Jump to content

Morality: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Redirect2|Immoralist|Appropriate|the novel by André Gide|The Immoralist|other uses|Appropriation (disambiguation)}}
{{Distinguish|Mortality}}
{{mergefrom|Decency|date=November 2012}}
{{lead too short|date=June 2012}}

'''Morality''' (from the [[Latin]] ''{{Lang|la|moralitas}}'' "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and [[Social actions|actions]] between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is [[ethics]]. A ''moral code'' is a system of morality (according to a particular [[philosophy]], [[religion]], [[culture]], etc.) and a ''moral'' is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. ''Morality'' may also be specifically [[synonym]]ous with "goodness" or "rightness." ''Immorality'' is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while ''amorality'' is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.<ref>
{{Cite book| last = Johnstone | first = Megan-Jane | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective | publisher = Elsevier Health Sciences | year = 2008 | location = | pages = 102–103 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 978-0-7295-3873-2 }}
</ref><ref>
{{Cite book| last = Superson | first = Anita | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The Moral Skeptic | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2009 | location = | pages = 127–159 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 978-0-19-537662-3 }}
</ref><ref>
{{cite web| url = http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amorality | title = Amorality | accessdate = 2010-06-18 | work = Dictionary.com}} "having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong"
</ref><ref>
{{cite web| url = http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amoral#Adjective | title = amoral | accessdate = 2010-09-09 | work = Wiktionary}} "(of people) not believing in or caring for morality and immorality"
</ref> An example of a moral code is the [[Golden Rule]] which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."<ref name = "Flew">{{Cite encyclopedia |title=golden rule|editor =[[Antony Flew]] | encyclopedia=A Dictionary of Philosophy | publisher = [[Pan Books]] in association with [[Macmillan Publishers|The MacMillan Press]] | year = 1979 | location = London | page = 134 | isbn = 0 330 28359 X }} This dictionary of philosophy contains the following exact quote under the entry for "golden rule": "The maxim 'Treat others how you wish to be treated'. Various expressions of this fundamental moral rule are to be found in tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages, testifying to its universal applicability." (end quote)</ref>

==SMoke weed everyday==
{{Main|Ethics}}
{{Refimprove section|date=December 2011}}

===420 yolo===
''Ethics'' (also known as ''moral philosophy'') is that branch of [[philosophy]] which addresses questions about morality. The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality'&nbsp;... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."<ref>John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'', 1995.</ref> Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially [[deontological ethics]], sometimes distinguish between 'ethics' and 'morals': "Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and [[Value (personal and cultural)|principles]] of conduct, reserving ethics for the more [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a [[virtue]], and generally avoiding the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations."<ref>Oxford Dictionary of philosophy, 2008, p240</ref>

===Descriptive and normative===
* In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to [[Value (personal and cultural)|personal or cultural values]], [[code of conduct|codes of conduct]] or social [[mores]]. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. [[Descriptive ethics]] is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.
* In its [[normative]] sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is ''actually'' right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. [[Normative ethics]] is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.

===Realism and anti-realism===
Philosophical theories on the nature and origins of morality (that is, theories of [[meta-ethics]]) are broadly divided into two classes:
* [[Moral realism]] is the class of theories which hold that there are true moral statements that report objective moral facts. For example, while they might concede that forces of social [[conformity (psychology)|conformity]] significantly shape individuals' "moral" decisions, they deny that those cultural [[norm (sociology)|norms]] and [[convention (norm)|customs]] define morally right behavior. This may be the philosophical view propounded by [[ethical naturalism|ethical naturalists]], however not all moral realists accept that position (e.g. [[ethical non-naturalism|ethical non-naturalists]]).<ref>[[Georges Chapouthier|Chapouthier, Georges]], To what extent is moral judgment natural ?, European Review (GB), 2004, Nr12(2), pp179-183</ref>
* Moral [[anti-realism]], on the other hand, holds that moral statements either fail or do not even attempt to report objective moral facts. Instead, they hold that moral claims are derived either from an unsupported belief that there are objective moral facts ([[error theory]], a form of [[moral nihilism]]); the speakers' sentiments ([[emotivism]], a form of [[moral relativism]]); or any one of the [[norm (sociology)|norms]] prevalent in society ([[ethical subjectivism]], another form of moral relativism).

Theories which claim that morality is derived from reasoning about implied imperatives ([[universal prescriptivism]]), the edicts of a god ([[divine command theory]]), or the hypothetical decrees of a perfectly rational being ([[ideal observer theory]]), are considered anti-realist in the robust sense used here, but are considered realist in the sense synonymous with [[moral universalism]].

