementation with the mechanism-ownership component to guard against causal springs being acquired in a manner that subverts responsibility.

Taking responsibility, measures by which an agent makes a mechanism "his own", involves three elements: the agent must regard himself as the source of consequences in the world by realizing that his choices have effects in the world; the agent must see himself as an appropriate candidate for morally reactive attitudes as a result of how he affects the world; and these beliefs about himself must be based on his evidence in an appropriate way.

The account of guidance control of actions is extended to guidance control of intentional omissions and the upshots of actions or omissions. Moral responsibility for all these items is, thus, "tied together by a unified deep theory" (17).

Recently, it has been argued that determinism undermines the truth of other pivotal moral judgments such as that of deontic judgments involving moral obligation, right, and wrong. One such argument that I have developed starts with the "ought" implies "can" principle: if one morally ought to [ought not to] do something, then one can do [can refrain from doing] that thing; and the principle: if it is morally wrong for one to do something, then one morally ought not to do it. These principles entail that if it is wrong for one to do something, then one can refrain from doing it. So there is a requirement of alternative possibilities for wrongness. The argument can be extended to show that there is such a requirement for obligation and rightness as well. As determinism effaces alternative possibilities, determinism threatens the truth of deontic judgments. Fischer submits that it would render his semicompatibilism--the view that determinism is incompatible with regulative control but compatible with responsibility--considerably less interesting if determinism undermined other moral appraisals such as deontic ones. Thus, Fischer challenges the sort of argument that I have sketched. He claims that various Frankfurt examples involving omissions give us reason to jettison the "ought" implies "can" principle. Suppose that in one instance of this sort of case, Sally fails to raise her hand, thereby ensuring that a child is not rescued from impending disaster. Sally is blameworthy for this omission even though, given her circumstances, she could not have raised her hand. Fischer reasons that since Sally is morally blameworthy for not raising her hand, "she acted wrongly in failing to raise her hand, and thus that she ought to have raised it" (25). But as she could not have raised it, "ought" does not imply "can."

On various "libertarian" accounts, metaphysically available alternative possibilities, or at least the assumption of such availability, are required for practical reasoning and deliberation. Skeptical of such accounts, Fischer proposes that the point of practical reasoning is not to make a difference in the sense of selecting from available alternatives, but to figure out what one has reason to do, all things considered. A rational agent wants to ensure that her choices conform to her all-things-considered-best judgment concerning what she should choose or do. Such an agent would still have this sort of aim even if she were aware that she lived in a causally determined world in which alternative possibilities were unavailable.

Finally, Fischer inquires into why we value morally responsible action. He proposes that when an agent exhibits guidance control and is thus morally responsible for his conduct, he need not be understood to be making a difference to the world; so the value of moral responsibility cannot be the value of making a difference. Rather, Fischer ventures that we conceive of the value of responsibility somewhat in the fashion in which we conceive of the value of artistic self-expression. Just as an artist's creative activity has value because, in engaging in such activity, he expresses himself in a certain way--the artist does or need not make a difference but he does make a statement--so the distinctive value in acting in such a way as to be morally responsible lies in a certain sort of self-expression. Fischer contends that life has a narrative structure in that "the meanings and values of the parts of our lives are affected by their narrative relationships with other parts of our lives, and the welfare value of our lives as a whole are not simple additive functions of the values of the parts" (116). In this sense, our lives are stories. In performing an action for which we are morally responsible, "we can be understood as writing a sentence in the book of our life" (116).

The essays in this volume, together with Fischer's other pieces, have played a major role in shaping the contemporary debate in the metaphysics of free will. Whether or not one ultimately agrees with the relevant positions that Fischer defends, one can ill afford to ignore the wealth of wisdom in the story of responsibility that Fischer carefully crafts. I confine critical attention to two of its elements.

Fischer concedes too much when he claims that his semicompatibilism would be far less engaging if determinism undermined other central moral assessments such as deontic ones. After all, the conditions of satisfaction for the truth of one species of moral judgment need not coincide with those of another species. Further, Fischer attempts to insulate the integrity of deontic judgments against determinism by appealing to the premise that if a person (like Sally) is morally blameworthy for an action, then it is morally wrong for her to perform that action. If one accepts this premise, and if determinism undermines wrongness, then determinism undermines blameworthiness. But I have argued that this premise is false. Blameworthiness requires not that an agent do wrong but that she perform an action on the basis of the belief that she is doing wrong in performing it.

What Fischer offers on the value of moral responsibility is both intriguing and puzzling. First, there is the rich ambiguity of the terms 'value' and 'valuable.' In their most fundamental senses, to value something is to be favorably disposed toward it, and something is valuable if it is good--if it is worthy of being something toward which one is favorably disposed. But it seems that this is not the sense of 'value' or of 'valuable' at issue. With free action, for instance, one might propose in response to why such action is valuable (in the strict sense) that it is intrinsically good. Fischer suggests another sense of 'value' which is more apt, given the context. He says that when an agent exhibits guidance control and is, hence, morally responsible, "it is unattractive to think that the explanation of his moral responsibility--the intuitive reason why we hold him morally responsible--is that he makes a difference to the world. Rather…he expresses himself in a certain way" (114). The proposal is that the sense of 'value' at issue is associated with an intuitive explanation of why the person is morally responsible when she is so responsible. Elaborating, Fischer writes:

[S]ome of the debates about whether alternative possibilities are required for moral responsibility may at some level be fueled by different intuitive pictures of moral responsibility. It may be that the proponents of the regulative control model are implicitly in the grip of the "making-a-difference" picture, whereas the proponents of the guidance control model are implicitly accepting the self-expression picture…. [P]resenting the self-expression picture can be helpful for the following reason. The debates about whether alternative possibilities are required for moral responsibility have issued in what some might consider stalemates; …I do not know of any decisive arguments (employing Frankfurt-type examples) for the conclusion that only guidance control, and not regulative control, is required for moral responsibility. My suggestion is that if one finds the self-expression picture of moral responsibility more compelling than the making-a-difference picture, then this should incline one toward the conclusion that guidance control exhausts the freedom-relevant component of moral responsibility. (119)

