![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"...used within three contexts: individual distinction; systems of valued principles—sometimes called conduct morality—shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community."
THREE contexts?? well, i count two... where the fuck is the third one?? or did someone word this like a clumsy oaf 124.176.5.47 08:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-->
For the line "Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience" isn't it saying that Morals are CREATED by and DEFINE society, philosophy, religion... where i think its supposed to say "Morals are created by and defined by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience" Somebody can change that if I'm right. -observed by some random guy, erase this after the change has been made, or decided that no change is needed.
I fixed the "gods know what's best for us" statement by deleting it. Am considering changing the "moral core" bit to include some mention of maturity- think this would also fix the problem directly below, rather than changing the footnote?
Some parts copied and adapted from Sexual morality because already clear enough in that article.
24, my changes are not opposing what you had said, but adding instead some other notes, that I imagine can combine with your definition. You added the element of personality of the conduct, that is effectively correct on a "subjective" level (by which I mean, the matter regarded from the side of the individual). But I can see that the "social" relevance of this concept can be perhaps of more commonly known evidence.
Of course the personal aspect is very important and as you can see, nothing was deleted, I just added some points that perhaps you might develop :-) -- Gianfranco
I've added a paragraph about evolutionary psychology, and another slightly rambling and speculative one following on from it, about octopuses. I think the octopus idea is highly relevant, but if the general opinion is that it is too diffuse, and not suitable for an encyclopaedia, then I have no problem with that second paragraph being condensed or removed. :-) GrahamN
Regarding to the above statement, the Spartans regulary practiced infantacide. As far as incest goes(and this, admittedly is dealt with in the appropriate article), it has long been my belief that this taboo has much to do with biological necessity.
I moved the moral back to a separate page, as it represents a separate (abit related) concept. All its changes were preserved. -- Yurik 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"While some philosophers, psychologists and evolutionary biologists hold that morality is a thin crust hiding egoism, amorality, and anti-social tendencies, others see morality as equally a product of evolutionary forces and as evidence for continuity with other group-living organisms."
Translation: "Some see morality as an excuse to practice evil and others see morality as a product of evolution."
Those are NOT the only two opinions about where morality comes from. A lot of people believe God has established laws for people to obey and a good encyclopedia should at least mention that. The "thin crust" may be a freudian slip for the thinly veiled weaseling of presenting two POVs to exclude the third.-- The burning bush 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the portion "(although they [philosophers] often use both words [i.e. morals and ethics] interchangably)...yes, they did...but do we need the ambivalence? Reinsert if we do. -- VKokielov 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i HAD to get rid of a h (at the end of one of the headings with =='s on either side) it looked like this ==heading==h.
I have removed the main article, as it was considered nonsense, and no-one disagreed. Please do not attempt to recreate it, it will be considered vandalism. Thanks-- 131.111.8.96 14:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Add a section about Nietzsche's view of morality. He offers a good arguement on the issue of morality in some of his works.
I put in a merge tag, because I think Moral Code would fit better as a subtopic here. -- Michael 22:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is a minor suggested revised wording for Rational Morality:
ORIGINAL: Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus morality is necessarily one of self-interest ...
REVISED: Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus, rational morality is necessarily one of self-interest ...
Thank You, -- EScribe 05:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Why did the following entry disappear within the last few days from the article? =
Rational Morality
Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus rational morality is necessarily one of self-interest and looks at man's nature and the reason he needs values, then defines the virtues, known as a moral code, that must be practiced to reach those values. Morality is "rationally accepted" and chosen. Rational morality asserts that all other "views" of morality are subjective and require some sort of sacrifice, either to the supernatural (i.e., God) or the social collective, whereas proper morality is self-evident and in the interest of the individual's happiness. Thus rational morality is synonymous with individual rights.
Thankz 66.61.36.55 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This passage makes a weird claim.
It sounds like the POV being pushed is that there is no common standard of morality across different cultures. What is odd about this passage is that it is not looking for moral standards across most cultures; it is claiming that for something to be universal morality it has to be always condemned by all cultures . That's kind of an impossible standard. Most cultures think it's always wrong to slaughter large numbers of your tribal 'in-group', but the Mubutushuku tribe of the Momobotosoku region of Africa kills off 90% of their tribe annually, so I guess mass murder is just another subjective Western standard of morality. Let's see an authoritive ( anthropology?) source for these "some people" who think morality is "simply whatever norms are present" Seriously. I weant to see a source for these some poeple. MPS 14:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Morality is not merely the sum of its parts, that is, its laws. It is any code at all which seeks to prevent someone from living in such a way as to act on every impulse he experiences. Laws against murder exist because people have been driven to murder. Laws against rape exist because people have been compelled to rape. etc.. Whether such activities are deemed immoral or not by a given society depends on whether they are problematic or not (murder is not problematic if the victim is being sacrificed to a god, rape is not problematic if said society's men are not threatened by women and do not care about their feelings, infanticide is not problematic if the baby is deformed and nobody cares about it, etc.) Evolution would actually render morality an obsolete and useless concept, as any intelligent evolutionist would be able to reason that any pang of conscience he feels at the thought of killing, stealing from, raping, or otherwise violating another human being is nothing but a meaningless electrical signal in his brain, to be dismissed as such. There would be no reason for him not to act on every impulse he feels except for fear of punishment, which is the only type of morality that would make sense to an evolutionist who is actually capable of deep thought. If there were no supreme law-giver (God), satisfying impulses would be the only sensible reason to continue living, any other reason would have to be an invention and could not apply to all of humanity. This problem is solved when the general public is either intellectually complacent (never questioning their priests in white lab coats or bothering to analyze the logic behind their own feelings) or if they truly believe that there is a supreme law-giver with the power to make their feelings viable as well as give instruction on how to find satisfaction in resisting certain impulses and being kind to others without benefitting oneself. Most societies today, particularly in overdeveloped nations, opt for the first solution.
I believe that there is a clear distinction between what is moral and what is ethical; the two may sometimes clash.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
And also -
One can, by example, precieve that the act of fornication is one of immorality since most religions hold it to be a sin yet logically, legally (in most countries), and biologically - thus ethically - it would be permissible because it carries no "tremendous sanction" against it.
There are many other examples of actions which are considered immoral but are not unethical and vise versa, e.g. slavery.
Perhaps the article should make that distinction clearer. GeeOh ( talk) 09:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Should Anglo Saxons be allowed to muddle themselves up? Is this an ethical question or a moral question? Please see the German language entry for a useful distinction between ethics and morality.
___________________________________________________________________________
I agree.
This is ethics not morality:
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
Obviously written by someone not objective enough. Emphasis on the religions part.
Regards, dcer
_____________________________________________________________________________
I believe Aristotle would make a distinction between morality and ethics. Morality concerns guidelines for living a 'good' life. What will make one happy in the long run. It has no 'direct' concern with how one treats others. For example; reading, learning, brushing one's teeth, embracing the idea of delayed gratification are all behaviors that improve one's life but do not involve other people.
Ethics is the subject of acceptable behavior and interaction with other people and the world.
Paul
______________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps it would be more grammatically correct to change the title of the first section of the article (Evolution of Morality) to Development of Morality. A very small issue, but the term evolution should be limited to biology. Dilbert 00:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we should be more specific when using the term "development" -- do we mean the progressive expression of moral traits over the course of human development from infant to child to adult or do we mean its evolutionary bases? I agree they're separate, but they shed light on each other and if we're going to have a section devoted to the ontogeny of morality, we should also have one devoted to its evolutionary history. -- Prionesse 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Minor quip; please take the word "goodness" out. There is no definition in the meaning of the statement "wholesome goodness". It is vague, subjective, and carries an unreasonable biased expectation of optimistic results. Maybe it is just me, but goodness is not a word. It conveys the apex of political correctness, of Orwellian(sp?) "new-speak", by being a word that cannot be defined other then; It means what ever the -lister- wants it to mean; with the -speaker- letting self-deception happen. Please take it out. 76.170.118.217 ( talk) 10:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I want a clear answer on this one.
144.132.1.37 11:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no clear answer. Is it right to contribute to the suffering of the downtrodden? Is it right to contribute to the possible spread of disease? What effect do your actions have? To what extent are you personally responsible for things that are out of or only slightly in your control?
On the other hand, if we constructed a robot prostitute that had no feelings and was incapable of spreading disease or participating in any of the social ills associated with prostetution, would it be wrong to engage in the act? Of course not.
Sexual conduct in and of itself is a cultural and/or religious value judgement, not a question of morality. We only begin to discuss morality when we begin to discuss the ramifications of the act. These are seperate questions.
Yoda921 11:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda
wow yoda, good job not backing up your opinion there with anything... why is it immoral?? assuming all sex is protected, and the prostitute is not beaten up or shit like that or exploited its completely moral... she wants money, some guy wants sex, they exchange, both agree to the arrangement... :O shit a brick! nothing immoral happened!
At present this article reads like a survey rather than a clarification; or, to contrast it in another way, a summary of the academic views on Morality as opposed to the everyday view.
Perhaps a better way of presenting it would be to begin with the everyday understanding of morality. I'd suggest that (as a discussion point, not as a fixed idea) that Morality in the common Western understanding, has religious underpinnings: it implies (or has come to be understood as) what is 'universally supposed to be', or is declared by God or the gods. This, as opposed to what is legal, or has been declared by humans to be right or wrong; or what is "socially acceptable": defined by society to be correct or incorrect.
Philosophers and academics have tried to explore all these ideas, attempting to find a solid universal basis as well as boundaries for moral concepts. In doing so they have muddied the water, taking all of these into the general mix of "morality", indeed, groping into areas such as ethics, etiquette, and further afield into ideas about the good life.
Philosophers may have entered such areas in their discussions but it is confusing and perhaps even wrong to suggest that all of these ideas are really in the field of morality. The laws of physics play a role in biology but we would not suggest that biology is some sub-study of physics.
Put another way, the "common understanding" of a distinction between legality and morality is not necessarily a correct view and the academic view incorrect. But, for practical purposes--which is what an encyclopedia serves--it provides a clearer and more useful view...with academic views as an interesting but subordinate discussion....IMHO.-- 207.81.127.107 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems as though most of the posters here are conflating or confusing morality with moral or cultural relativism.
Morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong. This means that which is always right and wrong and has some level of universal acceptance even if not always adhered too. Murder was considered wrong even in Nazi Germany.
The notion that morals change according to culture is simply a fallacy.
Consider the following argument.
Back during the slave days, owning slaves was commonly accepted. Therefore, there was nothing immoral about owning slaves.
