Difference between revisions of "Morality" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
(import from wiki)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{claimed}}
 
{{claimed}}
−
'''Morality''', (from Latin ''{{lang|la|moralitas}}'' "manner, character, proper behaviour"), has three principal meanings. In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. In its second normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny that 'morality' in this sense, refers, is a position known as [[moral skepticism]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/</ref> In its third usage 'morality' is synonymous with [[ethics]], the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.<ref>http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-distinction-between-ethics-and-morals/</ref> Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation ([[applied ethics]]), how moral values should be determined ([[normative ethics]]), which morals people actually hold to ([[descriptive ethics]]), what is the fundamental nature of ethics or morality itself, including whether it has any objective justification ([[meta-ethics]]), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and its nature ([[moral psychology]]).<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm</ref> In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to [[capital punishment]], [[abortion]] and wars of [[invasion]]. In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie given for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified. In meta-ethics, a key issue is what is meant by the terms right or wrong. [[Moral realism]] would hold that the individual is attempting to elucidate some objective moral fact, whereas the various branches of [[moral non-realism]] would hold that morality is derived from: the [[norm (sociology)|norms]] of the prevalent society ([[cultural relativism]]); the edicts of a god ([[divine command theory]]); is merely an expression of the speakers sentiments ([[emotivism]]); an implied imperative ([[prescriptivism (philosophy)|prescriptivism]]); or literally nonsense ([[error theory]]). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts.  This position, known as [[moral relativism]], often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/</ref> The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths is known as [[moral absolutism]].  Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social [[conformity (psychology)|conformity]] significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and [[convention (norm)|custom]]s define morally right behavior.  These thinkers typically also emphasise the commonalities in morality found across cultures, for example [[Incest taboo|taboos on incest]], prohibitions on in-group killing, etc.
+
{{Refimprove|date=March 2007}}
−
 
+
<br/>{{Ethics}}
−
==Society as a source of moral authority==
+
'''Morality ''' (from the [[Latin]] ''{{lang|la|moralitas}}'' "manner, character, proper behaviour") has three principal meanings. In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. In its second, normative and universal, sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as [[moral skepticism]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/</ref> In its third usage 'morality' is synonymous with [[ethics]], the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.<ref>http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-distinction-between-ethics-and-morals/</ref> Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation ([[applied ethics]]), how moral values should be determined ([[normative ethics]]), what morals people actually abide by ([[descriptive ethics]]), what is the fundamental nature of ethics or morality itself, including whether it has any objective justification ([[meta-ethics]]), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is ([[moral psychology]]).<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm</ref> In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to [[capital punishment]], [[abortion]] and wars of [[invasion]]. In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie told for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified. In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms "right" or "wrong." [[Moral realism]] would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral [[anti-realism]] would hold that morality: is derived from any one of the [[norm (sociology)|norms]] prevalent in society ([[cultural relativism]]); the edicts of a god ([[divine command theory]]); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments ([[emotivism]]); an implied imperative ([[prescriptivism (philosophy)|prescriptivism]]); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts ([[error theory]]). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts.  This position, known as [[moral relativism]], often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/</ref> The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths is known as [[moral absolutism]].  Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social [[conformity (psychology)|conformity]] significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and [[convention (norm)|custom]]s define morally right behavior.   
−
{{section-stub}}
 
−
{{Main|mores|Moral responsibility}}
 
−
In sociology, [[mores]] are also defined as 'rules' which govern appropriate behaviour. Mores derive from the established practices of a society rather than its written laws. They consist of shared understandings about the kinds of behaviour likely to evoke approval, disapproval, toleration or sanction, within particular contexts. 'Mores' is a broader concept than morality since it additionally encompasses [[custom]], [[ritual]], and [[etiquette]]. Many mores are implicit, and form part of our shared unconscious understanding of the social world. Moral rules in contrast, by virtue of their importance, are made explicit, in story, myth and code.
 