On this estimation of the significance of the self-expression picture, it is not transparent why the value of guidance control is tied to narrative value. Part of what it is to have narrative value, Fischer submits, is that the overall welfare value of one's life is not merely a function of adding up all the momentary levels of well-being. Suppose that one does not (as I do not) renounce "additiveness." Assuming that there are "atoms" of well-being, basic intrinsic value states whose sum in a life exhausts the welfare value of the life for the person who lives that life, why could it not be that self-expression is still tied in some fashion to the agent's "writing sentences" in the story of his life? Second, would shifting the focus of the debate on whether responsibility does in fact require alternative possibilities to the intuitive pictures to which Fischer calls our attention help to break the stalemate between the relevant rivals? I have my doubts. If the value of guidance control is analogous to that of artistic self-expression, one would expect libertarians to plump for the position that artistic creativity, including genuine artistic self-expression, presupposes the falsity of determinism; either such creativity or self-expression requires the sort of authorship or ultimate origination that determinism precludes or it requires indeterministic causation of the constellation of behavior constitutive of such creativity or self-expression.

Essay on Moral Values And Ethics

Students are often asked to write an essay on Moral Values And Ethics in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Moral Values And Ethics

What are moral values.

Moral values are the rules that tell us what is right and wrong. They guide us to be good people. Think of them as the signposts that help us choose the right path in life. Examples include being honest, kind, and respectful to others.

Understanding Ethics

Ethics is like a big umbrella that covers all our moral values. It’s a set of principles that societies and people follow. Ethics help us decide what we should do in tough situations and how to live with other people peacefully.

Why They Matter

Moral values and ethics are important because they create harmony. When everyone follows the same good rules, we can trust and help each other. This makes our families, schools, and communities better places to live.

Learning and Living Them

We learn moral values from our families, schools, and friends. It’s not enough to just know them; we must also act on them. When we live by good values and ethics, we make the world a nicer place for everyone.

250 Words Essay on Moral Values And Ethics

Understanding moral values and ethics.

Moral values are the standards we use to judge what is right and wrong. They are like invisible rules that guide our behavior. Ethics is a bit like a tree that grows from these values, giving us a way to think and talk about how we should act in different situations.

Why Moral Values Matter

Moral values are important because they help us live together in peace. They are like the glue that holds society together. For example, being honest means people can trust each other. Being kind means that we help each other out. When everyone follows these values, it makes the world a better place.

Learning About Ethics

Ethics is all about asking questions like, “What should I do?” or “Is this fair?” It helps us look at our choices and decide if they match our moral values. It’s like having a conversation with ourselves about what is the best thing to do.

Moral Values in Our Lives

We use moral values and ethics every day without even knowing it. When we share our toys, that’s being generous. When we tell the truth, even if we might get in trouble, that’s being honest. These choices shape the kind of person we become.

Moral values and ethics are very important. They are the tools we use to make good decisions and to live well with others. By understanding and using them, we can make sure that we do what is right and good for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Moral Values And Ethics

Moral values are the standards of good and bad, which guide our actions and decisions. They are like invisible rules that tell us how to behave in different situations. For example, being honest, kind, and respectful are all moral values. These values help us live together in peace and make sure we treat each other fairly.

Ethics is like a big tree that has moral values as its leaves. It is the study of what is right and wrong in how we act and live. Ethics helps us decide what we should do in tough situations. It’s like having a wise friend inside our heads, helping us choose the best path when we’re confused.

Why Moral Values and Ethics Are Important

Moral values and ethics are important because they keep society running smoothly. Imagine a world where no one cared about right and wrong. It would be full of chaos and sadness. That’s why we need moral values and ethics. They make sure we help each other, share, and live in a world where people can trust one another.

How We Learn Moral Values

We learn moral values from our families, schools, and the world around us. When we are young, our parents teach us to say “please” and “thank you,” which are parts of being polite. Schools teach us about being fair and not cheating on tests. We also see moral values in action when we watch our favorite heroes in stories do the right thing, even when it’s hard.

Moral Values in Daily Life

Every day, we use moral values without even thinking about it. When we wait for our turn in a game, we are being patient. When we tell the truth, even if we might get in trouble, we are being honest. These small actions are the building blocks of a kind and fair world.

Challenges to Moral Values and Ethics

Sometimes, it’s hard to stick to our moral values and ethics. We might be tempted to lie to get out of trouble or to be selfish and not share. That’s why it’s important to practice being good, just like we practice a sport or an instrument, so that when things get tough, we know what to do.

Moral values and ethics are like the secret ingredients that make our lives better. They help us know how to act, make tough choices, and live in a world where people care about each other. By learning and practicing these values, we can all help make the world a nicer place to live. Remember, every time we choose to do the right thing, we are spreading goodness in the world, just like planting seeds that grow into beautiful trees.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Festival Experience
Essay on Field Trip To Museum
Essay on Financial Aid

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

What is Ethics?

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
Ethics Resources
Ethical Decision Making

Ethics is based on well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.

Some years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart asked business people, "What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following:

"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong." "Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs." "Being ethical is doing what the law requires." "Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts." "I don't know what the word means."

These replies might be typical of our own. The meaning of "ethics" is hard to pin down, and the views many people have about ethics are shaky.

Like Baumhart's first respondent, many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the devout religious person. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the old apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.

Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever society accepts," then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.

What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.

Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics IIE V1 N1 (Fall 1987). Revised in 2010.

Lesson 2: Moral & Non-Moral Standards

Intended learning outcome.