This is simple reduction to absurdity - so much for cultural norms. Those with background in logic should also spot the circular argument.
It is also wrong to conflate sexuality with morality.
Unless we are talking about a violent act such as rape, morality as it refers to consensual sex between adults is a misnomer. Although it is common to use the term “morality” with regard to sex, it is simply a miss-use of the term. I have little doubt that this point is difficult to understand
due to the wide acceptance of this error. Also, there can be numerous debates about the moral consequences of some sexual practices but these things must all be debated on there individual merit. Promiscuity in and of itself has nothing to do with morality.
It is also wrong to suggest that people acting in violation of a given religion are immoral and it is wrong to suggest that any actions sanctioned by religion are necessarily moral.
Consider the practice of “honor killing” in which a woman must be killed by her male relatives if she is perceived (regardless of fact) as committing a sexual indiscretion that brings shame on the family. The use of religion to justify the murder does not constitute a change in morality it only means that an attempt is made to justify the murder based on circular reasoning. i.e. It’s right because my book says so.
A very different notion is one of “thou shall not murder.” This is not only a religious statement but a logically defendable one as well.
Note that the commandment does not read “thou shall not kill.” That would be a very different and ethically problematic statement.
The bottom line is that morality is correctly defined separately from theology which is a different branch of philosophy.
Likewise, the term “morality” must not be improperly used with regard to sexual conduct.
Morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong. This is the definition.
Really, this is all philosophy 101. Unless you have never taken it or have been de-educated by an imposter, this should all be quite basic.
Near the beginning of Morality#Morality in judicial systems, what does this mean? "it is not difficult toems" Art LaPella 17:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Some forms of morality can be deduced from the following statement, "Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate." (I call it the Base Rule.) From this statement the incest taboo can be derived. Family members are, of course, related. Also, there is homosexuality which occurs from related genders and is widely considered to be immoral. Another example is cannibalism which is caused from related species. In each of these instances, related subjects are being combined when they were already combined in the first place. Without this logical statement morality is abstract. JHuber 07:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is defining morality in terms of adaptivity and maladaptivity at a fundamental level. Inclusive fitness as a mechanism for a more complex moral system comes about when we form groups: Groupism or Group-forming being a subsidiary genetic programming (or instinct) in support of the primary genetic programming of survival. We can then, in this context, define immorality in terms of damage to the Group: to inclusive fitness. (I call this the "This is my idea, I thought of it first, aren't I clever" Rule.)
Whether things are related or not is down to the rules of your morality; but if you're aiming for a logical morality (as opposed to "moral logic"), you have to be a bit more sophisticated than just using a blanket semantic formula like that.
It takes one to know one 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Social primates - especially chimpanzee show altruism in a sense that "I will scratch your back if you scratch mine". It speculates about an altruistic gene that is needed in a social population.
If for example anarchy will develop in a country because of poverty, then both poor and rich individuals get a increased risk in being injured. That outcome is bad for all parties. Hence it is in everybodies interest to have a good social security.
If we look in the human population. We as population set up rules together that is benificiant for the population. Some individuals break against our common rules even that there lives are not at risk, Why?
Just some thoughts
-- Msitua 09:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE!
Don't like this term.
Sounds American.
Not sourced.
That whole section sounds like a patronising and subjective lecture bundling together ideas of preference, such as "Maturity". ("Moral core" sounds like a constant; "maturity" a variable). It takes one to know one 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This section strikes me as surprisingly involved. Perhaps it would be better if it were less biased. 155.212.104.246 C. Ignatius
ThAtSo, you just reverted my reorganization of the section on "Religion and morality" alleging that it introduced POV. But, were exactly is the POV? Is there anything in the reverted version not justified by the references? That edit required a lot of work, since the modifications involved careful evaluation of what each source had to say. Meanwhile, the version of the text you seem to favor discuss one of the studies in much more detail than the others, and leaves at least one study without any mention, even though it is referenced (that is, the version you reverted to has problems with undue weight). I'd say your reversion introduced POV. --
Leinad ∴
-diz aí.
04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes. [1] Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime, [2] with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one). [3] 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”. [4] Apart from this general trend, one study found that nations in which the population show strong belief in the devil and in hell have higher rates of homicide than countries with either more secular populations, or with populations that believe in God and heaven but not in its malevolent counterparts. [5] Research also seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior on topics other than crime. There are, for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism, [6] [7] and data suggesting that growth in the importance of religion in adolescents' lives is consistently related to better family relations. [8] Although a recent paper argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity of a country and certain measures of dysfunction, [9] the methodology of the study has been criticized [5] and an analysis published later contends that a number of problems disavow any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research. [10]
Quite the contrary, it's been weeks and nobody's shown the slightest bit of support for your version, which is sure to be reverted if you try to stick it in the article. ThAtSo 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As I explained already, your entire effort is flawed from the start because you're just adding bias to overcome perceived bias. ThAtSo 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In the introductory paragraph, whoever wrote it uses the word "I", and not in quotes. I'm not sure if there are any rules about this but I wanted to ask if this possibly presented a voice issue --encyclopedia's probably shouldn't be in first person-- before I fixed it. Henry Corvel 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any significant reason why the term "morality" differs substantially from the term " ethics"? Aren't they both just 2 different words for normative values, that is, ways to determine what's right/good from what's wrong/bad? If so, I propose that the article for "morality" be merged with the one for "ethics", and that " moralism" and/or " moralist" have their own articles, since these 2 terms (moralist & moralism) denote more of the arbitrary, petty, and oppressive qualities associated with taboo-enforcers and other force initiators than the term "morality" itself does, which I think most people just equate with "knowing right from wrong", which is more properly (and neutrally) covered by "ethics". Shanoman 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The word in the opening sentence ought to be mos, mores. Jorgath ( talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The New York Times has a great article on scientific investigations into morality that I think could be incorporated into the article [1]. Remember ( talk) 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Public Morality is education.
If we teach more people about virtues and it's positive meaning, it will contribute to public morality. Morality is goodness, in ordered to understand goodness better must we study virtues.
Sincerly, Phalanx Pursos —Preceding comment was added at 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
So I changed it towards the better.
With all the morality that I have studied in my life, was I totally dissapointed about the misinformation which has been posted on this page. You people explain everything about morality except the fact what it really is, accept the fact that you know nothing about it. Public morality died 1500 years ago, most flawed statements prove this time and time again.
Phalanx Pursos 06:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"The subjectiveness of morality is shown by the observation that actions or beliefs which by themselves do not cause any harm may be by some considered immoral"
it is true that one may observe that some others consider an action or belief immoral while at the same time observing that that action or belief causes no harm. Why does this imply subjectivity? It may be that your observations of harm has nothing to do with whatever objective measuring stick is used but the moralists.
If however, you mean to imply that the act of causing harm itself is a measure of subjectiveness, then morality is objective by your standards - it is whether or not you cause harm to others.
This renders this statement logically flawed, contradictory, naive, and combined with the politically charged gay marriage example, brings to question the matter of the writers bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.71.216 ( talk) 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This sentence in the introduction: "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 (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). "
Is pretty unclear. The best I can break it down is:
"moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism) (Other stuff). And Moral anti-realism falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). "
Seems like "falsely presupposes" violates some kind of fair and neutral rule.
Am I just reading this sentence wrong? Is it trying to say that anti-realism holds that morality is derived from a false presuppositions that there are objective moral facts? If that's the case, it seems like that is redundant with the examples already listed.
Should the sentence read: "moral anti-realism would hold that morality falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory) and 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); or is an implied imperative (prescriptive);"??
I'd change it if I knew what the sentence was actually trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecnassianer ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This section is pretty suspcious: the article it points to seems nothing more than a bunch of ludicrous cultural stereotypes (e.g. it asserts that the French subject turned traitor very quickly, needing only to be plied with cigarettes). The discussion page of that article raises these concerns but I can see none here, can someone who knows anything at all about the book verify that it exists, is relevant to what is being asserted here, and that the whole thing isn't just a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.182.72 ( talk) 10:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I place the category "Concepts in Religious Metaphysics" and "Pseudo-Information Science," because the religious metaphysics doesn't utilize a developed methodology, hence the theories are not real (meaning it is implausible to occur or even perform a computerized simulation). Note that Philosophy isn't psuedoscience because they have an established method that is well develop through phenomenology / contemporary philosophy (aka philosophical method based on intuition, gut feeling, perspective, insight...etc psychological phenomenon (but regardless in partial some phenomenon are provable through neuroscience).
So please present some firm mediums such as books and research rather than blatantly presenting controversial topics (e.g. creationism vs evolution).
If you are interested in Religious Studies, I suggest trying to present a possible clear studies on how the religious concepts maybe evolved in different religion to present a clearer picture of Notion. Thanks for your time in reading this -- 75.154.186.99 ( talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this subject is inappropriate for this article, because it repeats some information and presents info on what liberals and conservatives in the US generally think. I don't think this content is harmful, so I'm not removing the whole section for now, but I'd like to see if someone else thinks the section contains no information the article needs that isn't already present elsewhere in the article. Rustyfence ( talk) 08:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sociology articles are a big weakness of Wikipedia's. We tend to acquire commonplace comments and clichés under each possible term which then tend to sit there tagged for cleanup for years.
Check out the following articles:
and consider how exactly their scope is delimited relative to one another and to this one.
It would be important to have fewer articles, and make sure the ones we keep are short and to the point, directly guiding the reader to the most relevant academic literature on the topic. -- dab (𒁳) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Below a submission for an addition. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Faust (
talk •
contribs)
11:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In formal ethics morality is used as meaning the 'good' action. A disambiguation can be made however. In teleological ethics the word 'moral' is used as a synonym for ethics. In deontological ethics the word 'moral' is used in a more narrow sense: that act of which one can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law. A remarkable consequence of this is that teleological ethics is immoral from a deontological viewpoint.