−
 
 
−
The understanding of social mores and morality can be seen as important elements of [[folk psychology]], the set of intuitions and assumptions which govern our grasp of what it means to be a person - a [[responsible]] agent with intentions, desires, and beliefs about the world.  Very young children, and people suffering from severe mental illnesses and disabilities are not normally considered to be morally responsible.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/</ref>, and consequently they cannot be said to [[Desert (philosophy)|deserve]] condemnation or [[punishment]].
 
−
 
 
−
Within their immediate social circles, moral offenders typically become the subject of [[ostracism]] and [[gossip]] which lowers their [[reputation]]. Politicians, celebrities and other public figures who offend morally, are often condemned in the media.
 
−
 
 
−
<!--In cases where the breach of morality has caused harm to another person or their interests, [[vengeance]], [[forgiveness]] or appeal to [[justice]] are three likely reactions.—> 
 
−
<!--Justice demands that the sanctions should be proportionate to the [[offence]], and should ensure that any innocent parties should not suffer.—>
 
−
<!--'[[Conscience]]' refers to dispositions to behave in accordance with morality particularly in the face of [[temptation]].—>
 
−
<!--Right and wrong, Good and Evil. Virtue and Vice. Action, intention, motive. Selfish, self-sacrifice, nobility, virtue, heroism, wisdom, bravery, cowardice, deception, truthfulness/honesty, reliability, persistence, humor, leadership, calmness, thoughtfulness, sensitivity, empathy, sympathy, self-control, dutifulness, generosity, miserliness, benevolence, misanthropy, sadism, cruelty, gentleness, self-care, love, attachment, compassion, justice/fairness, innocence, guilt, responsibility, condemnation, benefit, harm, etiquette, faux-pas, opprobrium, scorn, mercy, hypocrisy—>
 
−
<!--moral personal qualities—>
 
−
<!--moral emotions—>
 
−
<!--contempt, scorn, sympathy, love, hatred, vengeance—>
 
−
<!--moral behaviours—>
 
−
<!--gossip, tit-for-tat, an eye for an eye, forgiveness—>
 
−
<!--Distinction between a moral person and a virtuous person e.g. Nietzsche beyond Good and Evil—>
 
  
 
==Religion as a source of moral authority==
 
==Religion as a source of moral authority==
  
−
{{section-stub}}
 
 
{{Main|Divine Command Theory}}
 
{{Main|Divine Command Theory}}
  
 
Religious belief systems usually include the idea of divine will and divine [[Last Judgment|judgment]] and usually correspond to a moral code of conduct.
 
Religious belief systems usually include the idea of divine will and divine [[Last Judgment|judgment]] and usually correspond to a moral code of conduct.
  
−
 
+
== Anthropological perspectives==
−
 
 
−
== Anthropological Perspectives==
 
 
{{section-stub}}
 
{{section-stub}}
  
 
=== Tribal and territorial moralities ===
 
=== Tribal and territorial moralities ===
−
[[Celia Green]]  has made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.<ref name = "Green">Green, Celia (2004). ''Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I-XX. </ref>  The latter she characterizes as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person’s territory, including his or property and dependants, which is not to be damaged or interfered with.  Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective on the individual.  These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and ‘flexible’, whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are universal and absolute, such as [[Kant]]’s ‘[[categorical imperative]]’.  Green relates the development of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy of contract over status.
+
[[Celia Green]]  has made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.<ref name = "Green">Green, Celia (2004). ''Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I-XX. </ref>  She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person’s territory, including his or her property and dependants, which is not to be damaged or interfered with.  Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective on the individual.  These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and ‘flexible’, whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are universal and absolute, such as [[Kant]]’s ‘[[categorical imperative]]’.  Green relates the development of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy of contract over status.
  