==Anthropology==

===Tribal and territorial ===
[[Celia Green]] made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.<ref name="Green">Green, Celia (2004). ''Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I-XX.</ref> She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person’s territory, including his or her property and dependents, which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective on the individual. These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and ‘flexible’, whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are universal and absolute, such as [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]’s ‘[[categorical imperative]]’ and [[Norman Geisler|Geisler]]'s [[graded absolutism]]. Green relates the development of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy of contract over status.

===In-group and out-group===
Some observers hold that individuals apply distinct sets of moral rules to people depending on their membership of an "in-group" (the individual and those they believe to be of the same culture or race) or an "out-group" (people not entitled to be treated according to the same rules). Some biologists, anthropologists and [[evolutionary psychology|evolutionary psychologists]] believe this in-group/out-group discrimination has evolved because it enhances group survival. This belief has been confirmed by simple computational models of evolution.<ref>T.R. Shultz, M. Hartshorn, and A. Kaznatcheev. [http://141.14.165.6/CogSci09/papers/500/ Why is ethnocentrism more common than humanitarianism?] Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society, 2009.</ref> Gary R. Johnson and V.S. Falger have argued that [[nationalism]] and [[patriotism]] are forms of this in-group/out-group boundary. Jonathan Haidt has noted<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z | pmid = | title = When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize | year = 2007 | last1 = Haidt | first1 = Jonathan | last2 = Graham | first2 = Jesse | journal = Social Justice Research | volume = 20 | pages = 98 }}</ref> that experimental observation indicating an in-group criterion provides one moral foundation substantially used by [[conservative]]s, but far less so by [[Liberalism|liberals]].

===Comparing cultures===
{{Expand section|date=August 2011}}
Peterson and Seligman<ref>Peterson, Christopher, and Martin E. P. Seligman. ''Character Strengths and Virtues''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.</ref> approach the anthropological view looking across cultures, geo-cultural areas and across millennia. They conclude that certain virtues have prevailed in all cultures they examined. The major virtues they identified include ''wisdom / knowledge; courage; humanity; justice; temperance; and transcendence''. Each of these includes several divisions. For instance ''humanity'' includes ''love'', ''kindness'', and ''social intelligence''.

[[Fons Trompenaars]], author of ''Did the Pedestrian Die?'', tested members of different cultures with various [[moral dilemma]]s. One of these was whether the driver of a car would have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie in order to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that different cultures had quite different expectations (from none to almost certain)<!-- , and in some cultures it mattered whether the pedestrian had died to how much assistance would be expected -->.{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}

John Newton, author of ''Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century'' <ref>Newton, John (2000). ''Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century'', Nicer Century World Publishing, ISBN 0967370574.</ref> compared the Eastern and the Western cultures about morality. As stated in ''Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century'', “One of the important objectives of this book is to blend harmoniously the fine souls regarding conduct in the Eastern and the Western cultures, to take the result as the source and then to create newer and better conduct principles to suit the human society of the new century, and to introduce a lot of Chinese fine conduct spirits to the Western world. It is hoped that this helps solve lots of problems the human society of the 21st century faces, including (but not limited to the Eastern and the Western cultures) what a single culture cannot.”

==Evolution==
: ''See also:'' [[Altruism#Genetics|Altruism]], [[Evolution of morality]], [[Evolutionary ethics]]

The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the [[Sociocultural evolution]] of different peoples of humanity. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through [[group selection]] (though to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors. Conversely, it has been argued by other biologists that the humans developed truly moral, altruistic instincts.<ref>Griffith J. 2011. ''Conscience''. In ''The Book of Real Answers to Everything!'' (see http://www.worldtransformation.com/conscience/ ). ISBN 9781741290073.</ref>

On this understanding, moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and ideologically-driven behaviors which encourage human [[cooperation]]. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals' fitness.<ref name="shermer">{{Cite book
|title=[[The Science of Good and Evil]]
|isbn=0-8050-7520-8
|last=Shermer
|first=Michael
|authorlink=Michael Shermer
|chapter=Transcendent Morality
|chapterurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=eevvWAcMBaAC&pg=PA19&dq=shermer+exegesis&ei=EIC1SNOiE4uWyATTmaj2Bg&sig=ACfU3U3KFh8kP8Ns8-YgpqBuI03N1JrpEg
}}</ref>
On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction ([[inclusive fitness]]). Examples: the [[maternal bond]] is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the [[Westermarck Effect|Westermarck effect]], where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins [[Incest taboo|taboos against incest]] because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behaviour such as [[inbreeding]].