Oxford Dictionary of philosophy, 2008, p240
I will make a reference out of this quote, but we might include this quote, for reference purposes. Let me know if any one has any feedback. -- Faust ( talk) 09:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust ( talk • contribs)
Sorry for forgetting the sig... -- Faust, formerly Arjen ( talk) 11:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Since no reactions have been given I will add this under an ethical header. If needs be we can discuss things here after that still. -- Faust, formerly Arjen ( talk) 07:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, after reading the introduction I placed the little part there (with a small edit to suit the place in the text). Since the entire heading was already about ethics and a mention of the word usage of the word 'morality' in ethics this seemed prudent. -- Faust, formerly Arjen ( talk) 08:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I had placed a reference with the definitions mentioned aboven, but this has been removed for an unclear reason. The fact is that Kant defines these in his 'Kritik der Reinen Vernunft' and it seems to me that definitions like that should be referred to a source at all times. Now, a user has removed this reference for reasons of inappropriateness. I hereby state that I will replace the reference, unless a really good reason will be given why a reference of a definition should not be given. -- Faust ( talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) This concerns this reference: Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Immanuel Kant, P25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, the entire point Kant is making and why this part of the article is UNCPECIFIC is the difference between im- and a-. The deontological idea of morality that I am sure you are referring to is a specific one, but follows from the meaning of the word. So, you are merely confusing the two issues. It is your removal and comments that are inappropriate. -- Faust ( talk) 09:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will elaborate a little for your benefit. Something that is a moral is something that has got nothing to do with morality (in the wide sense). Something that is immoral is something that goes against morality (in the wide sense). This leads to a question as to what exactly is moral than. That is up to the understanding of the subject. The subject will try to act in a way it understands as 'good'. However, this may still cause people unintended suffering. This is why Kant separated the hypothetical and the categorical imperative. One may cause harm inadvertently. This subsequently leads to the more narrow approach to morality. It is a strong argument for Kant's idea. Regardless, it proves the differences between his narrow approach to morality and the im- and a- distinction, which is mere linguistics. Kant does use the im- an a- distinction to construct his narrow moral view though. In fact, it is the very meaning of the word from its creation albeit misused and wrongfully interpreted, which shows the importance of separating between the hypothetical and categorical imperative: it reveals the inconsistencies in one's reasons.-- Faust ( talk) 09:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a retracing of our steps. You asked for a reference of the reference and I have given it to you. The reference of the reference proves that the definitions were Kantian and that should be enough for you. Since it isn't it is clear your POV is what is in the way. That is why your POV is important. Now, if you think this isn't true, please prove that. If you cannot I will place my reference back again.-- Faust ( talk) 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Zaspino, I have properly addressed your complaints. Why are you retracing our steps? Apart from that I can only say that even in a crowd of thousand, the truth is still the truth and a lie still a lie. -- Faust ( talk) 14:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have not replaced the reference as of yet, but it should be there. I will walk another path. -- Faust ( talk) 08:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I undid the revision of 76.168.95.118. An active denial is a moral consideration, and therefore equal to immorality, as per the definition. -- Faust ( talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting an RFC to seek WP:Consensus on the definition of amorality specifically in relation to morality.-- 173.58.234.86 ( talk) 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) The intro currently reads: "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is a passive indifference toward morality." This sentence should be changed. According to the well-sourced definition of amorality on its own page, amorality can be either of several things (indicated by the word "or"): "Amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." In this article the definition is necessarily restrictive, failing to give full faith to other sources of definitions of amorality. I propose it be changed to instead read "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." "Disregard" in this instance does not refer to immorality for the simple reason that disregard does not positively indicate opposition. This change may be slightly more wordy, but it is the most concise yet clear definition available that does justice to the concept of amorality. Faust, unless you have objections to raise I will change this in an hour or so. 76.168.95.118 ( talk) 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I am surprised at all of your reactions. The reason for this is because in the proposed change the difference between immorality and amorality will be null and void. Although I am aware that such a confusion is a well known position in this, it should not be in the general declaration of the terms. The reason immorality is defined as amorality is because a certain 'goal' is wielded by the actor. An act is 'good' when it adds towards achieving the goal (a.k.a. the good) and no further interest is taken in the act itself. Since morality has been thought over (and discarded) by the actor it is immoral and not amoral. The expression 'the end justifies the means' applies. Because of this POV the actor has no further interest in examining the act, as long as the POV is achieved. The act only appears amoral to the actor because of the POV (denial). Since it therefore is a POV that makes one come to this reasoning it should be placed in the article as a POV. This has previously been done under the ethical perspectives header. Can everybody agree to that? -- Faust ( talk) 17:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
@IP: Kindly do not edit the article before reaching contention. I undid your revision because I think that you misinterpret the entire thing, or maybe I am. Above I did not have the idea there was a real difference of opinion between us, but now I do. Morality is not about the rulebase, it is about the will for acting in such a way that one thinks everybody should act. A set of morals is a rulebase and therefore cannot become moral. Wielding a rule that should apply always is that inequality because acts should alway be seen in the light of the intent. So, the point is not that the moral should be known to everybody, or to be defined at all, just that one can will everybody to act in that manner in that situation. So, immorality is not willing that universality and amorality is never having thought of it, or it never having applied. Exactly what is stated now btw. Are we on the same page? -- Faust ( talk) 22:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
As Pfhorrest said:
I suggest we all understand that there is an ontological difference going on here. On the first level we see the question of thinking of morality or no and at the second level we see the question why an actor who is thinking about morals decides to act according to a universality or not. This is why I am saying that in the introduction of terms there should be made mention of the terms amoral and immoral (as opposed to moral) and that the second level are positions, which should be discussed below that, as POV's...which is what it is like now...
NOTE: After consulting the amorality page I must conclude that it states exactly what I am stating. -- Faust ( talk) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose a different choice of words here. On the amorality page the general idea becomes clear because of the example given, but we may choose to change the choice of words there as well. The idea is as follows:
Faust wrote above: "I would like to see at least ONE source" and "I have not even seen a source" for the inclusive definition of amorality he is arguing against. However, several people have already given a variety of sources. The phrasing that was imported from Amorality has the following citations attached to it over there (which admittedly should have been, but were not, imported when the phrasing was; although the existence of these sources there was noted here earlier):
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Earlier in this thead I cited several sources from online dictionaries myself:
None of these are claiming that "amoral" and "immoral" mean the same thing, as you seem to think we are arguing; they merely disagree with you (who have still not provided a source for your claim) about which of those two categories certain types of attitudes belong in. Looking back through the talk history, I notice a source that you cited early on as evidence that "moral" and "immoral" mean different things (which, I emphasize again, no one is disputing here). Even that source which you cited acknowledges what we're all saying, in fact the bulk of what it has to say about amorality is about the sense which you deny:
Since you have yet to provide a single source (aside from original research derived from dictionary definitions of the prefixes "a-" and "im-" and vague references to something Kant said somewhere) for your claim that "amoral" means only "passive indifference toward morality" and not the more inclusive "absence of, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs", I am going to revert again to that version (and add in all the sources that should have been in there before). Since 76.168.95.118, 79.182.17.168, 173.58.234.86, User:Zaspino, and I, have all instituted this inclusive version (or close variants thereof) and you keep reverting to your restrictive version, and you have yet to name a reliable source restricting the definition of amorality to what you say it is, you are the one who is edit warring; specifically, you are engaging in WP:Tendentious editing, in particular "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions". -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 08:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC) ADDENDUM: In the spirit of compromise this reinstated version will include qualifying language similar to Faust's suggested compromise in the subsection above, but without giving preferential treatment to his favored element of the disjunction. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 09:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- amoral persons either
- do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (see the so-called Antisocial personality disorder) or else
- do not subscribe to any moral code.
- This latter may in turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. Someone may maintain that he will do as he likes and let others do the same, if they so desire, without turning this into a general principle as, for example, Kant's categorical imperative would require. Because whoever says so only expresses his personal preference or informs about the way he is going to act, the position is consistent. An amoralist might also make a stronger point that moral systems are arbitrary and unfounded on the whole, which is an epistemic or anthropological claim and not an ethical one. For this principled sort of amoralist, see Stirner and to a degree Marquis de Sade."
Note: It is not me that is doing so...All of you are... -- Faust ( talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The word "variously" is self-evident in having a definition that includes the word "or," and further is not in line with the cited sources. I contend that the word "variously" adds nothing to the article and should be removed, but I tagged rather than edited to allow for a period of discussion. 76.168.95.118 ( talk) 16:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, apparently this is a difficult thing to grasp, so I am going to be clear about this once and for all. The only reason it is said of amorality that an individual does not subscribe to a moral code (or words of similar meaning) is because an act can be amoral when it had been PREVIOUSLY decided to not consider a certain set of morals. Therefore an act can be amoral at a certain moment if at that moment that morality has not been considered. The reason this is specifically mentioned is because of the ambiguity of the issue when morals have been considered and dropped (previously) and not considered (actually). Since it is actually not considered it is called amoral.
All of the five cited sources have this in common. Please check. If there are any difficulties with this, please discuss them here and do not prolong the edit-war that all of you seem intent to wage.
I've just pulled together a nice easy list of links for anyone wondering about the history of this dispute in the article space itself, who doesn't want to wade through it all one step at a time:
-- Pfhorrest ( talk) 01:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Completely apart from all of the above hubbub, I would like to suggest that the third "definition" of Morality, and the "Ethical perspectives" section, be merged together into one section about the relationship between ethics and morality.
My first thought was that the contents of the "Ethical perspectives" section really belonged as a part of the third "definition"; but that seemed too long. Then I noticed that the source for the split definitions is the SEP article on "Definition of Morality", which only mentioned the first two; and the history of this article shows it was originally only those two, then someone added the third point.
I think the relation between the different senses of "ethics" and "morals" or "morality" are definitely worthy of note, but I don't think they belong in the lede there alongside the descriptive and normative senses.
Thoughts? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and been bold and done something similar to this: I rolled the "Ethical perspectives" section together with the third bullet point, trimmed down and refined the result, and left it as a paragraph about the relation between 'ethics' and 'morality', right after the "two principle meanings".
I also tidied up the huge paragraph about realism and anti-realism into two bullets with a lead sentence and a little cleanup mini-paragraph, correcting some slightly incorrect wording in it as well.
I also fixed the superfluous spaces between the refs at the end of the first paragraph.
-- Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I was just redirected to this page from a search for "propriety" and would like to submit that morality and propriety are not thoroughly synonomous. While there may be many arguments regarding morality, propriety is by nature more heavily contextual and based upon social custom than any kind of argumentation. This blanket redirect seems a little odd to me--as an example I will cite my own concern here, which is with propriety rather than morality. 75.64.191.225 ( talk) 08:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Beg pardon, the redirect was actually from "Appropriate." 75.64.191.225 ( talk) 08:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
So now what? The page is stuck in an incorrect, disputed, grammatically incorrect, and unsourced version, and we all have to convince Faust, who is clearly never, ever going to relent on this issue, before it can be changed at all? Where do we go from here? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a word I miss in the English language. What would you call overzealous morals? What I mean is applying morals to situations where it does not work in the wrongful belief that it does. Can any mother tongue speakers of English help me?