 
=== In-Group and Out-Group ===
 
=== In-Group and Out-Group ===
−
 
 
{{section-stub}}
 
{{section-stub}}
 
Some observers hold that individuals have distinct sets of moral rules that they apply to different groups of people. There is the "ingroup," which includes the individual and those they believe to be of the same culture or race, and there is the "outgroup," whose members  are not entitled to be treated according to the same rules. Some biologists, anthropologists and [[evolutionary psychology|evolutionary psychologists]] believe this ingroup/outgroup difference is an evolutionary mechanism, one which evolved due to its enhanced survival aspects. [[Gary R. Johnson]] and [[V.S. Falger]] have argued that [[nationalism]] and [[patriotism]] are forms of this ingroup/outgroup boundary.
 
Some observers hold that individuals have distinct sets of moral rules that they apply to different groups of people. There is the "ingroup," which includes the individual and those they believe to be of the same culture or race, and there is the "outgroup," whose members  are not entitled to be treated according to the same rules. Some biologists, anthropologists and [[evolutionary psychology|evolutionary psychologists]] believe this ingroup/outgroup difference is an evolutionary mechanism, one which evolved due to its enhanced survival aspects. [[Gary R. Johnson]] and [[V.S. Falger]] have argued that [[nationalism]] and [[patriotism]] are forms of this ingroup/outgroup boundary.
Line 49: Line 27:
 
{{Main|Altruism#Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology}}
 
{{Main|Altruism#Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology}}
  
−
Evolutionary biologists start from the assumption that morality is a product of evolutionary forces.{{fact}} On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction ([[inclusive fitness]]). The strength of the [[Maternal bond|maternal bond]] is one example. Another is the [[Imprinting (psychology)#Westermarck effect|Westermarck effect]], seen as underpinning [[Incest taboo|taboos against incest]], which decreases the liklihood of [[defective offspring|inbreeding depression]].  
+
Evolutionary biologists start from the assumption that morality is a product of evolutionary forces.{{Fact|date=September 2007}} On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction ([[inclusive fitness]]). The strength of the [[maternal bond]] is one example. Another is the [[Imprinting (psychology)#Westermarck effect|Westermarck effect]], seen as underpinning [[Incest taboo|taboos against incest]], which decreases the likelihood of [[defective offspring|inbreeding depression]].  
  
 
Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout [[Hominidae|hominid]] evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of [[theory of mind]] abilities.  
 
Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout [[Hominidae|hominid]] evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of [[theory of mind]] abilities.  
Line 58: Line 36:
 
The phenomenon of '[[reciprocity]]' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality.  Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for [[vampire bat]]s, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)
 
The phenomenon of '[[reciprocity]]' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality.  Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for [[vampire bat]]s, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)
  
−
The evolution of abilities for deception,and social 'politics' have also been studied, in chimpanzees and other group-living organsims.<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Good-Natured-Origins-Humans-Animals/dp/0674356616].</ref> These have been used, in combination with theories of indirect [[reciprocal altruism]] and the importance of reputation, to suggest possible evolutionary bases for moral [[hypocrisy]] and [[gossip]] in humans.  
+
The evolution of abilities for deception, and social 'politics' have also been studied, in chimpanzees and other group-living organsims.<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0674356616].</ref> These have been used, in combination with theories of indirect [[reciprocal altruism]] and the importance of reputation, to suggest possible evolutionary bases for moral [[hypocrisy]] and [[gossip]] in humans.  
  
 
These explanations for the existence of morality do not, however, necessarily assist in deciding what is truly ''right'' for future actions. Should an individual's own morality really be determined by what is best for their genetic offspring ([[Wiktionary:Colloquial|colloquially]], but inaccurately, "the good of the species" ''see'' [[group selection]]) Viewholders counter that evolutionary psychology extends millions of years of [[empirical]] justification for our moral sense, provided that sense is indeed innate &mdash; more than recorded history could demonstrate. They claim sensible people would behave with morality knowing [[subconsciousness|subconsciously]] that it has succeeded in the past. Still, an explanation of why and how humans could have a moral basis does not imply that they ''ought'' to hold these views.
 