<!-- kinship altruism theory -->
<!-- handicap altruism theory -->
<!-- reputation theory -->
<!-- reciprocity theory -->
The phenomenon of '[[Reciprocity (evolution)|reciprocity]]' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, some [[vampire bat]]s fail to feed on prey some nights while others manage to consume a surplus. Bats that did eat will then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a [[Conspecificity|conspecific]] from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)
Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (2009) have argued that morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as "a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups." This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness.<ref>Bekoff, Marc and Jessica Pierce ''Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals'' (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press 2009)</ref> In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=O’Connell |first= Sanjida |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= 1995|month= July|title= Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind? |journal= Primates|volume= 36|issue= 3|pages= 397–410|issn= 0032-8332 |url= |quote=|doi= 10.1007/BF02382862 }}</ref> They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics'<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0674356616 Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals].</ref> prototypical of our own tendencies for [[gossip]] and [[reputation]] management.
<!-- [[hypocrisy]] Johnathan Haidt -->

Christopher Boehm (1982)<ref>{{cite journal|last=Boehm|first=Christopher|title=The evolutionary development of morality as an effect of dominance behaviour and conflict interference|journal=Journal of Social and Biological Sciences|year=1982|volume=5|pages=413–22}}</ref> has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout [[Great ape|hominid]] evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of [[theory of mind]] abilities. [[Richard Dawkins]] in ''[[The God Delusion]]'' suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and that the [[Moral Zeitgeist]] helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time within a culture.

A British poll found that the most important moral points among young people were looking after ones family and putting others before yourself.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/young-people-see-family-care-as-higher-moral-priority-than-religion-8129687.html Young people see family care as higher moral priority than religion] retrieved 12 September 2012</ref>

==Neuroscience==
The brain areas that are consistently involved when humans reason about moral issues have been investigated by a quantitative large-scale meta-analysis of the brain activity changes reported in the moral neuroscience literature.<ref name = Bzdok>{{cite web|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/a8926q746t212727/ |title=Bzdok, D. et al. Parsing the neural correlates of moral cognition: ALE meta-analysis on morality, theory of mind, and empathy. Brain Struct Funct, 2011. |publisher=Springerlink.com |date=2012-01-24 |accessdate=2012-05-06}}</ref> In fact, the neural network underlying moral decisions overlapped with the network pertaining to representing others' intentions (i.e., theory of mind) and the network pertaining to representing others' (vicariously experienced) emotional states (i.e., empathy). This supports the notion that moral reasoning is related to both seeing things from other persons’ points of view and to grasping others’ feelings. These results provide evidence that the neural network underlying moral decisions is probably domain-global (i.e., there might be no such things as a "moral module" in the human brain) and might be dissociable into cognitive and affective sub-systems.<ref name = Bzdok />

===Brain areas===
The explicit making of moral right and wrong judgments coincides with activation in the [[ventromedial prefrontal cortex]] (VMPC) while intuitive reactions to situations containing implicit moral issues activates the [[temporoparietal junction]] area.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Harenski | first1 = CL | last2 = Antonenko | first2 = O | last3 = Shane | first3 = MS | last4 = Kiehl | first4 = KA. | year = 2010 | title = A functional imaging investigation of moral deliberation and moral intuition | url = | journal = Neuroimage | volume = 49 | issue = | pages = 2707–2716 | doi = 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.062 | pmid = 19878727 }}</ref> Stimulation of the VMPC by [[transcranial magnetic stimulation]] has been shown to inhibit the ability of human subjects to take into account intent when forming a moral judgment.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Young |first1= Liane |last2= Camprodon |first2= Joan Albert |last3= Hauser |first3= Marc |last4= Pascual-Leone |first4= Alvaro |last5= Saxe |first5= Rebecca |year= 2010 |title= Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments |journal= [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|PNAS]] |volume= 107 |issue= 15 |pages= 6753–6758 |doi= 10.1073/pnas.0914826107 |pmid=20351278 |pmc=2872442}}</ref> Similarly VMPC-impaired persons will judge an action purely on its outcome and are unable to take into account the intent of that action.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Young |first1= Liane |last2= Bechara |first2= Antoine |last3= Tranel |first3= Daniel |last4= Damasio |first4= Hanna |last5= Hauser |first5= Marc |last6= Damasio |first6= Antonio |year= 2010 |title= Damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex impairs judgment of harmful intent |journal= Neuron |volume= 65 |issue= 6 |pages= 845–851 |doi= 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.003 }}</ref>

===Mirror neurons===
{{main|Mirror neurons}}
Mirror neurons are neurons in the brain that fire when another person is observed doing a certain action. The neurons fire in imitation of the action being observed, causing the same muscles to act minutely in the observer as are acting grossly in the person actually performing the action. Research on mirror neurons, since their discovery in 1996,<ref>Giacomo Rizzolatti et al. (1996). ''Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions'', Cognitive Brain Research 3 131–141</ref> suggests that they may have a role to play not only in action understanding, but also in emotion sharing [[empathy]]. Cognitive neuro-scientist [[Jean Decety]] thinks that the ability to recognize and vicariously experience what another individual is undergoing was a key step forward in the evolution of social behavior, and ultimately, morality.<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html | work=The Washington Post | title=If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural | first=Shankar | last=Vedantam | accessdate=2010-05-13}}</ref> The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristics of [[psychopath]]y, and this would appear to lend support to Decety's view.<ref>{{Cite journal|author=de Wied M, Goudena PP, Matthys W |title=Empathy in boys with disruptive behavior disorders |journal=Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines |volume=46 |issue=8 |pages=867–80 |year=2005 |pmid=16033635 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00389.x}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|author=Fernandez YM, Marshall WL |title=Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists |journal=Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=11–26 |year=2003 |pmid=12616926 |doi=10.1023/A:1020611606754}}</ref>

