|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morality article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
Links from this article with broken #section links (check):
|Morality has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 180 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Small deletion 
Paragraph "In any society, actual behavior patterns diverge.." deleted as not relevant to morals as construct/in definition. Whilst I like the first sentence I couldn't leave it standalone. The remainder, in my opinion, is of the class "this [subjectively classed] group of people (pundits) definitely do [semi-subjectively classed] action (pose politically)", which strikes me as unnecessary/POV. mr happyhour 18:10 04 AUG 06
Proposed merger 
- Support. Decency does not have enough information to be a standalone article; it should be merged. Steel1943 (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Even if Decency were expanded, it seems that it would only re-state ideas already included here; the two terms are synonymous. Ethraen (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Neutral POV 
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.