2010-09-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 ( talk) 10:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
These where not to any help to me. When I looked up “moralize” on Wiktionary the explanations did not say anything about it being overzealous.
2011-01-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 ( talk) 19:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This page defines "Morality" as "a sense of behavioral conduct", but the Oxford English dictionary defines it as "Ethical wisdom; knowledge of moral science.". These two definitions are entirely incompatible, for the reason that ethical wisdom requires conscious thinking, whereas "a sense" does not. A dog has "a sense of behavioural conduct", but a thinking human being has morality.
I think the definition should be more inline with the traditional definition to be found in the Oxford English dictionary. The definition used in the current article removes the conscious element, which is essential to what morality is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksolway ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Stands out here more for some reason than other banal feuilletonistic overreachings on brain imaging studies of varying quality, unavoidable these days. Suggest editorial action to put some perspective on the perspective. Lycurgus ( talk) 06:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
1 Moral codes
2 Morality and religion
3 Morality and politics
4 Philosophical perspectives
4.1 Realism and anti-realism
5 Scientific Perspectives
5.1 Anthropology
5.1.1 Tribal and territorial moralities
5.1.2 In-group and out-group
5.1.3 Comparing cultures
5.3 Role in Human Evolution
5.4 Physiology
5.4.1 Mirror-neurons
5.4.2 Neuroimaging and stimulation
5.5 Psychology
Lycurgus ( talk) 07:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
In response to some recent edit churn in the lede, I've made some tweaks to neutralized it between consequentialist, deontological, and aretaic conceptions of morality, and also between realist and anti-realist conceptions. That is to say, there are different notable (and each controversial) moral theories which say that morality is about something in the mind of the actor, something about the action itself, or something about what that action brings about; but the lede has been drifting toward an aretaic (virtue-centered) and frankly somewhat anti-realist conception, that morality is about acting in accordance with one's beliefs about what is good, as opposed to doing what is actually good, or to effecting good states of affairs. I've just trimmed out some words now in a way that I hope leaves it open for interpretation that morality may be about any of those things, but in any case is about some kind of differentiation between good and bad in one domain or another, and leaving that in turn open for interpretation on whether any such differentiation is actually any more correct than another. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 01:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
See global warming ( climate change), ethics, effects of climate change on humans ( effects of global warming in general for non-humans), risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth, Climate ethics, Climate justice
99.190.87.173 ( talk) 21:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The section on the "moral core," specifically the first sentence, confused me. It currently reads: 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 and beliefs (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.
A less confusing way to word it might be: Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual. In contrast to the idea of a "creator" and the creator's rules or moral code, belief in a moral core focuses on the similarities and differences between individuals. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (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.
However, the topic of the importance of similarities (and differences?) between individuals would benefit from some further elaboration. Any suggestions?
Thanks, Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnewton37 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I added some tags. With such a high volume of readers, I feel that it merits a good deal of improvement. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 03:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted the addition of some unnecessary and biased qualifiers ("judged or defined as") to the definition in the first sentence of the lede. By any account, morality distinguishes between right/wrong or good/bad, whatever those turn out to be. If they are meaningless, then moral nihilists are right, and there is no morality, so the qualifiers are unnecessary for this purpose. If they are something independent of anyone's opinions, than moral universalists are right, and the qualifiers are biased against this position. If they are whatever people judge or define them to be, then moral relativists are right, and the qualifiers are biased in favor of this position. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 05:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Quoting Simon Blackburn is like quoting Alfred E Neuman. Both are equally educated about their craft. For example, Simon's commentary about Exodus 22:18 clearly demonstrates he either doesn't know much about the Bible, or he's being intentionally disingenuous. Either way, IMHO this whole paragraph reads more like an ad for his book than an intellectual exercise. JimScott ( talk) 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the deletion of an entire paragraph of properly sourced material. Please follow the guidelines in Wikipedia's policy on preserving material versus a mass deletion of material. This is not a finished article and Wikipedia is a work in progress. Thanks. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
So as not to delete your material I added a paragraph inviting readers to ensure, particularly when it comes to the discussion of moraltiy, to look at sources of opposing oppinion and to emphasise the importance of looking at scriptures in context. The link provided a reasonably short summary considering the short attention span of most internet users Thanks Gerne1 ( talk) 18:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I added another study by the Barna Group and reworded the passage concerning divorce rates. It is now a paraphrase encompassing both references and seems to be fairly neutral, IMO. There are other ways to handle this. We could be more accurate within the text and provide more detail about the individual studies (although the section is getting long now), or add a note section in the manner of Common English usage misconceptions with a note providing further details for the present version. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Gerne1 ( talk) 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm unclear what the emphasis on atheists and agnostics marrying less is. It doesn't affect the statistical figures, because the figures are already per-married-person (so it's not like lower divorce rates can be divided by lower marriage rates to get a comparable figure, since the figures are already people-who've-been-divorced divided by people-who've-been-married). The point of that paragraph seems to be "religions often prohibit divorce, but look, the they divorce more (per marriage) on average than irreligious people", so I'm not sure what adding "but the irreligious get married less too" adds to that, since its not like the irreligious prohibit marriage or anything. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 17:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Gerne1 ( talk) 11:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose to delete (or move) the paragraph in the "Religion and morality" section that has to do with faith and crime. It just strikes me as out of place. There are two issues here:
I have some material that I could add to that section from Phil Zuckerman's book, Society Without God, illustrating how some of the planet's least religious countries (e.g., Denmark and Sweden) have "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world," as well as other relevant indicators.
But I don't really want to add the material because I think the paragraph should simply be struck or moved to another article. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of other editors here. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 02:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The whole section has become too biased. This in not at all enzyclopedic any more but biased personal opinions particularly if you take out the bits explaining the misinterpretaion of anti religious polemics. I have no objections about them being in there as they represent the belief of some people but one has to also show the complete picture Gerne1 ( talk) 10:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) with some personal comments removed and thanks for the reminder of the talkpage guidelines. Forgot that wkipedians are not to be mixed up with utubians :-) Gerne1 ( talk) 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Do not know who put divorce as a moral imperative in monothistic religions but even that statement is incorrect as the Muslim and Jewish religion have not such absolute claims and even the catholic church annuls marriages under certain circumstances. This is why the higher percentage of divorces in non christian faith groups that you deleted was actually well relevant to the information. Gerne1 ( talk) 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. I moved passages on crime in general to the notes, and drew info on violent crime from the one I could access. The passages comprise material on both sides of the fence, so to speak, so I don't think this will be viewed as a move to favor one narrative over another. I also broke the section into two subsections: positions and empirics. The material in "positions" on the Barna group divorce study then seemed out of place, so I moved that to a note as well. I think the result is a more manageable section that will handle further editing and improvements reasonably well. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 02:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me for wading in and attempting a major edit but the article is only at start class and i hope you feel my changes are improvements. richard holt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard holt ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Although the article still needs a lot of work, the most glaring issue to me is that the lede does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. That's especially unfortunate for such a heavily-trafficked article. For an article of this size, three to four paragraphs are fine. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 19:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I replaced the tag noting that the lede is insufficient as measured against the criterions identified in WP:LEDE.
I have not had time to address the lede in this article. The article itself needs more attention, in reality. But the tag may inspire someone else to address the lede's shortcomings. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel divorce rates and morality are related. - i would suggest removing the references to this example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.wordsworth.holt ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This article "resolves" quite a few deep philosophical and scientific questions with a mere sweep of the pen. Specialists are divided on these issues and their various points of view deserve neutral presentation.
A couple of examples:
Example 1: "The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of different peoples of humanity": what about the species evolutionary explanation? What about Kant? What about Hume? What about natural law? What about the psychological explanation?
Example 2: In "Empirical Analyses" section, results of studies supporting one point of view have been relegated to footnotes, while those supporting another point of view are in the body of the text.
And there are many others, e.g. Blackburn's position which gets much more space than the response made to it.
In addition to the flagrant violations of NPOV, there are also quite a few less noticeable ones in the form of sentence phrasing.
Example: "Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon": The paragraph this sentence is taken from correctly qualifies the position as dependant on a point of view with the preface "On this understanding,". However the sentence itself is misphrased, presenting a point of view as a fact.
Michaelmke ( talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like there was a merge request that was initiated back in November 2012 to merge Decency into Morality. Support or oppose? Steel1943 ( talk) 07:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like it has been written by a devout Christian that was trying to propound their viewpoint without getting it all removed, the type of person that still believes in burning blasphemers. It propounds morality as fact and has no section (which there needs to be for the sake of objectivity) devoted to people that have a differing opinion to the one predominantly expressed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.166.121 ( talk) 15:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I made a few changes to this section but they were reverted:
Moreover, I'm not sure about the last sentence. My understanding is that moral universalism means "applying to all individuals" and moral realism means "there are objective moral facts existing in reality". The difference is that the former case need not involve objective facts, but merely a universal consistency among subjective ones. The article is right that universal presciptivism is undoubtedly anti-realist as well as universalist. Both divine command theory and ideal observer theory, however, seem clearly realist to me as they postulate objective facts separate from subjective human experience. Indeed, the definition of ideal observer theory (the decisions of a perfectly rational being) is basically the definition of all forms of realist optimism.
Does anyone object to these changes? 101.114.115.125 ( talk) 07:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Har har at the recent addition of a {{too many templates}} template here (though that, strangely enough, seems to print a message that there are not yet enough templates), but I agree with the sentiment. The number of "such-and-such redirects here" hatnotes on this article is getting Too Damn High. Is there some way of condensing this down to something more reasonable? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is this article marked as having a NPOV dispute? - Bernardwoodpecker ( talk) 14:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The section on Evolution seems to imply that natural selection favors a single kind of morality. Perhaps it would help to cite current scholarship indicating that it actually produced moral diversity (as it produced diversity of blood-type and sex). Such citations can be found in that article. 165.189.37.11 ( talk) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I propose that the section on Moral codes be merged with Ethical codes. Including these here is going to make the associated terms very muddy. Of course, you can find sources who use the terms "morality", "ethics", and "values" interchangeably. But doing so on Wikipedia without any explanation is just going to confuse many people and contribute to making the terms meaningless. Sets of rules clearly fall into the realm of value systems and it's no problem sourcing them as such. Since "ethics" can both mean the branch of philosophy that covers moral philosophy as well as the connotation of a set of rules, these can also be placed in the Ethical codes article without problem. Yes, there will be people who argue that these are "moral codes" as well, but I suggest it is more useful to not call these rule sets three different things (four if you lump them into deontological ethics as well). Airborne84 ( talk) 19:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) DOI:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"...used within three contexts: individual distinction; systems of valued principles—sometimes called conduct morality—shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community."
THREE contexts?? well, i count two... where the fuck is the third one?? or did someone word this like a clumsy oaf 124.176.5.47 08:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-->
For the line "Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience" isn't it saying that Morals are CREATED by and DEFINE society, philosophy, religion... where i think its supposed to say "Morals are created by and defined by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience" Somebody can change that if I'm right. -observed by some random guy, erase this after the change has been made, or decided that no change is needed.
I fixed the "gods know what's best for us" statement by deleting it. Am considering changing the "moral core" bit to include some mention of maturity- think this would also fix the problem directly below, rather than changing the footnote?
Some parts copied and adapted from Sexual morality because already clear enough in that article.
24, my changes are not opposing what you had said, but adding instead some other notes, that I imagine can combine with your definition. You added the element of personality of the conduct, that is effectively correct on a "subjective" level (by which I mean, the matter regarded from the side of the individual). But I can see that the "social" relevance of this concept can be perhaps of more commonly known evidence.
Of course the personal aspect is very important and as you can see, nothing was deleted, I just added some points that perhaps you might develop :-) -- Gianfranco
I've added a paragraph about evolutionary psychology, and another slightly rambling and speculative one following on from it, about octopuses. I think the octopus idea is highly relevant, but if the general opinion is that it is too diffuse, and not suitable for an encyclopaedia, then I have no problem with that second paragraph being condensed or removed. :-) GrahamN
Regarding to the above statement, the Spartans regulary practiced infantacide. As far as incest goes(and this, admittedly is dealt with in the appropriate article), it has long been my belief that this taboo has much to do with biological necessity.
I moved the moral back to a separate page, as it represents a separate (abit related) concept. All its changes were preserved. -- Yurik 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"While some philosophers, psychologists and evolutionary biologists hold that morality is a thin crust hiding egoism, amorality, and anti-social tendencies, others see morality as equally a product of evolutionary forces and as evidence for continuity with other group-living organisms."
Translation: "Some see morality as an excuse to practice evil and others see morality as a product of evolution."
Those are NOT the only two opinions about where morality comes from. A lot of people believe God has established laws for people to obey and a good encyclopedia should at least mention that. The "thin crust" may be a freudian slip for the thinly veiled weaseling of presenting two POVs to exclude the third.-- The burning bush 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the portion "(although they [philosophers] often use both words [i.e. morals and ethics] interchangably)...yes, they did...but do we need the ambivalence? Reinsert if we do. -- VKokielov 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i HAD to get rid of a h (at the end of one of the headings with =='s on either side) it looked like this ==heading==h.
I have removed the main article, as it was considered nonsense, and no-one disagreed. Please do not attempt to recreate it, it will be considered vandalism. Thanks-- 131.111.8.96 14:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Add a section about Nietzsche's view of morality. He offers a good arguement on the issue of morality in some of his works.
I put in a merge tag, because I think Moral Code would fit better as a subtopic here. -- Michael 22:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is a minor suggested revised wording for Rational Morality:
ORIGINAL: Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus morality is necessarily one of self-interest ...
REVISED: Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus, rational morality is necessarily one of self-interest ...
Thank You, -- EScribe 05:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Why did the following entry disappear within the last few days from the article? =
Rational Morality
Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus rational morality is necessarily one of self-interest and looks at man's nature and the reason he needs values, then defines the virtues, known as a moral code, that must be practiced to reach those values. Morality is "rationally accepted" and chosen. Rational morality asserts that all other "views" of morality are subjective and require some sort of sacrifice, either to the supernatural (i.e., God) or the social collective, whereas proper morality is self-evident and in the interest of the individual's happiness. Thus rational morality is synonymous with individual rights.
Thankz 66.61.36.55 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This passage makes a weird claim.
It sounds like the POV being pushed is that there is no common standard of morality across different cultures. What is odd about this passage is that it is not looking for moral standards across most cultures; it is claiming that for something to be universal morality it has to be always condemned by all cultures . That's kind of an impossible standard. Most cultures think it's always wrong to slaughter large numbers of your tribal 'in-group', but the Mubutushuku tribe of the Momobotosoku region of Africa kills off 90% of their tribe annually, so I guess mass murder is just another subjective Western standard of morality. Let's see an authoritive ( anthropology?) source for these "some people" who think morality is "simply whatever norms are present" Seriously. I weant to see a source for these some poeple. MPS 14:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Morality is not merely the sum of its parts, that is, its laws. It is any code at all which seeks to prevent someone from living in such a way as to act on every impulse he experiences. Laws against murder exist because people have been driven to murder. Laws against rape exist because people have been compelled to rape. etc.. Whether such activities are deemed immoral or not by a given society depends on whether they are problematic or not (murder is not problematic if the victim is being sacrificed to a god, rape is not problematic if said society's men are not threatened by women and do not care about their feelings, infanticide is not problematic if the baby is deformed and nobody cares about it, etc.) Evolution would actually render morality an obsolete and useless concept, as any intelligent evolutionist would be able to reason that any pang of conscience he feels at the thought of killing, stealing from, raping, or otherwise violating another human being is nothing but a meaningless electrical signal in his brain, to be dismissed as such. There would be no reason for him not to act on every impulse he feels except for fear of punishment, which is the only type of morality that would make sense to an evolutionist who is actually capable of deep thought. If there were no supreme law-giver (God), satisfying impulses would be the only sensible reason to continue living, any other reason would have to be an invention and could not apply to all of humanity. This problem is solved when the general public is either intellectually complacent (never questioning their priests in white lab coats or bothering to analyze the logic behind their own feelings) or if they truly believe that there is a supreme law-giver with the power to make their feelings viable as well as give instruction on how to find satisfaction in resisting certain impulses and being kind to others without benefitting oneself. Most societies today, particularly in overdeveloped nations, opt for the first solution.
I believe that there is a clear distinction between what is moral and what is ethical; the two may sometimes clash.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
And also -
One can, by example, precieve that the act of fornication is one of immorality since most religions hold it to be a sin yet logically, legally (in most countries), and biologically - thus ethically - it would be permissible because it carries no "tremendous sanction" against it.
There are many other examples of actions which are considered immoral but are not unethical and vise versa, e.g. slavery.
Perhaps the article should make that distinction clearer. GeeOh ( talk) 09:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Should Anglo Saxons be allowed to muddle themselves up? Is this an ethical question or a moral question? Please see the German language entry for a useful distinction between ethics and morality.
___________________________________________________________________________
I agree.
This is ethics not morality:
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
Obviously written by someone not objective enough. Emphasis on the religions part.
Regards, dcer
_____________________________________________________________________________
I believe Aristotle would make a distinction between morality and ethics. Morality concerns guidelines for living a 'good' life. What will make one happy in the long run. It has no 'direct' concern with how one treats others. For example; reading, learning, brushing one's teeth, embracing the idea of delayed gratification are all behaviors that improve one's life but do not involve other people.
Ethics is the subject of acceptable behavior and interaction with other people and the world.
Paul
______________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps it would be more grammatically correct to change the title of the first section of the article (Evolution of Morality) to Development of Morality. A very small issue, but the term evolution should be limited to biology. Dilbert 00:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we should be more specific when using the term "development" -- do we mean the progressive expression of moral traits over the course of human development from infant to child to adult or do we mean its evolutionary bases? I agree they're separate, but they shed light on each other and if we're going to have a section devoted to the ontogeny of morality, we should also have one devoted to its evolutionary history. -- Prionesse 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Minor quip; please take the word "goodness" out. There is no definition in the meaning of the statement "wholesome goodness". It is vague, subjective, and carries an unreasonable biased expectation of optimistic results. Maybe it is just me, but goodness is not a word. It conveys the apex of political correctness, of Orwellian(sp?) "new-speak", by being a word that cannot be defined other then; It means what ever the -lister- wants it to mean; with the -speaker- letting self-deception happen. Please take it out. 76.170.118.217 ( talk) 10:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I want a clear answer on this one.
144.132.1.37 11:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no clear answer. Is it right to contribute to the suffering of the downtrodden? Is it right to contribute to the possible spread of disease? What effect do your actions have? To what extent are you personally responsible for things that are out of or only slightly in your control?
On the other hand, if we constructed a robot prostitute that had no feelings and was incapable of spreading disease or participating in any of the social ills associated with prostetution, would it be wrong to engage in the act? Of course not.
Sexual conduct in and of itself is a cultural and/or religious value judgement, not a question of morality. We only begin to discuss morality when we begin to discuss the ramifications of the act. These are seperate questions.
Yoda921 11:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda
wow yoda, good job not backing up your opinion there with anything... why is it immoral?? assuming all sex is protected, and the prostitute is not beaten up or shit like that or exploited its completely moral... she wants money, some guy wants sex, they exchange, both agree to the arrangement... :O shit a brick! nothing immoral happened!
At present this article reads like a survey rather than a clarification; or, to contrast it in another way, a summary of the academic views on Morality as opposed to the everyday view.
Perhaps a better way of presenting it would be to begin with the everyday understanding of morality. I'd suggest that (as a discussion point, not as a fixed idea) that Morality in the common Western understanding, has religious underpinnings: it implies (or has come to be understood as) what is 'universally supposed to be', or is declared by God or the gods. This, as opposed to what is legal, or has been declared by humans to be right or wrong; or what is "socially acceptable": defined by society to be correct or incorrect.
Philosophers and academics have tried to explore all these ideas, attempting to find a solid universal basis as well as boundaries for moral concepts. In doing so they have muddied the water, taking all of these into the general mix of "morality", indeed, groping into areas such as ethics, etiquette, and further afield into ideas about the good life.
Philosophers may have entered such areas in their discussions but it is confusing and perhaps even wrong to suggest that all of these ideas are really in the field of morality. The laws of physics play a role in biology but we would not suggest that biology is some sub-study of physics.
Put another way, the "common understanding" of a distinction between legality and morality is not necessarily a correct view and the academic view incorrect. But, for practical purposes--which is what an encyclopedia serves--it provides a clearer and more useful view...with academic views as an interesting but subordinate discussion....IMHO.-- 207.81.127.107 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems as though most of the posters here are conflating or confusing morality with moral or cultural relativism.
Morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong. This means that which is always right and wrong and has some level of universal acceptance even if not always adhered too. Murder was considered wrong even in Nazi Germany.
The notion that morals change according to culture is simply a fallacy.
Consider the following argument.
Back during the slave days, owning slaves was commonly accepted. Therefore, there was nothing immoral about owning slaves.