==Psychology==
{{See also|Kohlberg's stages of moral development|Jean Piaget#Education and development of morality}}

In modern [[moral psychology]], morality is considered to change through personal development. A number of psychologists have produced theories on the development of morals, usually going through stages of different morals. [[Lawrence Kohlberg]], [[Jean Piaget]], and [[Elliot Turiel]] have cognitive-developmental approaches to [[moral development]]; to these theorists morality forms in a series of constructive stages or domains. [[Social psychology|Social psychologists]] such as [[Martin Hoffman]] and [[Jonathan Haidt]] emphasize social and emotional development based on biology, such as [[empathy]]. Moral identity theorists, such as [[William Damon]] and [[Mordechai Nisan]], see moral commitment as arising from the development of a self-identity that is defined by moral purposes: this moral self-identity leads to a sense of responsibility to pursue such purposes. Of historical interest in psychology are the theories of [[psychoanalyst]]s such as [[Sigmund Freud]], who believe that moral development is the product of aspects of the [[super-ego]] as guilt-shame avoidance.

Even though we have a sense of responsibility to pursue moral purposes, we still, at least occasionally, engage in immoral behaviour. Such behaviours jeopardize our moral self-image; however, when we engage in immoral behaviours we still feel as though we are moral individuals. ''Moral self-licensing'' attempts to explain this phenomenon and proposes that self-image security increases our likelihood to engage in immoral behaviour. When our moral self-image is threatened, we can gain confidence from our past moral behaviour. The more confident we are, the less we will worry about our future behaviour which actually increases the likelihood that we will engage in immoral behaviours.<ref name="autogenerated2001">{{cite journal | last1 = Monin | first1 = B | last2 = Miller | first2 = D. T. | year = 2001 | title = Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice | url = | journal = The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 81 | issue = 1| pages = 33–43 }}</ref><ref>Merritt, A., Effron, D., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4/5, 344-357. http://wat1224.ucr.edu/Morality/Monin%202010%20Compass%20on%20Moral%20Licensing.pdf</ref>

Monin and Miller (2001)<ref name="autogenerated2001"/> examined the ''moral self-licensing'' effect and found that when participants established credentials as non-prejudiced persons, they were more willing to express politically incorrect opinions despite the fact that the audience was unaware of their credentials.

==Morality and politics==
If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level, politics can be seen as addressing the same question at the social level. It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. [[Jonathan Haidt]] and [[Jesse Graham]] have studied the differences between [[Liberalism|liberals]] and [[conservatives]], in this regard.<ref name="Haidt">[[Jonathan Haidt|Haidt, Jonathan]] and Graham, Jesse (2006). [http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.when-morality-opposes-justice.doc ''When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize''] (DOC) [[Social Justice Research]].</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt |title=Morality: 2012: Online Only Video |publisher=The New Yorker |date= |accessdate=2012-05-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1445 |title=Why conservatives and liberals talk past each other on moral issues. |publisher=Dangerous Intersection |date=2007-07-07 |accessdate=2012-05-06}}</ref> Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tended to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans valued care and fairness less and the remaining three values more. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Haidt also hypothesizes that the origin of this division in the United States can be traced to geohistorical factors, with conservatism strongest in closely knit, ethnically homogenous communities, in contrast to [[port]]-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism.

Group morality develops from shared [[concept]]s and [[belief]]s and is often codified to regulate behavior within a [[culture]] or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fiber", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labeled as socially degenerate{{disambiguation needed|date=May 2012}}. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of [[Cistercian]] reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the [[Empress Dowager Cixi|Dowager Empress]] in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within [[Nationalism|nationalist]] movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one common morality, regardless of its content.
Political Morality is also relevant to the behaviour internationally of national governments, and to the support they receive from their host population. [[Noam Chomsky]] states that <ref name="Zmag">{{cite web|url=http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11934 |title=Terror and Just Response |publisher=ZNet |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |date=2002-07-02}}</ref><ref name="counterpunch">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.counterpunch.org/schivone08032007.html <!-- alternate: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20070803.htm -->|title=On Responsibility, War Guilt and Intellectuals |last=Schivone |first=Gabriel Matthew |date=2007-08-03 |journal=[[CounterPunch]] }} Interview.</ref>

