Morality
43254
225600124
2008-07-14T14:23:23Z
Sardanaphalus
427947
updating link using [[Project:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]]
{{Ethics}}
'''Morality ''' (from the [[Latin]] ''{{lang|la|moralitas}}'' "manner, character, proper behavior") 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, morals are created by and define 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/ The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</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/ Ethics vs morality - the distinction between ethics and morals<!-- Bot generated title -->]</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 the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, 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 Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]<!-- Bot generated title -->]</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 ([[prescriptive (philosophy)|prescriptive]]); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts ([[Moral nihilism|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/ Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</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 [[norm (sociology)|norm]]s and [[convention (norm)|custom]]s define morally right behavior.
== Anthropological perspectives ==
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
=== 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> She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person’s territory, including his or her property and dependents, which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective on the individual. These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and ‘flexible’, whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are universal and absolute, such as [[Immanuel Kant|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 ===
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
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.
=== Comparing cultures ===
[[Fons Trompenaars]], author of [[Did the Pedestrian Die?]], tested members of different cultures with various [[moral dilemma]]s. One of these was whether the driver of a car would have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie in order to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that different cultures had quite different expectations (from none to almost certain)<!-- , and in some cultures it mattered whether the pedestrian had died to how much assistance would be expected -->.
== Evolutionary perspectives ==
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
{{Further|[[Altruism#Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology]]}}
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]].
<!-- kinship altruism theory -->
<!-- handicap altruism theory -->
<!-- reputation theory -->
<!-- reciprocity theory -->
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)
It has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.<ref>{{cite journal |last=O’Connell |first= Sanjida |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= 1995|month= July|title= Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind? |journal= primates|volume= 36|issue= 3|pages= 397–410|id= 0032-8332 |url= |accessdate= 2007-11-08 |quote=|doi= 10.1007/BF02382862 }}</ref> They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics'<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0674356616 Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals].</ref> prototypical of our own tendencies for [[gossip]], and [[reputation]] management.
<!-- [[hypocrisy]] Johnathan Haidt -->
Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout [[Great ape|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. [[Richard Dawkins]] in ''[[The God Delusion]]'' suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and that the [[Moral Zeitgeist]] helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time within a culture.
== Neuroscientific and psychiatric perspectives ==
=== Mirror-neurons ===
Research on ''[[mirror neuron]]s'', 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 neuro-scientist [[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 If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural - washingtonpost.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]</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 ==
{{see|Jean_Piaget#Education_and_development_of_morality}}
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
== 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:
<blockquote>
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.<ref>[http://www.rationology.net Ruminations of a Rationologist]</ref> </blockquote>
== Morality in judicial systems ==
In most systems, the lack of morality of the individual can also be a sufficient cause for punishment{{Fact|date=July 2007}}, 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 [[Bible|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 [[Liberalism|liberals]] and [[conservatives]], in this regard.<ref name="Haidt">Haidt, Johan and Graham, Jesse (2006). [http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.when-morality-opposes-justice.doc ''When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize''] Social Justice Research.</ref><ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt Morality: 2012: Online Only Video: The New Yorker<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1445 Why conservatives and liberals talk past each other on moral issues. | Dangerous Intersection<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> 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 [[concept]]s and [[belief]]s 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 [[Empress Dowager Cixi|Dowager Empress]] in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within [[Nationalism|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.
Political Morality is also relevant to the behaviour internationally of national governments, and to the support they receive from their host population. Noam Chomsky states that <ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2064] Terror and Just Response, ZNet, 02 July 2002, Noam Chomsky</ref> <ref>[http://www.artsandopinion.com/2007_v6_n6/chomsky-4.htm] Arts and Opinion Vol. 6, No. 6, 2007 Gabriel Matthew Schivone interviews Noam Chomsky</font></ref>
{{cquote|... if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others -- more stringent ones, in fact -- plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.}}
{{cquote|In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow. But that principle is overwhelmingly disregarded all the time. If you want to run through examples we can easily do it. Take, say, George W. Bush, since he happens to be president. If you apply the standards that we applied to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, he'd be hanged. Is it an even conceivable possibility? It's not even discussable. Because we don't apply to ourselves the principles we apply to others. There's a lot of talk about 'terror' and how awful it is. Whose terror? Our terror against them? I mean, is that considered reprehensible? No, it's considered highly moral; it's considered self-defense. Now, their terror against us, that's awful, and terrible. But, to try to rise to the level of becoming a minimal moral agent, and just entering into the domain of moral discourse is very difficult. Because that means accepting the principle of universality. And you can experiment for yourself and see how often that's accepted, either in personal or political life. Very rarely.}}