This is simple reduction to absurdity - so much for cultural norms. Those with background in logic should also spot the circular argument.
It is also wrong to conflate sexuality with morality.
Unless we are talking about a violent act such as rape, morality as it refers to consensual sex between adults is a misnomer. Although it is common to use the term “morality” with regard to sex, it is simply a miss-use of the term. I have little doubt that this point is difficult to understand
due to the wide acceptance of this error. Also, there can be numerous debates about the moral consequences of some sexual practices but these things must all be debated on there individual merit. Promiscuity in and of itself has nothing to do with morality.
It is also wrong to suggest that people acting in violation of a given religion are immoral and it is wrong to suggest that any actions sanctioned by religion are necessarily moral.
Consider the practice of “honor killing” in which a woman must be killed by her male relatives if she is perceived (regardless of fact) as committing a sexual indiscretion that brings shame on the family. The use of religion to justify the murder does not constitute a change in morality it only means that an attempt is made to justify the murder based on circular reasoning. i.e. It’s right because my book says so.
A very different notion is one of “thou shall not murder.” This is not only a religious statement but a logically defendable one as well.
Note that the commandment does not read “thou shall not kill.” That would be a very different and ethically problematic statement.
The bottom line is that morality is correctly defined separately from theology which is a different branch of philosophy.
Likewise, the term “morality” must not be improperly used with regard to sexual conduct.
Morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong. This is the definition.
Really, this is all philosophy 101. Unless you have never taken it or have been de-educated by an imposter, this should all be quite basic.
Near the beginning of Morality#Morality in judicial systems, what does this mean? "it is not difficult toems" Art LaPella 17:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Some forms of morality can be deduced from the following statement, "Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate." (I call it the Base Rule.) From this statement the incest taboo can be derived. Family members are, of course, related. Also, there is homosexuality which occurs from related genders and is widely considered to be immoral. Another example is cannibalism which is caused from related species. In each of these instances, related subjects are being combined when they were already combined in the first place. Without this logical statement morality is abstract. JHuber 07:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is defining morality in terms of adaptivity and maladaptivity at a fundamental level. Inclusive fitness as a mechanism for a more complex moral system comes about when we form groups: Groupism or Group-forming being a subsidiary genetic programming (or instinct) in support of the primary genetic programming of survival. We can then, in this context, define immorality in terms of damage to the Group: to inclusive fitness. (I call this the "This is my idea, I thought of it first, aren't I clever" Rule.)
Whether things are related or not is down to the rules of your morality; but if you're aiming for a logical morality (as opposed to "moral logic"), you have to be a bit more sophisticated than just using a blanket semantic formula like that.
It takes one to know one 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Social primates - especially chimpanzee show altruism in a sense that "I will scratch your back if you scratch mine". It speculates about an altruistic gene that is needed in a social population.
If for example anarchy will develop in a country because of poverty, then both poor and rich individuals get a increased risk in being injured. That outcome is bad for all parties. Hence it is in everybodies interest to have a good social security.
If we look in the human population. We as population set up rules together that is benificiant for the population. Some individuals break against our common rules even that there lives are not at risk, Why?
Just some thoughts
-- Msitua 09:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE!
Don't like this term.
Sounds American.
Not sourced.
That whole section sounds like a patronising and subjective lecture bundling together ideas of preference, such as "Maturity". ("Moral core" sounds like a constant; "maturity" a variable). It takes one to know one 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This section strikes me as surprisingly involved. Perhaps it would be better if it were less biased. 155.212.104.246 C. Ignatius
ThAtSo, you just reverted my reorganization of the section on "Religion and morality" alleging that it introduced POV. But, were exactly is the POV? Is there anything in the reverted version not justified by the references? That edit required a lot of work, since the modifications involved careful evaluation of what each source had to say. Meanwhile, the version of the text you seem to favor discuss one of the studies in much more detail than the others, and leaves at least one study without any mention, even though it is referenced (that is, the version you reverted to has problems with undue weight). I'd say your reversion introduced POV. --
Leinad ∴
-diz aí.
04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes. [1] Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime, [2] with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one). [3] 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”. [4] Apart from this general trend, one study found that nations in which the population show strong belief in the devil and in hell have higher rates of homicide than countries with either more secular populations, or with populations that believe in God and heaven but not in its malevolent counterparts. [5] Research also seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior on topics other than crime. There are, for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism, [6] [7] and data suggesting that growth in the importance of religion in adolescents' lives is consistently related to better family relations. [8] Although a recent paper argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity of a country and certain measures of dysfunction, [9] the methodology of the study has been criticized [5] and an analysis published later contends that a number of problems disavow any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research. [10]
Quite the contrary, it's been weeks and nobody's shown the slightest bit of support for your version, which is sure to be reverted if you try to stick it in the article. ThAtSo 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As I explained already, your entire effort is flawed from the start because you're just adding bias to overcome perceived bias. ThAtSo 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In the introductory paragraph, whoever wrote it uses the word "I", and not in quotes. I'm not sure if there are any rules about this but I wanted to ask if this possibly presented a voice issue --encyclopedia's probably shouldn't be in first person-- before I fixed it. Henry Corvel 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any significant reason why the term "morality" differs substantially from the term " ethics"? Aren't they both just 2 different words for normative values, that is, ways to determine what's right/good from what's wrong/bad? If so, I propose that the article for "morality" be merged with the one for "ethics", and that " moralism" and/or " moralist" have their own articles, since these 2 terms (moralist & moralism) denote more of the arbitrary, petty, and oppressive qualities associated with taboo-enforcers and other force initiators than the term "morality" itself does, which I think most people just equate with "knowing right from wrong", which is more properly (and neutrally) covered by "ethics". Shanoman 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The word in the opening sentence ought to be mos, mores. Jorgath ( talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The New York Times has a great article on scientific investigations into morality that I think could be incorporated into the article [1]. Remember ( talk) 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Public Morality is education.
If we teach more people about virtues and it's positive meaning, it will contribute to public morality. Morality is goodness, in ordered to understand goodness better must we study virtues.
Sincerly, Phalanx Pursos —Preceding comment was added at 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
So I changed it towards the better.
With all the morality that I have studied in my life, was I totally dissapointed about the misinformation which has been posted on this page. You people explain everything about morality except the fact what it really is, accept the fact that you know nothing about it. Public morality died 1500 years ago, most flawed statements prove this time and time again.
Phalanx Pursos 06:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"The subjectiveness of morality is shown by the observation that actions or beliefs which by themselves do not cause any harm may be by some considered immoral"
it is true that one may observe that some others consider an action or belief immoral while at the same time observing that that action or belief causes no harm. Why does this imply subjectivity? It may be that your observations of harm has nothing to do with whatever objective measuring stick is used but the moralists.
If however, you mean to imply that the act of causing harm itself is a measure of subjectiveness, then morality is objective by your standards - it is whether or not you cause harm to others.
This renders this statement logically flawed, contradictory, naive, and combined with the politically charged gay marriage example, brings to question the matter of the writers bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.71.216 ( talk) 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This sentence in the introduction: "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 (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). "
Is pretty unclear. The best I can break it down is:
"moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism) (Other stuff). And Moral anti-realism falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). "
Seems like "falsely presupposes" violates some kind of fair and neutral rule.
Am I just reading this sentence wrong? Is it trying to say that anti-realism holds that morality is derived from a false presuppositions that there are objective moral facts? If that's the case, it seems like that is redundant with the examples already listed.
Should the sentence read: "moral anti-realism would hold that morality falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory) and 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); or is an implied imperative (prescriptive);"??
I'd change it if I knew what the sentence was actually trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecnassianer ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This section is pretty suspcious: the article it points to seems nothing more than a bunch of ludicrous cultural stereotypes (e.g. it asserts that the French subject turned traitor very quickly, needing only to be plied with cigarettes). The discussion page of that article raises these concerns but I can see none here, can someone who knows anything at all about the book verify that it exists, is relevant to what is being asserted here, and that the whole thing isn't just a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.182.72 ( talk) 10:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I place the category "Concepts in Religious Metaphysics" and "Pseudo-Information Science," because the religious metaphysics doesn't utilize a developed methodology, hence the theories are not real (meaning it is implausible to occur or even perform a computerized simulation). Note that Philosophy isn't psuedoscience because they have an established method that is well develop through phenomenology / contemporary philosophy (aka philosophical method based on intuition, gut feeling, perspective, insight...etc psychological phenomenon (but regardless in partial some phenomenon are provable through neuroscience).
So please present some firm mediums such as books and research rather than blatantly presenting controversial topics (e.g. creationism vs evolution).
If you are interested in Religious Studies, I suggest trying to present a possible clear studies on how the religious concepts maybe evolved in different religion to present a clearer picture of Notion. Thanks for your time in reading this -- 75.154.186.99 ( talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this subject is inappropriate for this article, because it repeats some information and presents info on what liberals and conservatives in the US generally think. I don't think this content is harmful, so I'm not removing the whole section for now, but I'd like to see if someone else thinks the section contains no information the article needs that isn't already present elsewhere in the article. Rustyfence ( talk) 08:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sociology articles are a big weakness of Wikipedia's. We tend to acquire commonplace comments and clichés under each possible term which then tend to sit there tagged for cleanup for years.
Check out the following articles:
and consider how exactly their scope is delimited relative to one another and to this one.
It would be important to have fewer articles, and make sure the ones we keep are short and to the point, directly guiding the reader to the most relevant academic literature on the topic. -- dab (𒁳) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Below a submission for an addition. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Faust (
talk •
contribs)
11:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In formal ethics morality is used as meaning the 'good' action. A disambiguation can be made however. In teleological ethics the word 'moral' is used as a synonym for ethics. In deontological ethics the word 'moral' is used in a more narrow sense: that act of which one can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law. A remarkable consequence of this is that teleological ethics is immoral from a deontological viewpoint.
Oxford Dictionary of philosophy, 2008, p240
I will make a reference out of this quote, but we might include this quote, for reference purposes. Let me know if any one has any feedback. -- Faust ( talk) 09:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust ( talk • contribs)
Sorry for forgetting the sig... -- Faust, formerly Arjen ( talk) 11:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Since no reactions have been given I will add this under an ethical header. If needs be we can discuss things here after that still. -- Faust, formerly Arjen ( talk) 07:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, after reading the introduction I placed the little part there (with a small edit to suit the place in the text). Since the entire heading was already about ethics and a mention of the word usage of the word 'morality' in ethics this seemed prudent. -- Faust, formerly Arjen ( talk) 08:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I had placed a reference with the definitions mentioned aboven, but this has been removed for an unclear reason. The fact is that Kant defines these in his 'Kritik der Reinen Vernunft' and it seems to me that definitions like that should be referred to a source at all times. Now, a user has removed this reference for reasons of inappropriateness. I hereby state that I will replace the reference, unless a really good reason will be given why a reference of a definition should not be given. -- Faust ( talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) This concerns this reference: Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Immanuel Kant, P25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, the entire point Kant is making and why this part of the article is UNCPECIFIC is the difference between im- and a-. The deontological idea of morality that I am sure you are referring to is a specific one, but follows from the meaning of the word. So, you are merely confusing the two issues. It is your removal and comments that are inappropriate. -- Faust ( talk) 09:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will elaborate a little for your benefit. Something that is a moral is something that has got nothing to do with morality (in the wide sense). Something that is immoral is something that goes against morality (in the wide sense). This leads to a question as to what exactly is moral than. That is up to the understanding of the subject. The subject will try to act in a way it understands as 'good'. However, this may still cause people unintended suffering. This is why Kant separated the hypothetical and the categorical imperative. One may cause harm inadvertently. This subsequently leads to the more narrow approach to morality. It is a strong argument for Kant's idea. Regardless, it proves the differences between his narrow approach to morality and the im- and a- distinction, which is mere linguistics. Kant does use the im- an a- distinction to construct his narrow moral view though. In fact, it is the very meaning of the word from its creation albeit misused and wrongfully interpreted, which shows the importance of separating between the hypothetical and categorical imperative: it reveals the inconsistencies in one's reasons.-- Faust ( talk) 09:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a retracing of our steps. You asked for a reference of the reference and I have given it to you. The reference of the reference proves that the definitions were Kantian and that should be enough for you. Since it isn't it is clear your POV is what is in the way. That is why your POV is important. Now, if you think this isn't true, please prove that. If you cannot I will place my reference back again.-- Faust ( talk) 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Zaspino, I have properly addressed your complaints. Why are you retracing our steps? Apart from that I can only say that even in a crowd of thousand, the truth is still the truth and a lie still a lie. -- Faust ( talk) 14:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have not replaced the reference as of yet, but it should be there. I will walk another path. -- Faust ( talk) 08:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I undid the revision of 76.168.95.118. An active denial is a moral consideration, and therefore equal to immorality, as per the definition. -- Faust ( talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting an RFC to seek WP:Consensus on the definition of amorality specifically in relation to morality.-- 173.58.234.86 ( talk) 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) The intro currently reads: "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is a passive indifference toward morality." This sentence should be changed. According to the well-sourced definition of amorality on its own page, amorality can be either of several things (indicated by the word "or"): "Amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." In this article the definition is necessarily restrictive, failing to give full faith to other sources of definitions of amorality. I propose it be changed to instead read "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." "Disregard" in this instance does not refer to immorality for the simple reason that disregard does not positively indicate opposition. This change may be slightly more wordy, but it is the most concise yet clear definition available that does justice to the concept of amorality. Faust, unless you have objections to raise I will change this in an hour or so. 76.168.95.118 ( talk) 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I am surprised at all of your reactions. The reason for this is because in the proposed change the difference between immorality and amorality will be null and void. Although I am aware that such a confusion is a well known position in this, it should not be in the general declaration of the terms. The reason immorality is defined as amorality is because a certain 'goal' is wielded by the actor. An act is 'good' when it adds towards achieving the goal (a.k.a. the good) and no further interest is taken in the act itself. Since morality has been thought over (and discarded) by the actor it is immoral and not amoral. The expression 'the end justifies the means' applies. Because of this POV the actor has no further interest in examining the act, as long as the POV is achieved. The act only appears amoral to the actor because of the POV (denial). Since it therefore is a POV that makes one come to this reasoning it should be placed in the article as a POV. This has previously been done under the ethical perspectives header. Can everybody agree to that? -- Faust ( talk) 17:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
@IP: Kindly do not edit the article before reaching contention. I undid your revision because I think that you misinterpret the entire thing, or maybe I am. Above I did not have the idea there was a real difference of opinion between us, but now I do. Morality is not about the rulebase, it is about the will for acting in such a way that one thinks everybody should act. A set of morals is a rulebase and therefore cannot become moral. Wielding a rule that should apply always is that inequality because acts should alway be seen in the light of the intent. So, the point is not that the moral should be known to everybody, or to be defined at all, just that one can will everybody to act in that manner in that situation. So, immorality is not willing that universality and amorality is never having thought of it, or it never having applied. Exactly what is stated now btw. Are we on the same page? -- Faust ( talk) 22:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
As Pfhorrest said:
I suggest we all understand that there is an ontological difference going on here. On the first level we see the question of thinking of morality or no and at the second level we see the question why an actor who is thinking about morals decides to act according to a universality or not. This is why I am saying that in the introduction of terms there should be made mention of the terms amoral and immoral (as opposed to moral) and that the second level are positions, which should be discussed below that, as POV's...which is what it is like now...
NOTE: After consulting the amorality page I must conclude that it states exactly what I am stating. -- Faust ( talk) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose a different choice of words here. On the amorality page the general idea becomes clear because of the example given, but we may choose to change the choice of words there as well. The idea is as follows:
Faust wrote above: "I would like to see at least ONE source" and "I have not even seen a source" for the inclusive definition of amorality he is arguing against. However, several people have already given a variety of sources. The phrasing that was imported from Amorality has the following citations attached to it over there (which admittedly should have been, but were not, imported when the phrasing was; although the existence of these sources there was noted here earlier):
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Earlier in this thead I cited several sources from online dictionaries myself:
None of these are claiming that "amoral" and "immoral" mean the same thing, as you seem to think we are arguing; they merely disagree with you (who have still not provided a source for your claim) about which of those two categories certain types of attitudes belong in. Looking back through the talk history, I notice a source that you cited early on as evidence that "moral" and "immoral" mean different things (which, I emphasize again, no one is disputing here). Even that source which you cited acknowledges what we're all saying, in fact the bulk of what it has to say about amorality is about the sense which you deny:
Since you have yet to provide a single source (aside from original research derived from dictionary definitions of the prefixes "a-" and "im-" and vague references to something Kant said somewhere) for your claim that "amoral" means only "passive indifference toward morality" and not the more inclusive "absence of, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs", I am going to revert again to that version (and add in all the sources that should have been in there before). Since 76.168.95.118, 79.182.17.168, 173.58.234.86, User:Zaspino, and I, have all instituted this inclusive version (or close variants thereof) and you keep reverting to your restrictive version, and you have yet to name a reliable source restricting the definition of amorality to what you say it is, you are the one who is edit warring; specifically, you are engaging in WP:Tendentious editing, in particular "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions". -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 08:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC) ADDENDUM: In the spirit of compromise this reinstated version will include qualifying language similar to Faust's suggested compromise in the subsection above, but without giving preferential treatment to his favored element of the disjunction. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 09:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- amoral persons either
- do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (see the so-called Antisocial personality disorder) or else
- do not subscribe to any moral code.
- This latter may in turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. Someone may maintain that he will do as he likes and let others do the same, if they so desire, without turning this into a general principle as, for example, Kant's categorical imperative would require. Because whoever says so only expresses his personal preference or informs about the way he is going to act, the position is consistent. An amoralist might also make a stronger point that moral systems are arbitrary and unfounded on the whole, which is an epistemic or anthropological claim and not an ethical one. For this principled sort of amoralist, see Stirner and to a degree Marquis de Sade."
Note: It is not me that is doing so...All of you are... -- Faust ( talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The word "variously" is self-evident in having a definition that includes the word "or," and further is not in line with the cited sources. I contend that the word "variously" adds nothing to the article and should be removed, but I tagged rather than edited to allow for a period of discussion. 76.168.95.118 ( talk) 16:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, apparently this is a difficult thing to grasp, so I am going to be clear about this once and for all. The only reason it is said of amorality that an individual does not subscribe to a moral code (or words of similar meaning) is because an act can be amoral when it had been PREVIOUSLY decided to not consider a certain set of morals. Therefore an act can be amoral at a certain moment if at that moment that morality has not been considered. The reason this is specifically mentioned is because of the ambiguity of the issue when morals have been considered and dropped (previously) and not considered (actually). Since it is actually not considered it is called amoral.
All of the five cited sources have this in common. Please check. If there are any difficulties with this, please discuss them here and do not prolong the edit-war that all of you seem intent to wage.
I've just pulled together a nice easy list of links for anyone wondering about the history of this dispute in the article space itself, who doesn't want to wade through it all one step at a time:
-- Pfhorrest ( talk) 01:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Completely apart from all of the above hubbub, I would like to suggest that the third "definition" of Morality, and the "Ethical perspectives" section, be merged together into one section about the relationship between ethics and morality.
My first thought was that the contents of the "Ethical perspectives" section really belonged as a part of the third "definition"; but that seemed too long. Then I noticed that the source for the split definitions is the SEP article on "Definition of Morality", which only mentioned the first two; and the history of this article shows it was originally only those two, then someone added the third point.
I think the relation between the different senses of "ethics" and "morals" or "morality" are definitely worthy of note, but I don't think they belong in the lede there alongside the descriptive and normative senses.
Thoughts? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and been bold and done something similar to this: I rolled the "Ethical perspectives" section together with the third bullet point, trimmed down and refined the result, and left it as a paragraph about the relation between 'ethics' and 'morality', right after the "two principle meanings".
I also tidied up the huge paragraph about realism and anti-realism into two bullets with a lead sentence and a little cleanup mini-paragraph, correcting some slightly incorrect wording in it as well.
I also fixed the superfluous spaces between the refs at the end of the first paragraph.
-- Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I was just redirected to this page from a search for "propriety" and would like to submit that morality and propriety are not thoroughly synonomous. While there may be many arguments regarding morality, propriety is by nature more heavily contextual and based upon social custom than any kind of argumentation. This blanket redirect seems a little odd to me--as an example I will cite my own concern here, which is with propriety rather than morality. 75.64.191.225 ( talk) 08:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Beg pardon, the redirect was actually from "Appropriate." 75.64.191.225 ( talk) 08:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
So now what? The page is stuck in an incorrect, disputed, grammatically incorrect, and unsourced version, and we all have to convince Faust, who is clearly never, ever going to relent on this issue, before it can be changed at all? Where do we go from here? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a word I miss in the English language. What would you call overzealous morals? What I mean is applying morals to situations where it does not work in the wrongful belief that it does. Can any mother tongue speakers of English help me?