These explanations for the existence of morality do not, however, necessarily assist in deciding what is truly ''right'' for future actions. Should an individual's own morality really be determined by what is best for their genetic offspring ([[Wiktionary:Colloquial|colloquially]], but inaccurately, "the good of the species" ''see'' [[group selection]]) Viewholders counter that evolutionary psychology extends millions of years of [[empirical]] justification for our moral sense, provided that sense is indeed innate &mdash; more than recorded history could demonstrate. They claim sensible people would behave with morality knowing [[subconsciousness|subconsciously]] that it has succeeded in the past. Still, an explanation of why and how humans could have a moral basis does not imply that they ''ought'' to hold these views.
  
 
==Neuroscientific and psychiatric perspectives==
 
==Neuroscientific and psychiatric perspectives==
−
 
 
=== Mirror-neurons ===
 
=== Mirror-neurons ===
  
−
Research on ''[[mirror neurons]]'', since their discovery in 1996<ref>Giacomo Rizzolatti et al. (1996). ''Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions'', Cognitive Brain Research 3 131-141</ref>, suggests that they may have a strong role to play in [[empathy]].  Social neuroscientist [[Jean Decety]] thinks that the ability to recognize and vicariously experience what another creature is undergoing was an key step forward in the evolution of social behavior, and ultimately, morality.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html</ref> The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristic of [[psychopath|psychopathy]], and this would appear to lend support to Decety's view.<ref>{{cite journal |author=de Wied M, Goudena PP, Matthys W |title=Empathy in boys with disruptive behavior disorders |journal=Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines |volume=46 |issue=8 |pages=867-80 |year=2005 |pmid=16033635 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00389.x}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal |author=Fernandez YM, Marshall WL |title=Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists |journal=Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=11-26 |year=2003 |pmid=12616926 |doi=10.1023/A:1020611606754}}</ref>
+
Research on ''[[mirror neurons]]'', since their discovery in 1996<ref>Giacomo Rizzolatti et al. (1996). ''Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions'', Cognitive Brain Research 3 131-141</ref>, suggests that they may have a strong role to play in [[empathy]].  Social neuroscientist [[Jean Decety]] thinks that the ability to recognize and vicariously experience what another creature is undergoing was a key step forward in the evolution of social behavior, and ultimately, morality.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html</ref> The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristic of [[psychopath]]y, and this would appear to lend support to Decety's view.<ref>{{cite journal |author=de Wied M, Goudena PP, Matthys W |title=Empathy in boys with disruptive behavior disorders |journal=Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines |volume=46 |issue=8 |pages=867-80 |year=2005 |pmid=16033635 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00389.x}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal |author=Fernandez YM, Marshall WL |title=Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists |journal=Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=11-26 |year=2003 |pmid=12616926 |doi=10.1023/A:1020611606754}}</ref>
  
 
==Psychological perspectives==
 
==Psychological perspectives==
Line 79: Line 56:
 
Guilt is a maladaptive manifestation of our need to justify our existence, in this case by conforming to a shared subconscious theory of rationality in which 'being rational' is simply a matter of 'being objective', as exemplified in the moral maxim, 'Love (intrinsically value) your neighbor as you love (intrinsically value) yourself'.  Although none of us can actually measure up to this standard, we nonetheless come to experience feelings of worthlessness (guilt) along with a corresponding reduction in the will to survive (depression) when we deviate from the standard to an unreasonable degree. In other words, a capacity for guilt (having a conscience) is a part of the price we humans have had to pay for having become a little too objective (too rational) for our own good.[http://www.rationology.net]
 
Guilt is a maladaptive manifestation of our need to justify our existence, in this case by conforming to a shared subconscious theory of rationality in which 'being rational' is simply a matter of 'being objective', as exemplified in the moral maxim, 'Love (intrinsically value) your neighbor as you love (intrinsically value) yourself'.  Although none of us can actually measure up to this standard, we nonetheless come to experience feelings of worthlessness (guilt) along with a corresponding reduction in the will to survive (depression) when we deviate from the standard to an unreasonable degree. In other words, a capacity for guilt (having a conscience) is a part of the price we humans have had to pay for having become a little too objective (too rational) for our own good.[http://www.rationology.net]
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 +
Diller
  