Distinguish between moral and non-moral standards

Preparation

Introduction:

We often hear the terms "moral standards" and "non-moral standards What do these refer to? What about the word "immoral" Is there such a thing as immoral standards? Is immoral synonymous with non-moral" Let's find this out in this Lesson

Classify the following into groups: moral standards and non-moral standards.

No talking while your mouth is full.

Do not lie

Wear black or white for mourning; never red.

The males should be the one to propose marriage not females.

Don't steal

Observe correct grammar when writing and speaking English.

Submit school requirements on time.

If you are a male, stay by the danger side (roadside) when walking with a female.

Go with the fashion or you are not in.

Don't cheat others.

Don't kill

When you speak pronounce words correctly.

Focus the microscope properly

Maintain a 36-24-36 body figure.

1. Analyze your groupings. Why do you classify one group a standards and another as non-moral standards?

2. What is common to those listed under moral standards

3. What is common to the list of non-moral standards?

Presentation

Ethymology and Meaning of Ethics

The term "ethics" comes from the Greek word "ethos" means "custom" used in the works of Aristotle, while the term "moral" is the Latin equivalent. Based on the Greek and Latin etymology of the word "ethics," ethics deals with morality. When the Roman orator Cicero exclaimed, tempora o mores" (Cicero, 1856) (Oh, what time and what morals), he may have been trying to express dismay of the morality of his time.

Ethics or moral philosophy , is a branch of philosophy which deals with moral standards, inquires about the rightness or wrongness of human behavior or the goodness or badness of personality, trait or character. It deals with ideas, with topics such as moral standards or norms of morality conscience, moral values and virtues. Ethics is a study of the morality of human acts and moral agents, what makes an act obligatory and w makes a person accountable.

"Moral" is the adjective describing a human act as either Right or Wrong. or qualifying a person, personality, character, as either ethically good or bad.

Moral Standards or Moral Frameworks and Non-Moral Standards

Since ethics is a study of moral standards, then the first question for the course is, what are moral standards. The following are supposed be examples of moral standards "Stealing is wrong." "Killing is wrong "Telling lies is wrong." "Adultery is wrong" "Environment preservation is the right thing to do". "Freedom with responsibility is the right way "Giving what is due to others is justice". Hence, moral standards are norms or prescriptions that serve as the frameworks for determining what ought be done or what is right or wrong action, what is good or bad character.

In the Activity phase of this Lesson the following can be classified as moral standards:

Don't cheat others

Moral standards are either consequences standards (like Stuart Mill's utilitarianism) or non-consequence standards (like Aristotle's virtue, St Thomas' natural law. or Immanuel Kant' good will or sense of duty) The consequence standards depend on results, outcome An act that results in the general welfare, in the greatest good of the greatest number, is moral. To take part in a project that results in the improvement of the majority of people is, therefore. moral.

The non-consequence standards are based on the natural law Natural law is the law of God revealed through human reason lt is the "law of God written in the hearts of men" To preserve human life is in accordance with the natural law. therefore it is moral. Likewise, the non-consequence standard may also be based on good will or intention. and on a sense of duty. Respect for humanity, treatment of the other as a human person, an act that is moral. springs from a sense of duty, a sense of duty that you wish will apply to all human persons.

On the other hand, non-moral standards are social rules, demands non-moral of etiquette and good manners. They are guides of action which should be followed as expected by society. Sometimes they may not be followed or some people may not follow them. From time to time, changes are made regarding good manners or etiquette. In sociology, non-moral standards or rules are called folkways. In short, non-moral actions are those where moral categories cannot be applied.

Examples of non-moral standards are rules of good manners and right conduct, etiquette, rules of behavior set by parents, teachers, and standards of grammar or language, standards of art, and standards of sports set by other authorities. Examples are "do not eat with your mouth open;" "observe rules of grammar," and "do not wear socks that don't match."

In the Activity phase of this Lesson, the following are non-moral standards:

No talking while your mouth is full.

Wear black or white for mourning; never red.

The males should be the one to propose marriage not females

Observe correct grammar when writing and speaking English.

If you are a male, stay by the danger side (roadside) when walking with a female.

Go with the fashion or you are not "in."

When you speak pronounce words correctly.

Focus the microscope properly.

Maintain a good body figure.

An indicator whether or not a standard is moral or non-moral lies in it compliance as distinguished from it's non-compliance. Non-compliance with moral standards causes sense of guilt, while on- compliance with a non-moral standard may only cause shame and embarrassment.

Classification of the Theories of Moral Standards

Garner and Rosen (1967) classified the various moral standard formulated by moral philosophers as follows: 1) Consequence (teleological, from tele which means end, result, or consequence) standard states than act is right or wrong depending on the consequences of the act, that is the good that is produced in the world . Will it do you good if you go school the answer is right, because you learn how to read and write then gong to school is right. The consequence standard can also be a bass for determining whether or not a rule is a right rule. So the consequence standard states that the rightness or wrongness of a rule depends on the consequences or the good that is produced in following the rule. For instance, if everyone follows the rule of a game, everyone will enjoy playing the game. This good consequence proves the rule must be a correct rule. 2) Not-only-consequence standard (deontological), holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action or rule depends on sense of duty, natural law, virtue and the demand of the situation or circumstances. The rightness or wrongness of an action does not only depend or rely on the consequence of that action or following that rule.

Natural law and virtue ethics are deontological moral standards because their basis for determining what is right or wrong does not depend on consequences but on the natural law and virtue. Situation ethics, too, is deontological because the rightness or wrongness of an act depends the situation and circumstances requiring or demanding exception to rule.

Rosen and Garner are inclined to consider deontology , be it rule or act deontology. as the better moral standard because it synthesizes includes all the other theory of norms. Under this theory, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on (or is a function of) all the following: a) consequences of an action or rule, what promotes one's greatest go or the greatest good of the greatest number; b) consideration other than consequences like the obligatoriness or the act based on natural law, or its being one's duty, or its promoting an ideal virtue. Deontology also considers the object, purpose, and circumstances or situation of the moral issue or dilemma.