{{cquote|... if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.}}
{{cquote|In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.}}

==Morality and religion==
{{Main|Morality and religion}} {{See also|Divine command theory|Morality without religion|Secular ethics}}

=== Positions ===
Within the wide range of moral traditions, religious moral traditions co-exist with contemporary secular moral frameworks such as [[consequentialism]], [[freethought]], [[humanism]], [[utilitarianism]], and others. There are many types of religious morals. Modern [[monotheistic]] religions, such as [[Islam]], [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and to a certain degree others such as [[Sikhism]] and [[Zoroastrianism]], define right and wrong by the laws and rules set forth by their respective scriptures and as interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith. [[Polytheistic]] religious traditions tend to be less absolute. For example, within [[Buddhism]], the intention of the individual and the circumstances should be accounted for to determine if an action is right or wrong.<ref>Peggy Morgan, "Buddhism." In {{cite book |title= Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions |edition= Second|editor1-first= Peggy|editor1-last= Morgan|editor2-first= Clive A. | editor2-last= Lawton|year= 2007|publisher= Columbia University Press|location= |isbn= 978-0-7486-2330-3 |pages= 61, 88–89}}</ref> A further disparity between the morals of religious traditions is pointed out by [[Barbara Stoler Miller]], who states that, in Hinduism, "practically, right and wrong are decided according to the categories of social rank, kinship, and stages of life. For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and egalitarianism, this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of Hinduism most difficult to understand".<ref>{{cite book |title= The Bhagavad Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War |last= Miller|first = Barbara Stoler|year = 2004|publisher= Random House|location= New York|isbn= 0-553-21365-2 |page= 3}}</ref>

Religions provide different ways of dealing with moral dilemmas. For example, there is no absolute prohibition on killing in [[Hinduism]], which recognizes that it "may be inevitable and indeed necessary" in certain circumstances.<ref>Werner Menski, "Hinduism." In {{cite book |title= Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions |edition= Second|editor1-first= Peggy|editor1-last= Morgan|editor2-first= Clive A. | editor2-last= Lawton|year= 2007|publisher= Columbia University Press|location= |isbn= 978-0-7486-2330-3 |page= 5}}</ref> In monotheistic traditions, certain acts are viewed in more absolute terms, such as [[abortion]] or [[divorce]].{{Ref label|A|a|none}} Religion is not always positively associated with morality. Philosopher [[David Hume]] stated that, "the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man's morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere."<ref>[[David Hume]], "The Natural History of Religion." In {{cite book |title= The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever|last= Hitchens|first= Christopher|year= 2007|publisher= Da Capo Press|location= Philadelphia|isbn= 978-0-306-81608-6|page= 30}}</ref>

Religious morals can diverge from commonly-held contemporary moral positions, such as those on [[murder]], mass atrocities, and [[slavery]]. For example, [[Simon Blackburn]] states that "apologists for Hinduism defend or explain away its involvement with the caste system, and apologists for Islam defend or explain away its harsh penal code or its attitude to women and infidels".<ref>{{cite book |title= Ethics: A Very Short Introduction|last= Blackburn|first= Simon|authorlink=Simon Blackburn|year= 2001|publisher= Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn= 978-0-19-280442-6|page= 13}}</ref> In regard to Christianity, he states that the "[[Bible]] can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women",<ref>{{cite book |title= Ethics: A Very Short Introduction|last= Blackburn|first= Simon|authorlink=Simon Blackburn|year= 2001|publisher= Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn= 978-0-19-280442-6|page= 12}}</ref> and notes morally suspect themes in the Bible's [[New Testament]] as well.<ref>{{cite book |title= Ethics: A Very Short Introduction|last= Blackburn|first= Simon|authorlink=Simon Blackburn|year= 2001|publisher= Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn= 978-0-19-280442-6|pages= 11–12}}</ref>{{Ref label|E|e|none}} Christian [[apologists]] address Blackburn's viewpoints<ref name="colley1">{{cite web|last=Colley|first=Caleb|title=Is Christianity a Threat to Ethics?|url=http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/articles/240427|publisher=Apologetics Press|accessdate=3 May 2012}}</ref> and explain that Jewish laws in the bible show the evolution of moral standards towards protecting the vulnerable, imposing a death penalty on those pursuing slavery and treating slaves as persons and not property.<ref name="enrichmentjournal1">{{cite web|url=http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201102/201102_108_slavery.htm.cfm |title=Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery? An Overview |publisher=Enrichmentjournal.ag.org |date= |accessdate=2012-05-06}}</ref> Elizabeth Anderson, a Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the [[University of Michigan, Ann Arbor]], states that "the Bible contains both good and evil teachings", and it is "morally inconsistent".<ref>Elizabeth Anderson, "If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" In {{cite book |title= The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever|last= Hitchens|first= Christopher|year= 2007|publisher= Da Capo Press|location= Philadelphia|isbn= 978-0-306-81608-6|page= 336}}</ref>