 
==Morality in judicial systems==
 
==Morality in judicial systems==
Line 87: Line 65:
 
The government of [[South Africa]] is attempting to create a Moral Regeneration movement. Part of this is a proposed [[Bill of Morals]], which will bring a biblical-based "moral code" into the realm of law. This move by a nominally secular democracy has attracted relatively little criticism.
 
The government of [[South Africa]] is attempting to create a Moral Regeneration movement. Part of this is a proposed [[Bill of Morals]], which will bring a biblical-based "moral code" into the realm of law. This move by a nominally secular democracy has attracted relatively little criticism.
  
−
==Morality in economic systems==
 
  
−
Too often the concept of morality, in particular, societal morality, is separated from the simple morality of ensuring that individuals have clean water, education, housing etc and experience the morality which comes from having some form of secure income sufficient to fulfil basic need.  The problem is partly due to studies and disciplines being narrow and thus seeing morality as something which is separate; and partly due to the belief that social and economic justice cannot be furthered without a loss of economic efficiency.  This belief is challenged by [[binary economics]] which claims that it creates not only a new economics but also a new justice and a new morality because it is a market economics whose markets work for everybody rather than just a few; and it upholds private property but private property, again, for everybody rather than just a few.  A summary might be – a justice which creates efficiency and an efficiency which creates justice. 
 
  
 
==Morality and politics==
 
==Morality and politics==
Line 110: Line 86:
  
 
==Moral Psychology==
 
==Moral Psychology==
−
 
 
===Religiosity and Morality===
 
===Religiosity and Morality===
  
Line 117: Line 92:
 
For example:
 
For example:
 
*Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263-274.
 
*Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263-274.
−
*Burkett,S.,& White,M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455-462.
+
*Burkett, S.,& White, M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455-462.
 
*Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the “true” relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
 
*Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the “true” relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
−
*Cochran,J. K.,& Akers,R. L. (1989). Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198-225.
+
*Cochran, J. K.,& Akers, R. L. (1989). Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198-225.
−
*Evans,T. D.,Cullen,F. T.,Burton,V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway,R. G.,Payne,G. L.,& Kethineni,S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43-70.
+
*Evans, T. D.,Cullen, F. T.,Burton, V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway, R. G.,Payne, G. L.,& Kethineni, S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43-70.
 
*Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251-266.
 
*Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251-266.
 
*Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952-958.
 
*Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952-958.
−
*Johnson,B. R.,Larson,D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang,S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377-391.
+
*Johnson, B. R.,Larson, D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang, S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377-391.
 
*Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323-340.
 
*Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323-340.
−
*Powell,K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38-47.
+
*Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38-47.
−
</ref> Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”.<ref>Baier,C. J.,& Wright,B. R. (2001). “If you love me,keep my commandments”:A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3-21.</ref>
+
</ref> Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”.<ref>Baier, C. J.,& Wright, B. R. (2001). “If you love me, keep my commandments”:A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3-21.</ref>
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
Line 147: Line 122:
 
* [[Public morality]]
 
* [[Public morality]]
 
* [[The ends justify the means]]
 
* [[The ends justify the means]]
 +
* [[Moral Zeitgeist]]
  
 
==Footnotes==
 
==Footnotes==
Line 167: Line 143:
 
* [http://www.geeta-kavita.com/article.asp?article=biology_morals_dharma An article that focuses on the Biological basis of morality is available at Geeta-kavita.com]
 
* [http://www.geeta-kavita.com/article.asp?article=biology_morals_dharma An article that focuses on the Biological basis of morality is available at Geeta-kavita.com]
 