All these moral standards or ethical frameworks will be dealt with more in detail in Chapter IV of this book.

What Makes Standards Moral?

The question means what obliges us to follow a moral standard? For theists, believers in God's existence, moral standards are commandments were revealed by God to Moses. One who believes in God vows to Him and obliges himself herself to follow His Ten Commandments For theists, God is the ultimate source of what is moral to human persons revealed to human persons.

How about non theists? For non-theists, God is not the source of morality. Moral standards are based on the wisdom of sages like Confucius or philosophers like Immanuel Kant.

In China. C Confucius taught the moral standard. "Do unto others what you like others to do unto you" and persuaded people to follow this rule because it is the right way, the gentleman's way. Later, Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, formulated a criterion for determining what makes a moral standard moral. It is stated as follows: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (1993) In other words, if a maxim or standard cannot pass this test, it cannot be a moral standard. For instance, does the maxim "Stealing is wrong" pass this test' Can one will that this maxim be a universal maxim? The answer is in the affirmative. The opposite of the maxim would not be acceptable. Moral standards are standards that we want to be followed by all, otherwise, one would be wishing one's own ill fortune. Can you wish "do not kill to be a universal maxim" The answer has to be yes because if you say "no" then you are not objecting to someone killing you. Thus, the universal necessity of the maxim, what makes it a categorical imperative is what makes it obligatory. "Stealing is wrong" means "one ought not steal and "Do not kill means "one ought not kill." It is one's obligation not to steal or kill. Ultimately, the obligation arises from the need of self-preservation .

The Origin of Moral Standards: Theist and Non-Theist

Related to the question of what makes moral standards moral is how do moral standards arise or come into existence? A lot of new attempts to explain the origins of morality or moral standards have been made.

The theistic line of thought states moral standards are of divine origin while 20th century thinkers claim state that they simply evolved. The issue is: Are moral standards derived from God, communicated to man through signs of revelation, or did they arise in the course of man's evolution?

With the Divine source concept, moral standards are derived from natural law, man's "participation" in the Divine law. The moral principle, Do good and avoid evil" is an expression of natural law. Man's obliging himself to respect the life, liberty, and property of his fellowman arises from the God-given sacredness, spirituality, and dignity of his fellow man. It arises from his faith, hope. and love of God and man.

With the evolutionary concept, the basics of moral standards- do good and avoid evil - have been observed among primates and must have are of have evolved as the process of evolution followed its course.

Are these theist and non-theist (evolutionary) origin of moral standards reconcilable? The evolutionist claims that altruism, a sense of morality, can be observed from man's fellow primates-the apes and monkeys and, therefore it can be said that the altruism of human persons evolved from the primates. However, the evolutionist cannot satisfactorily argue, with factual evidence. that the rudiments of moral standards can be observed from the primates. Neither can it be scientifically established that the theist view that man's obliging himself to avoid evil, refrain from inflicting harm on his fellowman, is a moral principle implanted by God in the hearts of men. But the concept of creation and evolution are not necessarily contradictory. The revelation of the norms of Divine origin could not have been instant, like a happening "in one fell swoop." It could have happened gradually as man evolved to differ from the other primates. As the evolutionists claim creation may be conceived as a process of evolution story of creation could have happened in billions of years instead of six days.

1. Here are the two questions:

a) Can one eat while praying?

b) Can one pray while eating?

Which is a moral question? Which is a non-moral question?

2. I did not dress appropriately formally for a formal party. Which did I fail to observe? Moral or non- moral standard?

3. Lady B dressed indecently to expose her body. Which did she violate moral or non-moral standard?

4 In Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamasov, Ivan Karamasovone asserted the famous line, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted,"

a) How does this relate to our lesson on source of moral standards? Based on this line, what is the source of moral standards?

b)The deeper and stronger one's faith in God is the deeper and stronger is his her morality. Is this an implication of this quoted line?

c)Using your knowledge of logic. what will be the continuation of Karamasov's syllogism?

Performance

CHECK FOR UNDERSTANDING

Distinguish moral and standards and non-moral standards.

Does belief in God strengthen a person to be moral? Explain your answer.

It is more difficult to do only that which is moral than to do anything you want to do. But you keep on striving to do only that which is moral, anyway. What makes you strive to do only that which is moral even if difficult? Write your reflections.

Non-moral standards originate from social rules, demands of etiquette and good manners. They are guides of action which should be followed as expected by society.

Moral standards are based on the natural law, the consequence of one's actions and sense of duty.

Moral standards are based on natural law, the law of God revealed through human reason or the " law of God written in the hearts of men."

Moral standards are based on consequences standards. That which leads to a good consequence or result like the greatest good of the greatest number is what is moral.

Moral standards are based also on non-consequence standards or sense of duty that you wish would be followed by all. Respect for humanity, treatment of the other as a human person, an act that is moral, springs from a sense of duty, a sense of duty that you wish is wished by all and applies to all human persons.

For theists, the origin of moral standards is God who "wrote his law in the heart of every person", the natural law. For non-theists, the origin of moral standards is the moral frameworks formulated by philosophers like Confucius, Immanuel Kant, Stuart Mill, et al.

The evolutionist claims that the sense of moral standards must have evolved with man not something that was implanted in every human person instantly at the moment of creation. Creation as a process may have taken place not only in 6 days as the creationist claims but in billions of years as the evolutionist asserts.

For the theists, belief in God strengthens them to be moral.

Back to Chapter 1

Skip to primary navigation
Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar

Student Essays

Essays-Paragraphs-Speeches

Essay on Moral Values | Importance of Moral Values & Ethics in Life

Essay on Moral Values For Children & Students

Introduction

Moral values means set of principles and rules which guide a person to differentiate between right and wrong.