=== Empirical analyses ===
A number of studies have been conducted on the empirics of morality in various countries, and the overall relationship between faith and [[crime]] is unclear.{{Ref label|B|b|none}} A 2001 review of studies on this topic found "The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime."<ref>{{cite journal |url= http://brewright.com/articles/If%20You%20Love%20Me,%20Keep%20My%20Commandments.pdf|title= "If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments": A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Religion on Crime |last1= Baier|first1= Colin J.|last2= Wright|first2= Bradley R. E.|date= February 2001|edition= |volume= 38. No. 1|publisher= Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency|page=3|accessdate= 20 November 2011}} Original in italics.</ref> Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, ''Society without God'', notes that [[Denmark]] and [[Sweden]], "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".<ref>{{cite book |title= Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment|edition= |last= Zuckerman|first= Phil|year= |publisher= New York University Press|location= New York|isbn= 978-0-8147-9714-3|page= 2}} Zuckerman's work is based on his studies conducted during a 14-month period in Scandinavia in 2005–2006.</ref>{{Ref label|C|c|none}}

Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by [[Gregory S. Paul]] published in the ''Journal of Religion and Society'' stated that, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," and "In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows" with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and "theistic" Portugal.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html| journal=Journal of Religion and Society|title=Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look|first=Gregory S.|last=Paul |location=Baltimore, Maryland|year=2005| volume=7|pages = 4, 5, 8, and 10}}</ref>{{Ref label|D|d|none}} In a response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.<ref name="Jensen">Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University ''Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look'' http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS</ref> His conclusion is that a "complex relationship" exists between religiosity and homicide "with some
dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it". On April 26, 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects' [[Prosocial behavior|pro-social]] sentiments were published in the [[Social Psychological and Personality Science]] journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as lending their possessions and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train. Religious people also had lower scores when it came to seeing how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in other ways, such as in giving money or food to a homeless person and to non-believers.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430140035.htm Highly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers] by Science Daily</ref><ref>Laura R. Saslow, Robb Willer, Matthew Feinberg, Paul K. Piff, Katharine Clark, Dacher Keltner and Sarina R. Saturn
[http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/25/1948550612444137.full.pdf+html My Brother’s Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals]</ref>

==Moral codes==
{{Unreferenced section|date=December 2011}}
Codified morality is generally distinguished from [[Norm (sociology)|custom]], another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from [[Natural rights|natural]] or universal principles. Some religious communities see the [[divinity|Divine]] as providing these principles through [[revelation]], sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the [[Torah|Law of Moses]], or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in [[Sharia|Islamic law]]. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial [[right]], including [[civil rights]], which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the [[moral authority|authority of the moral law]].

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

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

Examples of moral codes include [[The Golden Rule]] (or "ethic of reciprocity");<ref>
[[Walter Terence Stace]] argued that the Golden Rule is much more than simply an [[ethics|ethical code]]. Instead, he posits, it "express[es] the essence of a universal morality." The rationale for this crucial distinction occupies much of his book ''The Concept of Morals'' (1937): –
{{cite book
| last = Stace
| first = Walter T.
| title = The Concept of Morals
| publisher = The MacMillan Company; and also reprinted by Peter Smith Publisher Inc, January 1990
| date = 1937, Reprinted 1975 by permission of MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc., Also reprinted January 1990 by Peter Smith Publisher Inc
| location = New York
| page = 136
| isbn = 0-8446-2990-1
}} (above quote found p. 136, ch. 6)
</ref> the [[Five Precepts]] and the [[Noble Eightfold Path]] of [[Buddhism]] (''see'' [[Śīla]]); the ancient Egyptian code of [[Ma'at]]; the [[Ten Commandments]] of [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]]; the [[Quran]] of Islam; Judaism's [[Noahide Law]]; and the [[yamas]] and [[niyama]] of the [[Hindu scriptures]].

Another related concept is the ''moral core'' of an individual, which is assumed to be innate. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (e.g. [[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]].