* [http://www.worldmoralmovement.org Wiki site for discussing and taking action on shared morals (WorldMoralMovement.org)]
 
* [http://www.worldmoralmovement.org Wiki site for discussing and taking action on shared morals (WorldMoralMovement.org)]
−
* [http://moralsandethics.wordpress.com/ Morals and Ethics in Islam ]
+
* [http://moralsandethics.wordpress.com/ Morals and Ethics in Islam]
 
* [http://www.examinethetruth.com/moralitydebate.htm Understanding the Islam, Christianity Debate]
 
* [http://www.examinethetruth.com/moralitydebate.htm Understanding the Islam, Christianity Debate]
−
{{Philosophy (navigation)}}
+
* [http://www.libchrist.com/bible/howsexsin.html How Sex Was Made A Sin]                                                            {{Philosophy (navigation)}}
−
 
 
−
{{Ethics}}
 
  
 
[[Category:Morality]]
 
[[Category:Morality]]
Line 178: Line 152:
  
 
[[sq:Morali]]
 
[[sq:Morali]]
−
{{credits|Morality|158530512}}
+
{{credits|Morality|169616904}}

Revision as of 01:32, 8 November 2007

This article needs additional references or sources for verification.
Please help to improve this article by adding reliable references.
Material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed.
This article has been tagged since March 2007.


Ethics
Theoretical

Meta-ethics
Consequentialism / Deontology / Virtue ethics
Ethics of care
Good and evil | Morality

Applied

Medical ethics / Bioethics
Business ethics
Environmental ethics
Human rights / Animal rights
Legal ethics
Media ethics / Marketing ethics
Ethics of war

Core issues

Justice / Value
Right / Duty / Virtue
Equality / Freedom / Trust
Free will

Key thinkers

Aristotle / Confucius
Aquinas / Hume / Kant / Bentham / Mill / Nietzsche
Hare / Rawls / MacIntyre / Singer / Gilligan

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behaviour") has three principal meanings. In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. In its second, normative and universal, sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism.[1] In its third usage 'morality' is synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.[2] Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what is the fundamental nature of ethics or morality itself, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology).[3] In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion. In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie told for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified. In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms "right" or "wrong." Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality: is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptivism); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position, known as moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.[4] The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths is known as moral absolutism. Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior.

Religion as a source of moral authority

Main article: Divine Command Theory

Religious belief systems usually include the idea of divine will and divine judgment and usually correspond to a moral code of conduct.

Anthropological perspectives

Tribal and territorial moralities

Celia Green has made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.[5] She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person’s territory, including his or her property and dependants, which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective on the individual. These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and ‘flexible’, whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are universal and absolute, such as Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’. Green relates the development of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy of contract over status.

In-Group and Out-Group

Some observers hold that individuals have distinct sets of moral rules that they apply to different groups of people. There is the "ingroup," which includes the individual and those they believe to be of the same culture or race, and there is the "outgroup," whose members are not entitled to be treated according to the same rules. Some biologists, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists believe this ingroup/outgroup difference is an evolutionary mechanism, one which evolved due to its enhanced survival aspects. Gary R. Johnson and V.S. Falger have argued that nationalism and patriotism are forms of this ingroup/outgroup boundary.

Comparing cultures

Fons Trompenaars, author of Did the Pedestrian Die?, tested members of different cultures with various moral dilemmas. One of these was whether the driver of a car would have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie in order to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that different cultures had quite different expectations (from none to almost certain).

Evolutionary perspectives

Main article: Altruism#Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology

Evolutionary biologists start from the assumption that morality is a product of evolutionary forces.[citation needed] On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness). The strength of the maternal bond is one example. Another is the Westermarck effect, seen as underpinning taboos against incest, which decreases the likelihood of inbreeding depression.

Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities. The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)

The evolution of abilities for deception, and social 'politics' have also been studied, in chimpanzees and other group-living organsims.[6] These have been used, in combination with theories of indirect reciprocal altruism and the importance of reputation, to suggest possible evolutionary bases for moral hypocrisy and gossip in humans.