Some of the great moral values include honesty, freedom, charity, courage, respect, care, sincerity and justice. A person’s character is mostly determined by the moral values that he possess.

Meaning of Moral Values

Moral values means personal believes of an individual about what is right and what is wrong. When we face dilemmas or problems then the decisions we make show what moral values we hold.

Sometimes, people face certain situations that it becomes difficult for them to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate answers. Moral values are something that set a standard for a person to understand what action is right and what is wrong.

Our moral values have been set by our religion. There are certain rules set by every religion according to which a believer should live.

We also get moral values from the cultures or traditions of our society and also from the laws defined by government.

Importance of Moral Values in Life

The way a person prioritizes moral values depends on his up bringing. Parents have the responsibility to teach good manners and values to their children since childhood so that they develop these habits in their later life too.

When a person lives by moral values since childhood, then these values become a part of his life. These values help him to live a righteous life that does not include any wrong act. He can get peace of mind when we he is good in his actions.

When we meet someone in real life, the first thing that they observe is our moral values. When we are confronted with certain situations or circumstances then the decisions, we make during this time shows what values we have learned.

If we do not have moral values, we will not be able to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. If we have moral values then we will have confidence to deal with any situation calmly and confidently.

Loss of moral values means loss of individual’s personality. Without moral values, he will be of no worth. He must learn to treat others with same values with which he wishes to be treated.A person who lacks moral values is not respected by anyone.

People always give respect to that person who maintains his moral values. They avoid the company of that person who is not good in his manners. On the other hand, a person who knows his moral values is respected by everyone.These values are the key to make a good bond with people.

Moral values play an important role in the progress of a country. People who are honest, loyal, hardworking and disciplined always work with more dedication for the progress of their country.

They are an asset to this society because they are strong enough to deal with any tough situation because they believe in patience.

These moral values define the way a person lives. If a person knows his moral values and then he will get guidance to make a foundation of his life.

Related Post : Self Confidence Essay For Children & Students

These values will keep him away from distractions and negativity. The positive feelings will encourage him to make his own choices and get the privilege to alter his life for a better future.

It is very important to impart importance of moral values in children so that they can become a better citizen.

If we want a society that is free from crimes, lies and dishonesty then we should learn the practice the moral values that are preached by our religion.

Reader Interactions

Business Ethics and Corporate Governance, Second Edition by

Get full access to Business Ethics and Corporate Governance, Second Edition and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.

There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.

HOW ARE MORAL STANDARDS FORMED?

There are some moral standards that many of us share in our conduct in society. These moral standards are influenced by a variety of factors such as the moral principles we accept as part of our upbringing, values passed on to us through heritage and legacy, the religious values that we have imbibed from childhood, the values that were showcased during the period of our education, the behaviour pattern of those who are around us, the explicit and implicit standards of our culture, our life experiences and more importantly, our critical reflections on these experiences. Moral standards concern behaviour which is very closely linked to human well-being. These standards also take priority over non-moral standards, ...

Get Business Ethics and Corporate Governance, Second Edition now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.

Don’t leave empty-handed

Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.

Moral standards Essay (1033 words)

Academic anxiety?

Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

124 experts online

Ethics are moral principles or values that specify acceptable conduct, and determine how an institution will be governed. According to Shanahan and Wang, in their book Reason and Insight, the subject of ethics is morality, which is concerned with the practices, judgments, principles, and beliefs that guide peoples actions.

It attempts to address the issue of how we ought to live. Many people have different values that guide their lives, but some of these values are better supported than others. Since people have different morals and values, it is important to distinguish between cultural and moral relativism. First, I will explain the difference between moral and cultural relativism.

Next, I will indicate the claims that are supposed to follow from cultural relativism. Then I will explain one of the claims and show Shanahan and Wangs argument against this claim. Lastly, I will show why Shanahan and Wangs argument for this claim are true, and why I accept it. We grow up in a social atmosphere that tells us what is right and wrong. If our own personal morality is different from another cultures, we tend to believe that they are wrong, and our cultural views of morality hold more merit. Societies, in general, must adhere to certain core values for them to exist.

However, not all societies value the same morals. With this in mind, moral relativism is the theory that all moral perspectives are equally acceptable. What may be acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another, and neither is objectively right. Cultural relativism ascertains that moral standards differ from one culture to the next. It says that good and bad are relative to culture.

What is good is what is socially approved in a given culture. Cultural relativism holds that good means what is socially approved by the majority in a given culture. This means that anyone who is born into a particular culture is expected to follow the moral codes of that culture because they were already in existence. In addition, cultural relativism states that there are different ways of applying basic ethical principles from one culture to the next. Given that moral standards differ from one culture to the next, a number of claims are supposed to follow from cultural relativism.

The first claim states that there are no universal or general moral principles common to all, or most cultures. The second claim states that there is no objective, culturally independent standard by which to judge the moral code of any culture. The last claim states that the moral code or each culture determines what is right and wrong for the members of that culture. The first claim assumes the fact that there are no universally agreed upon moral truths.

This means each culture decides for itself what is morally accepted in that given culture. Therefore, each culture differs in their ethical principles, and has their own set of guidelines that they must follow in order to be to be considered virtuous in their culture. Since cultures have different moral codes, this is the foundation for the claim that there is no universally agreed upon set of moral judgments, because if there were every culture would be practicing them. The first argument assumes the fact that there are no universally agreed upon moral truths.

According to Shanahan and Wang, there are, however, many universal moral truths that all cultures value to be important. They believe that there is the presence of diversity among different cultures moral codes, but it doesnt mean that there are no moral principles common across most cultures. Shanahan and Wang state, The ethical diversity among cultures may be at a fairly high level and may be grounded on more basic moral principles that cultures have in common. They go on by explaining how basketball, baseball, and football are completely diverse sports, yet there are a set of common underlying principles that each take on. Some of these include, not hiring assassins to take out members of the other team, not using explosives devices, and not to using force on an officials head if he makes a wrong call. Even though the rules are different in each sport, these basic principles are common to all sports, and allow them to exist.

Furthermore, Shanahan and Wang believe that there are universally agreed upon set of moral judgments that sometimes are overlooked by overstressing diversity at the expense of communality. Shanahan and Wangs argument against the first claim There are universal moral truths that all cultures deem important or else they wouldnt exist. For example, many most cultures value honesty and prohibition of murder. Obviously, these values can be broken based on given situations, but these exceptions would depend on the situation. A society that allows murdering and lying would be shortly lived.

Moral relativism allows for the possibility that something could be morally right in one society, but morally wrong in another. Moral relativism takes tolerance and acceptance to an extreme, which is its Achilles heel. It is not possible for something to be right and wrong at the same time, but moral relativism allows for the possibility of this to be the case. The variance in moral belief in a society is often portrayed to be greater than it actually is. For example, leaving a newborn baby in the snow to die, as the Eskimos often do, is entirely unacceptable in our society.

However, it is not that they believe that murder is morally acceptable, but instead that they value the importance of the tribe over the individual. This varies little from ones held in this country. America sending its troops to foreign land is an example. America is willing to sacrifice some to save the whole.

The Eskimo tribe would be in danger of starvation at times if they kept every baby girl. The young boys are not sacrificed because they are needed to hunt and provide for the rest of the tribe when they grow older. In this way, the perceived differences in culture may not be as different as they seem on the surface. Just because cultures have different practices, it doesnt mean that they dont have common ethical principles. Bibliography:

This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly . Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

Need custom essay sample written special for your assignment?

Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

Moral standards Essay (1033 words). (2019, Jan 19). Retrieved from https://artscolumbia.org/moral-standards-essay-72147/

More related essays

Tolerance in Lens of Universalism and Social Relativist

Pitfalls Of Relativism Essay (2272 words)

Philosophical Ethics versus Professional Accounting Ethics Essay

A Discussion of Cultural Relativism

Dont Know Essay

Absolutism And Relativism Essay

Strategic Leadership and Decision-Making: Ethics and Values Essay

Words 15854

AP Art History 250 Required Images

Drawing on Appropriate Theory & Examples Essay

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Teachers are using AI to grade essays. But some experts are raising ethical concerns

W hen Diane Gayeski, a professor of strategic communications at Ithaca College, receives an essay from one of her students, she runs part of it through ChatGPT, asking the AI tool to critique and suggest how to improve the work.

“The best way to look at AI for grading is as a teaching assistant or research assistant who might do a first pass … and it does a pretty good job at that,” she told CNN.

She shows her students the feedback from ChatGPT and how the tool rewrote their essay. “I’ll share what I think about their intro, too, and we’ll talk about it,” she said.

Gayeski requires her class of 15 students to do the same: run their draft through ChatGPT to see where they can make improvements.

The emergence of AI is reshaping education, presenting real benefits, such as automating some tasks to free up time for more personalized instruction, but also some big hazards, from issues around accuracy and plagiarism to maintaining integrity.

Both teachers and students are using the new technology. A report by strategy consultant firm Tyton Partners, sponsored by plagiarism detection platform Turnitin, found half of college students used AI tools in Fall 2023. Meanwhile, while fewer faculty members used AI, the percentage grew to 22% of faculty members in the fall of 2023, up from 9% in spring 2023.

Teachers are turning to AI tools and platforms — such as ChatGPT, Writable, Grammarly and EssayGrader — to assist with grading papers, writing feedback, developing lesson plans and creating assignments. They’re also using the burgeoning tools to create quizzes, polls, videos and interactives to up the ante” for what’s expected in the classroom.

Students, on the other hand, are leaning on tools such as ChatGPT and Microsoft CoPilot — which is built into Word, PowerPoint and other products.

But while some schools have formed policies on how students can or can’t use AI for schoolwork, many do not have guidelines for teachers. The practice of using AI for writing feedback or grading assignments also raises ethical considerations. And parents and students who are already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on tuition may wonder if an endless feedback loop of AI-generated and AI-graded content in college is worth the time and money.

“If teachers use it solely to grade, and the students are using it solely to produce a final product, it’s not going to work,” said Gayeski.

The time and place for AI

How teachers use AI depends on many factors, particularly when it comes to grading, according to Dorothy Leidner, a professor of business ethics at the University of Virginia. If the material being tested in a large class is largely declarative knowledge — so there is a clear right and wrong — then a teacher grading using the AI “might be even superior to human grading,” she told CNN.

AI would allow teachers to grade papers faster and more consistently and avoid fatigue or boredoms, she said.

But Leidner noted when it comes to smaller classes or assignments with less definitive answers, grading should remain personalized so teachers can provide more specific feedback and get to know a student’s work, and, therefore, progress over time.

“A teacher should be responsible for grading but can give some responsibility to the AI,” she said.

She suggested teachers use AI to look at certain metrics — such as structure, language use and grammar — and give a numerical score on those figures. But teachers should then grade students’ work themselves when looking for novelty, creativity and depth of insight.

Leslie Layne, who has been teaching ChatGPT best practices in her writing workshop at the University of Lynchburg in Virginia, said she sees the advantages for teachers but also sees drawbacks.

“Using feedback that is not truly from me seems like it is shortchanging that relationship a little,” she said.

She also sees uploading a student’s work to ChatGPT as a “huge ethical consideration” and potentially a breach of their intellectual property. AI tools like ChatGPT use such entries to train their algorithms on everything from patterns of speech to how to make sentences to facts and figures.

Ethics professor Leidner agreed, saying this should particularly be avoided for doctoral dissertations and master’s theses because the student might hope to publish the work.

“It would not be right to upload the material into the AI without making the students aware of this in advance,” she said. “And maybe students should need to provide consent.”