==See also==
* [[Ethical dilemma]]
* [[Value theory]]
* [[Science of morality]]

==Notes==
{{refbegin}}
:'''a.'''{{Note label|A|a|none}} Studies on divorce in the [[United States]] done by the Barna Group suggested that [[atheists]] and [[agnostics]] have lower divorce rates than faith groups on average (though some faith groups had [[Religion and divorce|lower rates]] still).<ref name="barna1">{{cite web |url= http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released|title= New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released |author= Barna Group|date= 31 March 2008 |publisher= Barna Group|accessdate= 19 November 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html |title= Survey Inspires Debate Over Why Faith Isn't a Bigger Factor in Marriage |first= Christine |last= Wicker|year= 2000|publisher= www.adherents.com|accessdate= 1 April 2012}}</ref> The study notes that fewer atheists and agnostics enter into marriage relative to faith-based individuals.
:'''b.'''{{Note label|B|b|none}} Some studies appear to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = KERLEY | first1 = KENT R. | last2 = MATTHEWS | first2 = | last3 = BLANCHARD | first3 = TROY C. | year = 2005 | title = Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors | url = | journal = Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion | volume = 44 | issue = 4| pages = 443–457 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = SAROGLOU | first1 = VASSILIS | last2 = PICHON | first2 = | last3 = DERNELLE | first3 = REBECCA | year = 2005 | title = Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings | url = | journal = Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion | volume = 44 | issue = 3| pages = 323–348 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Regnerus | first1 = Mark D. | last2 = Burdette | first2 = Amy | year = 2006 | title = RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT FAMILY DYNAMICS | url = | journal = The Sociological Quarterly | volume = 47 | issue = 1| pages = 175–194 | doi = 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x }}</ref>—for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.<ref>e.g. [http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey.html a survey] by [[Robert D. Putnam|Robert Putnam]] showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations</ref> Modern research in [[Relationship between criminology and sociology of education|criminology]] also suggests an inverse relationship between religion and crime,<ref>As is stated in: {{cite journal | last1 = Chu | first1 = Doris C. | year = 2007 | title = Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use | url = | journal = Criminal Justice and Behavior | volume = 34 | issue = | page = 661 | doi = 10.1177/0093854806293485 }}</ref> with some studies establishing this connection.<ref>
For example:
* {{cite journal | last1 = Albrecht | first1 = S. I. | last2 = Chadwick | first2 = B. A. | last3 = Alcorn | first3 = D. S. | year = 1977 | title = Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model | url = | journal = Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion | volume = 16 | issue = | pages = 263–274 | doi=10.2307/1385697}}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Burkett | first1 = S. | last2 = White | first2 = M. | year = 1974 | title = Hellfire and delinquency:Another look | url = | journal = Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion | volume = 13 | issue = | pages = 455–462 | doi=10.2307/1384608}}
* Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
* {{cite journal | last1 = Cochran | first1 = J. K. | last2 = Akers | first2 = R. L. | year = 1989 | title = Beyond Hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use | url = | journal = Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency | volume = 26 | issue = | pages = 198–225 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Evans | first1 = T. D. | last2 = Cullen | first2 = F. T. | last3 = Burton | first3 = V. S. | last4 = Jr | first4 = | last5 = Dunaway | first5 = R. G. | last6 = Payne | first6 = G. L. | last7 = Kethineni | first7 = S. R. | year = 1996 | title = Religion, social bonds, and delinquency | url = | journal = Deviant Behavior | volume = 17 | issue = | pages = 43–70 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Grasmick | first1 = H. G. | last2 = Bursik | first2 = R. J. | last3 = Cochran | first3 = J. K. | year = 1991 | title = Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": Religiosity and taxpayer's inclinations to cheat | url = | journal = The Sociological Quarterly | volume = 32 | issue = | pages = 251–266 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Higgins | first1 = P. C. | last2 = Albrecht | first2 = G. L. | year = 1977 | title = Hellfire and delinquency revisited | url = | journal = Social Forces | volume = 55 | issue = | pages = 952–958 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Johnson | first1 = B. R. | last2 = Larson | first2 = D. B. | last3 = DeLi | first3 = S. | last4 = Jang | first4 = S. J. | year = 2000 | title = Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth | url = | journal = Justice Quarterly | volume = 17 | issue = | pages = 377–391 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Johnson | first1 = R. E. | last2 = Marcos | first2 = A. C. | last3 = Bahr | first3 = S. J. | year = 1987 | title = The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use | url = | journal = Criminology | volume = 25 | issue = | pages = 323–340 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Powell | first1 = K. | year = 1997 | title = Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths | url = | journal = Family and Community Health | volume = 20 | issue = | pages = 38–47 }}