== Moral codes ==
Codified morality is generally distinguished from [[Norm (sociology)|custom]], another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from [[Natural rights|natural]] or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the [[divinity|Divine]] is said to provide these principles through [[revelation]], sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the [[Torah|Law of Moses]], or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in [[Sharia|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]], [[religion]]s have provided both visions and regulations for an [[Ideal (ethics)|ideal]] life, morality is often confused with religious [[precept]]s. 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 [[Value (personal and cultural)|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 code]]s, 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 [[Ethic of reciprocity|Golden Rule]]; the [[Noble Eightfold Path]] of [[Buddhism]]; the ancient Egyptian code of [[Ma'at]] ;the [[Ten Commandments|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 [[Morality|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 and beliefs (e.g. [[Taoism]], [[Moralism]] 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 ===
{{see also|Morality without religion}}
In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes.<ref>As is expressed in the review of literature on this topic by: {{cite journal |author=Conroy, S.J. and Emerson, T.L.N. |title=[http://www.springerlink.com/content/r30712pn2q513456 Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students] | journal=Journal of Business Ethics |year=2004 | volume=50 | number=4 |pages=383--396 | doi = 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09 <!--Retrieved from CrossRef by DOI bot-->}} DOI:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09</ref> Although a recent study by [[ Paul Pierce]] 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,<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html| journal=Journal of Religion and Society|title=Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look|first=Gregory S.|last=Paul Pierce|location=Baltimore, Maryland|year=2005| volume=7}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html| journal=Journal of Religion and Society|title=Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health|author=Gerson Moreno-Riaño| coauthors=Mark Caleb Smith, Thomas Mach|location=Cedarville University|year=2006| volume=8}}</ref> In a response <ref name="Jensen">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 </ref> to the study by Paul, Pierce. 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 [[morality and religion|religiosity and moral behavior]]<ref>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. {{doi|10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x}}</ref> <ref>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. {{doi|10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x}}</ref> <ref>Regnerus, Mark D. & Burdette, Amy (2006)
RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT FAMILY DYNAMICS. The Sociological Quarterly '''47''' (1), 175-194. {{doi|10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x}}</ref> — for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.<ref>eg [http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey.html a survey] by [[Robert D. Putnam|Robert Putnam]] showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations</ref> Modern research in [[Relationship between criminology and sociology of education|criminology]] also acknowledges an ''inverse'' relationship between religion and crime,<ref>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</ref> with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one).<ref>
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.
</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>
=== Religion as a source of moral authority ===
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
{{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.
== See also ==
* [[Ethics]]
* [[Secular ethics]]
* [[Mores]]
* [[Ethos]]
* [[Norm (philosophy)|Norms]]
* [[Moral relativism]]
* [[Moral absolutism]]
* [[Moral universalism]]
* [[Consequentialism]]
* [[Deontological ethics]]
* [[Ethical dilemma]]
* [[Applied ethics]]
* [[Moral particularism]]
* [[Guilt]]
* [[Criticism of atheism]]
* [[Criticism of religion]]
* [[Conscience]]
* [[Kohlberg's stages of moral development]]
* [[Public morality]]
* [[The ends justify the means]]
* [[Moral Zeitgeist]]
* [[Amorality]]
* [[Sin]]
== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Bibliography ==
* Walker, Martin G. ''LIFE! Why We Exist...And What We Must Do to Survive'' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIFE_Why_We_Exist...] Wiki Book Page) ([http://www.meaninginmylife.com] Web Site), Dog Ear Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-59858-243-7
* Trompenaars, Fons. ''Did the Pedestrian Die?'' ISBN 1-84112-436-2
== External links ==
{{wikiquote}}
* [http://www.in-mind.org/artikelen/fairness-judgments-genuine-morality-or-disguised-egocentrism.html Fairness Judgments: Genuine Morality or Disguised Egoism?] Psychological Article on Fairness (registration required)
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Definition of Morality]
* [http://www.percepp.com/morality.htm Objective Morality An evolutionary approach]
* [http://www.examinethetruth.com/page_morale_01.htm Christian and Muslim debates on Morality]
* [http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=1222 Morality and Judaism] chabad.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://www.examinethetruth.com/moralitydebate.htm Understanding the Islam, Christianity Debate]
* [http://www.libchrist.com/bible/howsexsin.html How Sex Was Made A Sin]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?ei=5090&en=23ff00b4cd4b1e91&ex=1357880400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print Stephen Pinker on the Psychology and Evolutionary Biology of Morality]
{{Philosophy topics}}
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Ethics]]
[[Category:Virtues]]
[[ar:أخلاقيات]]
[[bs:Moral]]
[[ca:Moral]]
[[cs:Morálka]]
[[cy:Moesoldeb]]
[[de:Moral]]
[[et:Moraal]]
[[es:Moral]]
[[eo:Moralo]]
[[fr:Morale]]
[[hr:Moral]]
[[id:Moral]]
[[ia:Moral]]
[[is:Siðferði]]
[[it:Morale]]
[[he:מוסר]]
[[ko:도덕]]
[[lv:Morāle]]
[[lt:Moralė]]
[[mk:Морал]]
[[ms:Moral]]
[[nl:Moraal]]
[[ja:道徳]]
[[nn:Moral]]
[[pl:Moralność]]
[[pt:Moralidade]]
[[ru:Мораль]]
[[sq:Morali]]
[[simple:Morality]]
[[sk:Morálka]]
[[sr:Морал]]
[[sh:Moral]]
[[fi:Moraali]]
[[sv:Moral]]
[[th:คุณธรรม]]
[[tr:Ahlak]]
[[uk:Мораль]]
[[yi:מוסר]]
[[zh:道德]]