Some teachers are leaning on software called Writable that uses ChatGPT to help grade papers but is “tokenized,” so essays do not include any personal information, and it’s not shared directly with the system.

Teachers upload essays to the platform, which was recently acquired by education company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which then provides suggested feedback for students.

Other educators are using platforms such as  Turnitin  that boast plagiarism detection tools to help teachers identify when assignments are written by ChatGPT and other AI. But these types of detection tools are far from foolproof; OpenAI shut down its own AI-detection tool last year due to what the company called a “low rate of accuracy.”

Setting standards

Some schools are actively working on policies for both teachers and students. Alan Reid, a research associate in the Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE) at Johns Hopkins University, said he recently spent time working with K-12 educators who use GPT tools to create end-of-quarter personalized comments on report cards.

But like Layne, he acknowledged the technology’s ability to write insightful feedback remains “limited.”

He currently sits on a committee at his college that’s authoring an AI policy for faculty and staff; discussions are ongoing, not just for how teachers use AI in the classroom but how it’s used by educators in general.

He acknowledges schools are having conversations about using generative AI tools to create things like promotion and tenure files, performance reviews, and job postings.”

Nicolas Frank, an associate professor of philosophy at University of Lynchburg, said universities and professors need to be on the same page when it comes to policies but need to stay cautious .

“There is a lot of danger in making policies about AI at this stage,” he said.

He worries it’s still too early to understand how AI will be integrated into everyday life. He is also concerned that some administrators who don’t teach in classrooms may craft policy that misses nuances of instruction.

“That may create a danger of oversimplifying the problems with AI use in grading and instruction,” he said. “Oversimplification is how bad policy is made.”

To start, he said educators can identify clear abuses of AI and begin policy-making around those.

Leidner, meanwhile, said universities can be very high level with their guidance, such as making transparency a priority — so students have a right to know when AI is being used to grade their work — and identifying what types of information should never be uploaded into an AI or asked of an AI.

But she said universities must also be open to “regularly reevaluating as the technology and uses evolve.”

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

Leslie Layne teaches her students how to best use ChatGPT but takes issue with how some educators are using it to grade papers. - Courtesy Leslie Layne

IMAGES

Essay on Ethics for All
Five characteristics of moral standards.pptx
Sample essay on ethics
Moral Values Essay
College essay: Morals essay
Ethical Standards in Criminal System Essay Example

VIDEO

POWA Asks Parents To Give Priority To Moral Upbringing
10 Difference Between Morals and Morale (With Table)
Possessive Adjective
10 Lines Essay on Moral Values//English Essay/Moral Values
Top 5 Ai tools for academic research
Paragraph on Moral Erosion