</ref> A meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior".<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Baier | first1 = C. J. | last2 = Wright | first2 = B. R. | year = 2001 | title = If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime | url = | journal = Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency | volume = 38 | issue = | pages = 3–21 | doi=10.1177/0022427801038001001}}</ref>
:'''c.'''{{Note label|C|c|none}} Zuckerman identifies that Scandinavians have "relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary", but "their overall rates of violent crime—such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape—are among the lowest on earth" (Zuckerman 2008, pp. 5–6).
:'''d.'''{{Note label|D|d|none}} The authors also state that "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies,"<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html| journal=Journal of Religion and Society|title=Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look|first=Gregory S.|last=Paul |location=Baltimore, Maryland|year=2005| volume=7| pages= 4, 5, 8}}</ref> and "[t]he least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards."<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html| journal=Journal of Religion and Society|title=Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look|first=Gregory S.|last=Paul |location=Baltimore, Maryland|year=2005| volume=7|page = 11}}</ref> They argue for a positive [[correlation]] between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html| journal=Journal of Religion and Society|title=Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look|first=Gregory S.|last=Paul |location=Baltimore, Maryland|year=2005| volume=7}}</ref> an analysis published later in the same journal argues that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions in the research.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html| journal=Journal of Religion and Society|title=Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health|author=Gerson Moreno-Riaño| coauthors=Mark Caleb Smith, Thomas Mach|location=Cedarville University|year=2006| volume=8}}</ref>
:'''e.'''{{Note label|E|e|none}} Blackburn provides examples such as the phrase in [[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] 22:18 that has "helped to burn alive tens or hundreds of thousands of women in Europe and America": "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and notes that the [[Old Testament]] God apparently has "no problems with a slave-owning society", considers birth control a crime punishable by death, and "is keen on child abuse".<ref>{{cite book |title= Ethics: A Very Short Introduction|last= Blackburn|first= Simon|authorlink=Simon Blackburn|year= 2001|publisher= Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn= 978-0-19-280442-6|pages= 10, 12}}</ref> Others interpret these passages differently, arguing for example that Jewish laws show the evolution of moral standards in society: that Jews actually threatened those who pursued forced slavery with the death penalty, held that slaves were persons instead of property, and protected them in several ways.<ref name="colley1"/><ref name="enrichmentjournal1"/>
{{refend}}

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book|last=Yandell,|first=Keith E.|title=God, man, and religion: readings in the philosophy of religion|year=1973|publisher=McGraw-Hill|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3EwgAQAAIAAJ}} containing articles by Paterson Brown:
:: [http://www.metalog.org/files/tpb/rel.m.html "Religious Morality"], (from ''Mind'', 1963),
:: [http://www.metalog.org/files/tpb/reply.html "Religious Morality: a Reply to Flew and Campbell"], (from ''Mind'', 1964),
:: [http://www.metalog.org/files/tpb/god.g.html "God and the Good"], (from ''[[Religious Studies (journal)|Religious studies]]'', 1967)
* {{cite book|last=Churchland|first=Patricia Smith|authorlink=Patricia Churchland|title=Braintrust : What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|location=Princeton, N.J.|isbn=0-691-13703-X|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tLsIzyFR08IC|year=2011}} (Reviewed in [http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/What-neuroscience-tells-us-about-morality.php The Montreal Review])
* {{cite journal
| last = Prinz
| first = Jesse
| authorlink = Jesse Prinz
| date =
| year = 2013
| month = Jan/Feb
| title = Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response
| journal = [[Philosophy Now]]
| volume =
| issue =
| series =
| pages =
| location =
| publisher =
| url = http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response
}}
*{{cite book|last=Harris|first=Sam|authorlink=Sam Harris (author)|title=[[The Moral Landscape|The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values]]|year=2010|publisher=Free Press|location=New York|isbn=1-4391-7121-1}}
* {{cite book|last=Stace|first=Walter Terence|authorlink=Walter Terence Stace|title=The Concept of Morals|year=1937|publisher=The MacMillan Company; Reprinted 1975 by permission of MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc., and also reprinted by Peter Smith Publisher Inc, January 1990|location=New York|isbn=0-8446-2990-1|url=http://www.archive.org/details/conceptofmorals029360mbp}}
* {{cite book|last=Trompenaars|first=Fons|authorlink=Fons Trompenaars|title=Did the Pedestrian Die?: Insights from the World's Greatest Culture Guru|year=2003|publisher=Capstone|location=Oxford|isbn=1-84112-436-2|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=BAYKAQAAMAAJ}}
* [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=license-to-sin Virtuous Behaviors Sanction Later Sins: People are quick to treat themselves after a good deed or healthy act] March 4, 2012
* John Newton, Ph.D. ''Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century'', 2000. ISBN 0967370574.

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Definition of Morality]
* [http://moralitylab.bc.edu/publications/ Boston College's Morality Lab]
* [http://www.percepp.com/morality.htm Objective Morality An evolutionary approach]
* [http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=1222 Morality and Judaism], [[chabad.org]]
* [http://www.worldmoralmovement.org Wiki site for discussing and taking action on shared morals (WorldMoralMovement.org)]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=print Stephen Pinker on the Psychology and Evolutionary Biology of Morality]

<br>
{{Philosophy topics}}
{{Ethics}}
{{sociobiology}}

[[Category:Morality| ]]
[[Category:Ethics]]

[[nl:Moralisme]]

Revision as of 22:23, 26 February 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morality&oldid=540762032"