These explanations for the existence of morality do not, however, necessarily assist in deciding what is truly right for future actions. Should an individual's own morality really be determined by what is best for their genetic offspring (colloquially, but inaccurately, "the good of the species" see group selection) Viewholders counter that evolutionary psychology extends millions of years of empirical justification for our moral sense, provided that sense is indeed innate — more than recorded history could demonstrate. They claim sensible people would behave with morality knowing subconsciously that it has succeeded in the past. Still, an explanation of why and how humans could have a moral basis does not imply that they ought to hold these views.

Neuroscientific and psychiatric perspectives

Mirror-neurons

Research on mirror neurons, since their discovery in 1996[7], suggests that they may have a strong role to play in empathy. Social neuroscientist Jean Decety thinks that the ability to recognize and vicariously experience what another creature is undergoing was a key step forward in the evolution of social behavior, and ultimately, morality.[8] The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristic of psychopathy, and this would appear to lend support to Decety's view.[9] [10]

Psychological perspectives

Morality as maladaptive and universal

Phil Roberts, Jr. has offered a perspective in which morality, and specifically the capacity for guilt, is viewed as a maladaptive byproduct of the evolution of rationality:

Guilt is a maladaptive manifestation of our need to justify our existence, in this case by conforming to a shared subconscious theory of rationality in which 'being rational' is simply a matter of 'being objective', as exemplified in the moral maxim, 'Love (intrinsically value) your neighbor as you love (intrinsically value) yourself'. Although none of us can actually measure up to this standard, we nonetheless come to experience feelings of worthlessness (guilt) along with a corresponding reduction in the will to survive (depression) when we deviate from the standard to an unreasonable degree. In other words, a capacity for guilt (having a conscience) is a part of the price we humans have had to pay for having become a little too objective (too rational) for our own good.[4]

Diller

Morality in judicial systems

In most systems, the lack of morality of the individual can also be a sufficient cause for punishment[citation needed], or can be an element for the grading of the punishment.

Especially in the systems where modesty (i.e., with reference to sexual crimes) is legally protected or otherwise regulated, the definition of morality as a legal element and in order to determine the cases of infringement, is usually left to the vision and appreciation of the single judge and hardly ever precisely specified. In such cases, it is common to verify an application of the prevalent common morality of the interested community, that consequently becomes enforced by the law for further reference.

The government of South Africa is attempting to create a Moral Regeneration movement. Part of this is a proposed Bill of Morals, which will bring a biblical-based "moral code" into the realm of law. This move by a nominally secular democracy has attracted relatively little criticism.


Morality and politics

If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level, politics can be seen as addressing the same question at the social level. It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham have studied the differences between liberals and conservatives, in this regard.[11][12][13] According to their model, political conservatives make their moral choices using five moral variables (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity), whereas liberals use only two (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). Haidt also hypothesizes that the origin of this division in the United States can be traced to geohistorical factors, with conservatism strongest in closely knit, ethnically homogenous communities, in contrast to port-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism.

Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fiber," whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labeled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one common morality, regardless of in what it consists.

Moral codes

Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.

Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality." Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.

Moral codes are often complex definitions of right and wrong that are based upon well-defined value systems. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, ofttimes they are one and the same.

Examples of moral codes include the Golden Rule; the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism; the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at ;the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures; the ten Indian commandments; and the principle of the Dessek.

Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems (e.g. Taoism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive—part of human politics.