2010-09-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 ( talk) 10:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
These where not to any help to me. When I looked up “moralize” on Wiktionary the explanations did not say anything about it being overzealous.
2011-01-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 ( talk) 19:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This page defines "Morality" as "a sense of behavioral conduct", but the Oxford English dictionary defines it as "Ethical wisdom; knowledge of moral science.". These two definitions are entirely incompatible, for the reason that ethical wisdom requires conscious thinking, whereas "a sense" does not. A dog has "a sense of behavioural conduct", but a thinking human being has morality.
I think the definition should be more inline with the traditional definition to be found in the Oxford English dictionary. The definition used in the current article removes the conscious element, which is essential to what morality is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksolway ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Stands out here more for some reason than other banal feuilletonistic overreachings on brain imaging studies of varying quality, unavoidable these days. Suggest editorial action to put some perspective on the perspective. Lycurgus ( talk) 06:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
1 Moral codes
2 Morality and religion
3 Morality and politics
4 Philosophical perspectives
4.1 Realism and anti-realism
5 Scientific Perspectives
5.1 Anthropology
5.1.1 Tribal and territorial moralities
5.1.2 In-group and out-group
5.1.3 Comparing cultures
5.3 Role in Human Evolution
5.4 Physiology
5.4.1 Mirror-neurons
5.4.2 Neuroimaging and stimulation
5.5 Psychology
Lycurgus ( talk) 07:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
In response to some recent edit churn in the lede, I've made some tweaks to neutralized it between consequentialist, deontological, and aretaic conceptions of morality, and also between realist and anti-realist conceptions. That is to say, there are different notable (and each controversial) moral theories which say that morality is about something in the mind of the actor, something about the action itself, or something about what that action brings about; but the lede has been drifting toward an aretaic (virtue-centered) and frankly somewhat anti-realist conception, that morality is about acting in accordance with one's beliefs about what is good, as opposed to doing what is actually good, or to effecting good states of affairs. I've just trimmed out some words now in a way that I hope leaves it open for interpretation that morality may be about any of those things, but in any case is about some kind of differentiation between good and bad in one domain or another, and leaving that in turn open for interpretation on whether any such differentiation is actually any more correct than another. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 01:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
See global warming ( climate change), ethics, effects of climate change on humans ( effects of global warming in general for non-humans), risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth, Climate ethics, Climate justice
99.190.87.173 ( talk) 21:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The section on the "moral core," specifically the first sentence, confused me. It currently reads: 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 and beliefs (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.
A less confusing way to word it might be: Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual. In contrast to the idea of a "creator" and the creator's rules or moral code, belief in a moral core focuses on the similarities and differences between individuals. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (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.
However, the topic of the importance of similarities (and differences?) between individuals would benefit from some further elaboration. Any suggestions?
Thanks, Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnewton37 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I added some tags. With such a high volume of readers, I feel that it merits a good deal of improvement. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 03:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted the addition of some unnecessary and biased qualifiers ("judged or defined as") to the definition in the first sentence of the lede. By any account, morality distinguishes between right/wrong or good/bad, whatever those turn out to be. If they are meaningless, then moral nihilists are right, and there is no morality, so the qualifiers are unnecessary for this purpose. If they are something independent of anyone's opinions, than moral universalists are right, and the qualifiers are biased against this position. If they are whatever people judge or define them to be, then moral relativists are right, and the qualifiers are biased in favor of this position. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 05:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Quoting Simon Blackburn is like quoting Alfred E Neuman. Both are equally educated about their craft. For example, Simon's commentary about Exodus 22:18 clearly demonstrates he either doesn't know much about the Bible, or he's being intentionally disingenuous. Either way, IMHO this whole paragraph reads more like an ad for his book than an intellectual exercise. JimScott ( talk) 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the deletion of an entire paragraph of properly sourced material. Please follow the guidelines in Wikipedia's policy on preserving material versus a mass deletion of material. This is not a finished article and Wikipedia is a work in progress. Thanks. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
So as not to delete your material I added a paragraph inviting readers to ensure, particularly when it comes to the discussion of moraltiy, to look at sources of opposing oppinion and to emphasise the importance of looking at scriptures in context. The link provided a reasonably short summary considering the short attention span of most internet users Thanks Gerne1 ( talk) 18:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I added another study by the Barna Group and reworded the passage concerning divorce rates. It is now a paraphrase encompassing both references and seems to be fairly neutral, IMO. There are other ways to handle this. We could be more accurate within the text and provide more detail about the individual studies (although the section is getting long now), or add a note section in the manner of Common English usage misconceptions with a note providing further details for the present version. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Gerne1 ( talk) 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm unclear what the emphasis on atheists and agnostics marrying less is. It doesn't affect the statistical figures, because the figures are already per-married-person (so it's not like lower divorce rates can be divided by lower marriage rates to get a comparable figure, since the figures are already people-who've-been-divorced divided by people-who've-been-married). The point of that paragraph seems to be "religions often prohibit divorce, but look, the they divorce more (per marriage) on average than irreligious people", so I'm not sure what adding "but the irreligious get married less too" adds to that, since its not like the irreligious prohibit marriage or anything. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 17:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Gerne1 ( talk) 11:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose to delete (or move) the paragraph in the "Religion and morality" section that has to do with faith and crime. It just strikes me as out of place. There are two issues here:
I have some material that I could add to that section from Phil Zuckerman's book, Society Without God, illustrating how some of the planet's least religious countries (e.g., Denmark and Sweden) have "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world," as well as other relevant indicators.
But I don't really want to add the material because I think the paragraph should simply be struck or moved to another article. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of other editors here. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 02:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The whole section has become too biased. This in not at all enzyclopedic any more but biased personal opinions particularly if you take out the bits explaining the misinterpretaion of anti religious polemics. I have no objections about them being in there as they represent the belief of some people but one has to also show the complete picture Gerne1 ( talk) 10:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) with some personal comments removed and thanks for the reminder of the talkpage guidelines. Forgot that wkipedians are not to be mixed up with utubians :-) Gerne1 ( talk) 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Do not know who put divorce as a moral imperative in monothistic religions but even that statement is incorrect as the Muslim and Jewish religion have not such absolute claims and even the catholic church annuls marriages under certain circumstances. This is why the higher percentage of divorces in non christian faith groups that you deleted was actually well relevant to the information. Gerne1 ( talk) 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. I moved passages on crime in general to the notes, and drew info on violent crime from the one I could access. The passages comprise material on both sides of the fence, so to speak, so I don't think this will be viewed as a move to favor one narrative over another. I also broke the section into two subsections: positions and empirics. The material in "positions" on the Barna group divorce study then seemed out of place, so I moved that to a note as well. I think the result is a more manageable section that will handle further editing and improvements reasonably well. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 02:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me for wading in and attempting a major edit but the article is only at start class and i hope you feel my changes are improvements. richard holt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard holt ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Although the article still needs a lot of work, the most glaring issue to me is that the lede does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. That's especially unfortunate for such a heavily-trafficked article. For an article of this size, three to four paragraphs are fine. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 19:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I replaced the tag noting that the lede is insufficient as measured against the criterions identified in WP:LEDE.
I have not had time to address the lede in this article. The article itself needs more attention, in reality. But the tag may inspire someone else to address the lede's shortcomings. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel divorce rates and morality are related. - i would suggest removing the references to this example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.wordsworth.holt ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This article "resolves" quite a few deep philosophical and scientific questions with a mere sweep of the pen. Specialists are divided on these issues and their various points of view deserve neutral presentation.
A couple of examples:
Example 1: "The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of different peoples of humanity": what about the species evolutionary explanation? What about Kant? What about Hume? What about natural law? What about the psychological explanation?
Example 2: In "Empirical Analyses" section, results of studies supporting one point of view have been relegated to footnotes, while those supporting another point of view are in the body of the text.
And there are many others, e.g. Blackburn's position which gets much more space than the response made to it.
In addition to the flagrant violations of NPOV, there are also quite a few less noticeable ones in the form of sentence phrasing.
Example: "Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon": The paragraph this sentence is taken from correctly qualifies the position as dependant on a point of view with the preface "On this understanding,". However the sentence itself is misphrased, presenting a point of view as a fact.
Michaelmke ( talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like there was a merge request that was initiated back in November 2012 to merge Decency into Morality. Support or oppose? Steel1943 ( talk) 07:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like it has been written by a devout Christian that was trying to propound their viewpoint without getting it all removed, the type of person that still believes in burning blasphemers. It propounds morality as fact and has no section (which there needs to be for the sake of objectivity) devoted to people that have a differing opinion to the one predominantly expressed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.166.121 ( talk) 15:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I made a few changes to this section but they were reverted:
Moreover, I'm not sure about the last sentence. My understanding is that moral universalism means "applying to all individuals" and moral realism means "there are objective moral facts existing in reality". The difference is that the former case need not involve objective facts, but merely a universal consistency among subjective ones. The article is right that universal presciptivism is undoubtedly anti-realist as well as universalist. Both divine command theory and ideal observer theory, however, seem clearly realist to me as they postulate objective facts separate from subjective human experience. Indeed, the definition of ideal observer theory (the decisions of a perfectly rational being) is basically the definition of all forms of realist optimism.
Does anyone object to these changes? 101.114.115.125 ( talk) 07:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Har har at the recent addition of a {{too many templates}} template here (though that, strangely enough, seems to print a message that there are not yet enough templates), but I agree with the sentiment. The number of "such-and-such redirects here" hatnotes on this article is getting Too Damn High. Is there some way of condensing this down to something more reasonable? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is this article marked as having a NPOV dispute? - Bernardwoodpecker ( talk) 14:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The section on Evolution seems to imply that natural selection favors a single kind of morality. Perhaps it would help to cite current scholarship indicating that it actually produced moral diversity (as it produced diversity of blood-type and sex). Such citations can be found in that article. 165.189.37.11 ( talk) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I propose that the section on Moral codes be merged with Ethical codes. Including these here is going to make the associated terms very muddy. Of course, you can find sources who use the terms "morality", "ethics", and "values" interchangeably. But doing so on Wikipedia without any explanation is just going to confuse many people and contribute to making the terms meaningless. Sets of rules clearly fall into the realm of value systems and it's no problem sourcing them as such. Since "ethics" can both mean the branch of philosophy that covers moral philosophy as well as the connotation of a set of rules, these can also be placed in the Ethical codes article without problem. Yes, there will be people who argue that these are "moral codes" as well, but I suggest it is more useful to not call these rule sets three different things (four if you lump them into deontological ethics as well). Airborne84 ( talk) 19:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) DOI:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)