COMMENTS

Essay on Moral Values: 8 Selected Essays on Moral Values
Society plays a big role in influencing moral values of individuals. Moral values are a set of principles that enable an individual to distinguish between the proper and improper things or right versus wrong. The moral values that are highly valued in the society are integrity, honesty, loyalty, respect and hard work.
Morality: Definition, Formation, and Examples of Morals
Morality refers to the set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. It's what societies determine to be "right" and "acceptable.". Sometimes, acting in a moral manner means individuals must sacrifice their own short-term interests to benefit society.
Moral Standard versus Non-Moral Standard
Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being. Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard says "Do not harm innocent people" or "Don't steal", a non-moral standard says "Don't text while driving" or "Don't talk while the mouth is full".
My Moral Values: A Personal Reflective Essay Example
My Moral Values. My moral values have been largely influenced by my family upbringing, that is, what my parents taught me while growing up and my strong Christian faith. In addition to this, however, there is considerable contribution from my education, personal experience, my appreciation of how government works and cultural integration in our ...
The Variety of Values: Essays on Morality, Meaning, and Love
Few essays evoke the same enthusiastic praise for their combination of rigorous reasoning, elegant writing style and influential thesis as Susan Wolf's "Moral Saints." [1] Its placement as the inaugural piece in this collection allows one to see that it is not only chronologically but also conceptually prior to Wolf's subsequent essays.
Moral Responsibility
The possibility that moral competence—the ability to recognize and respond to moral considerations—is a condition on moral responsibility has been suggested at several points above (§2.2.1, §2.2.2, §2.3, §3.1.1, §3.1.2). Susan Wolf's (1987) fictional story of "JoJo" is one of the best-known illustrations of this proposal.
Moral Principles: Types and Examples of Each
Types of Moral Principles. There are two types of moral principles: absolute and relative. Absolute principles are unchanging and universal. They are based on universal truths about the nature of human beings. For example, murder is wrong because it goes against the natural order of things. These are also sometimes called normative moral ...
Ethics
The term ethics may refer to the philosophical study of the concepts of moral right and wrong and moral good and bad, to any philosophical theory of what is morally right and wrong or morally good and bad, and to any system or code of moral rules, principles, or values. The last may be associated with particular religions, cultures, professions, or virtually any other group that is at least ...
Kant's Moral Philosophy
1. Aims and Methods of Moral Philosophy. The most basic aim of moral philosophy, and so also of the Groundwork, is, in Kant's view, to "seek out" the foundational principle of a "metaphysics of morals," which Kant understands as a system of a priori moral principles that apply the CI to human persons in all times and cultures. Kant pursues this project through the first two chapters ...
The Definition of Morality
The topic of this entry is not—at least directly—moral theory; rather, it is the definition of morality.Moral theories are large and complex things; definitions are not. The question of the definition of morality is the question of identifying the target of moral theorizing. Identifying this target enables us to see different moral theories as attempting to capture the very same thing.
Ethics and Morality
Morality, Ethics, Evil, Greed. To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person's choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the ...
500+ Essay on Moral Values
Essay on Moral Values talks about why one should inherit good values. Moral values are specific principles like ethics, behavioural practices, goals, and habits that are validated by society. These values guide an individual through life and help them choose between right and wrong. It helps a person learn to make the right decisions and judgements that benefit themselves and others.
My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility
Moral responsibility has a number of requirements including a control (or freedom), an "authenticity" (or ownership), and an epistemic requirement. The twelve highly insightful and commandingly influential essays in My Way largely address one or more aspects of the first two requirements. The introductory essay is new; the remaining eleven ...
The Psychology of Morality: A Review and Analysis of Empirical Studies
Morality indicates what is the "right" and "wrong" way to behave, for instance, that one should be fair and not unfair to others (Haidt & Kesebir, 2010).This is considered of interest to explain the social behavior of individuals living together in groups ().Results from animal studies (e.g., de Waal, 1996) or insights into universal justice principles (e.g., Greenberg & Cropanzano ...
Essay on Moral Values And Ethics
250 Words Essay on Moral Values And Ethics Understanding Moral Values and Ethics. Moral values are the standards we use to judge what is right and wrong. They are like invisible rules that guide our behavior. Ethics is a bit like a tree that grows from these values, giving us a way to think and talk about how we should act in different situations.
What is Ethics?
First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and ...
GEC-Ethics
Ethics is a study of the morality of human acts and moral agents, what makes an act obligatory and w makes a person accountable. "Moral" is the adjective describing a human act as either Right or Wrong. or qualifying a person, personality, character, as either ethically good or bad. Moral Standards or Moral Frameworks and Non-Moral Standards.
Essay on Moral Values
Introduction. Moral values means set of principles and rules which guide a person to differentiate between right and wrong. Some of the great moral values include honesty, freedom, charity, courage, respect, care, sincerity and justice. A person's character is mostly determined by the moral values that he possess.
Moral Standard
Moral Standard. A moral standard refers to the norms which we have about the types of actions which we believe to be morally acceptable and morally unacceptable. Specifically, moral standards deal with matters which can either seriously harm or seriously benefit human beings. The validity of moral standards comes from the line of reasoning that ...
Ethical And Moral Standards Philosophy Essay
Ethical And Moral Standards Philosophy Essay. I think we can define ethical and moral standards as guidelines for an ethical and moral behavior. And in its turn, ethical and moral behavior of a person (or a group) can be defined as a way of interaction with a society which is the least disturbing, or better, pleasing to the other members of a ...
How Are Moral Standards Formed?
HOW ARE MORAL STANDARDS FORMED? There are some moral standards that many of us share in our conduct in society. These moral standards are influenced by a variety of factors such as the moral principles we accept as part of our upbringing, values passed on to us through heritage and legacy, the religious values that we have imbibed from childhood, the values that were showcased during the ...
Reflection Paper On Moral Standards
Reflection Paper On Moral Standards. 799 Words4 Pages. Manoriña, Gladys U. BSAcT-4 MW 3:00-4:30 PM REFLECTION PAPER There are several different businesses sprouting every year in provinces, cities and every corner of the streets. Factories, gigantic buildings, resorts, convenience stores, cafes and the list goes on can be seen anywhere.
Moral standards Essay (1033 words)
Moral standards Essay (1033 words) Ethics are moral principles or values that specify acceptable conduct, and determine how an institution will be governed. According to Shanahan and Wang, in their book Reason and Insight, the subject of ethics is morality, which is concerned with the practices, judgments, principles, and beliefs that guide ...
Teachers are using AI to grade essays. But some experts are ...
Teachers are turning to AI tools and platforms — such as ChatGPT, Writable, Grammarly and EssayGrader — to assist with grading papers, writing feedback, developing lesson plans and creating ...
Mala In Se Crimes
Essay Example: Crimes categorized as mala in se, a phrase carrying a lyrical essence with its Latin origin, denote offenses inherently condemned by societal and moral standards. This concept, deeply ingrained in legal doctrine and ethical philosophy, pertains to acts so intrinsically malevolent

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Moral Values

No comments yet.

Billionaires

Book Summaries

Digital Marketing

Internet Marketing

Law of Attraction

Law of Vibration

Motivational Speakers

Productivity

Relationship

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Social Media

Website Development

Privacy Overview

Moral Standard versus Non-Moral Standard

My Moral Values

What determines a person’s moral values?

Essay Writing Tips

Essay Topics

Popular Posts

Types of Moral Principles and Examples of Each

History of Moral Principles

Types of Moral Principles

Morals Examples

How to Adhere to Moral Principles

Impact of Moral Principles

Tips to Develop Good Moral Principles

Pitfalls of Moral Principles

A Word From Verywell

Bibliography

The Definition of Morality

1. Is Morality Unified Enough to Define?

5. Variations

Support SEP

Ethics and Morality

Essay on Moral Values

Importance of Moral Values

Values Must Be Imbibed

Ethics Must Be Followed

The Role of Parents and Teachers

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility

Essay on Moral Values And Ethics

100 Words Essay on Moral Values And Ethics

Understanding Ethics

Why They Matter

Learning and Living Them

250 Words Essay on Moral Values And Ethics

Why Moral Values Matter

Learning About Ethics

Moral Values in Our Lives

500 Words Essay on Moral Values And Ethics

Why Moral Values and Ethics Are Important

How We Learn Moral Values

Moral Values in Daily Life

Challenges to Moral Values and Ethics

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

What is Ethics?

Lesson 2: Moral & Non-Moral Standards

Preparation

Presentation

Performance

Essay on Moral Values | Importance of Moral Values & Ethics in Life

Essay on Moral Values For Children & Students

Meaning of Moral Values

Importance of Moral Values in Life

Related Posts:

Reader Interactions

Business Ethics and Corporate Governance, Second Edition by

HOW ARE MORAL STANDARDS FORMED?

Don’t leave empty-handed

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Related Topics

Moral standards Essay (1033 words)

Need custom essay sample written special for your assignment?

More related essays

Teachers are using AI to grade essays. But some experts are raising ethical concerns