Moral Psychology

Religiosity and Morality

In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes.[14] Although a recent study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[15] an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.[16] In a response [17] to the study by Paul, Gary F. Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study. His conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that there is a correlation (and perhaps a causal relationship) of higher homicide rates, not with Christianity, but with dualism in Christianity, that is to say with the proportion of the population who believe the devil and hell exist. Excerpt: "A multiple regression analysis reveals a complex relationship with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it." Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior[18] [19] [20]—for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.[21] Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime,[22] with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one).[23] Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”.[24]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
  2. ↑ http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-distinction-between-ethics-and-morals/
  3. ↑ http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm
  4. ↑ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
  5. ↑ Green, Celia (2004). Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I-XX.
  6. ↑ [1].
  7. ↑ Giacomo Rizzolatti et al. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions, Cognitive Brain Research 3 131-141
  8. ↑ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html
  9. ↑ de Wied M, Goudena PP, Matthys W (2005). Empathy in boys with disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines 46 (8): 867-80.
  10. ↑ Fernandez YM, Marshall WL (2003). Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists. Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment 15 (1): 11-26.
  11. ↑ Haidt, Johan and Graham, Jesse (2006). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize Social Justice Research.
  12. ↑ [2]
  13. ↑ [3]
  14. ↑ As is expressed in the review of literature on this topic by: Conroy, S.J. and Emerson, T.L.N. (2004). Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students. Journal of Business Ethics 50: 383—396. DOI:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09
  15. ↑ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look. Journal of Religion and Society 7.
  16. ↑ Gerson Moreno-Riaño and Mark Caleb Smith, Thomas Mach (2006). Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health. Journal of Religion and Society 8.
  17. ↑ Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS
  18. ↑ KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4), 443-457. Digital object identifier (DOI): 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x
  19. ↑ SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3), 323-348. Digital object identifier (DOI): 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x
  20. ↑ Regnerus, Mark D. & Burdette, Amy (2006) RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT FAMILY DYNAMICS. The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1), 175-194. Digital object identifier (DOI): 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x
  21. ↑ eg a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
  22. ↑ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; DOI: 10.1177/0093854806293485
  23. ↑ For example:
    • Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263-274.
    • Burkett, S.,& White, M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455-462.
    • Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the “true” relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
    • Cochran, J. K.,& Akers, R. L. (1989). Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198-225.
    • Evans, T. D.,Cullen, F. T.,Burton, V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway, R. G.,Payne, G. L.,& Kethineni, S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43-70.
    • Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251-266.
    • Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952-958.
    • Johnson, B. R.,Larson, D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang, S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377-391.
    • Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323-340.
    • Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38-47.
  24. ↑ Baier, C. J.,& Wright, B. R. (2001). “If you love me, keep my commandments”:A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3-21.

Bibliography

  • Walker, Martin G. LIFE! Why We Exist...And What We Must Do to Survive ([5] Wiki Book Page) ([6] Web Site), Dog Ear Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-59858-243-7
  • Trompenaars, Fons. Did the Pedestrian Die? ISBN 1-84112-436-2

External links

Philosophy
Topics Category listings |  Eastern philosophy · Western philosophy |  History of philosophy (ancient • medieval • modern • contemporary)
Lists Basic topics · Topic list · Philosophers · Philosophies · Glossary · Movements · More lists
Branches Aesthetics · Ethics · Epistemology · Logic · Metaphysics · Political philosophy
Philosophy of Education · Economics · Geography · Information · History · Human nature · Language · Law · Literature · Mathematics · Mind · Philosophy · Physics · Psychology · Religion · Science · Social science · Technology · Travel ·War
Schools Actual Idealism · Analytic philosophy · Aristotelianism · Continental Philosophy · Critical theory · Deconstructionism · Deontology · Dialectical materialism · Dualism · Empiricism · Epicureanism · Existentialism · Hegelianism · Hermeneutics · Humanism · Idealism · Kantianism · Logical Positivism · Marxism · Materialism · Monism · Neoplatonism · New Philosophers · Nihilism · Ordinary Language · Phenomenology · Platonism · Positivism · Postmodernism · Poststructuralism · Pragmatism · Presocratic · Rationalism · Realism · Relativism · Scholasticism · Skepticism · Stoicism · Structuralism · Utilitarianism · Virtue Ethics

sq:Morali

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Morality&oldid=546598

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki