Morality
Definition
Defining morality, like health, is difficult but it is safe to say that it concerns the consequences of our actions and whether these are good or bad consequences. Good consequences improve our wellbeing, bad consequences diminish it.
Morality is a code of conduct, a set of social norms, a system[1] that allows us to decide whether actions are right or wrong, good or bad[2], or contribute to human well-being[3] and flourishing.
Relative morality
Moral codes vary between individuals, groups, societies and countries. Some people claim that, for example, whilst it is immoral to expect a Muslim woman to wear a burka in the UK it is not in a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia.
The problem with moral relativism is that any group can create a moral code that is oppressive to some people or even the entire group, e.g. suicide cults.
Justifying an oppressive moral code by appealing to cultural differences flies in the face of our natural sense of human flourishing and our desire for greater wellbeing Could anyone deny that slaves desire the freedom their masters enjoy?
The fact that people have different moral opinions does not mean we should respect them all. Rather, it should spur us on to investigate the nature of morality.
It seems reasonable to suggest that different societies produce different levels of wellbeing Would a woman confined to the home in an Islamic country experience greater well-being if she were not so confined by the prevailing moral norms?
Relative moralists claim that we should tolerate all cultural moral systems. This claim (of tolerance rather than intolerance) is itself a universal moral claim and therefore inconsistent with moral relativism.
Totalitarian systems like religion claim that there is one great truth and one right way to live. The result is a plethora of relative moralities around the world that diminish wellbeing to a greater or lesser extent.
Universal morality
Is there a universal (or normative) moral code that all rational[4] people could subscribe to? We can make a start by considering those interests that are common to all people, e.g. physical comfort.
One problem is that people are not entirely rational; we think we are more rational than is the case. It is hard to change strongly held moral values through reason, e.g. religious beliefs. Psychopaths lack the empathy required to think rationally about moral issues. Progress towards a universal morality depends on our becoming more rational.
Moral matters are often thought to be controversial; this is because everyday moral decisions about which there is no controversy (the majority) are rarely discussed. The amount of agreement concerning morality suggests that a universal morality is possible. For example, most people most of the time act in a kind, courteous and cooperative manner. Most people would agree that killing or seriously harming anyone requires strong justification. Most people would disagree that it is morally justified to cheat, deceive, injure, or kill a person simply in order to gain sufficient money to take a fantastic vacation.
Moral systems can be compared regarding the well-being they produce in a society. This means that there must be at least one superior moral system. Even if we can never manage to find it, we will make moral progress in our search.
Moral norms can be broken provided there is justification based on the greater good. The ability to justify ourselves to reasonable people is essential however.
A universal morality must assume that a right/good action is one that increases happiness (or reduces suffering) overall. It is a rational attempt to overcome our baser instincts/emotions in order to live cooperatively and allow everyone to lead fulfilling, well-lived lives with the minimum of suffering and the maximum of happiness.
The scope of morality
Most non-religious philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition limit morality to behavior that, directly or indirectly, affects others. Moral ideas concern the relationships between human beings in social settings.
One can distinguish between moral agents (people capable of acting morally) and moral patients (something that is worthy of moral regard by virtue of its ability to be affected by moral agents; for example, animals, children, foetuses). Humanist morality includes behaviour affecting animals and the environment. There is no reason to think that the pain an animal suffers is any less than that of a human. We also have a moral obligation on future generations to protect the environment.
Behaviours that only affect the individual, such as masturbation and drug-taking, are not moral concerns unless they affect others; the former affects no one but the latter might have harmful consequences on others. Morality is only concerned with the effects of actions on others.
Most religions sanction certain individual thoughts and actions even though they do not harm the individual or others, e.g. thinking bad thoughts, blasphemy, homosexuality. Such religious morals are often immoral from a non-religious perspective as they harm the individual (guilt, fear) and others (negative discrimination, conflict). Culpability lies with the purveyors of such morals together with those parents who blindly accept them.
Thoughts cannot be immoral because they may enter a person’s mind without their control. A person’s intentions may help decide whether an act is moral or immoral, e.g. stealing food to save a life[5], but intentions that are not acted on cannot be immoral, e.g. wishing someone harm.
The aim of morality
Utilitarians claim that the aim of morality is the production of the greatest good. At the very least, most would agree that it should include the lessening of evil or harm. Humanists include positive goals such as living a meaningful and fulfilled life. If a moral system doesn't actually help people pursue their interests, then no matter how nice it sounds in principle, the vast majority of people will never be motivated to use it.
Whilst we may know how to live a moral life, most of us are unwilling to do so. The ideal moral person does not exist. The best we can hope for is to strike a reasonable balance between our own selfish desires and the well-being of others. To ignore either will reduce overall wellbeing
For some, morality also requires charitable actions. But failure to act charitably on every possible occasion does not require justification in the same way that any act of killing, causing pain, deceiving, as breaking promises does. Morality encourages charitable action but does not require it.
The aims of religious morality include pleasing deities in order to secure reward and avoid punishment in the afterlife and good karma in the next life. These are often inconsistent with the non-religious aim of living a good and fulfilled life.
Consequentialism
This holds that the ends or consequences of an act determine whether an act is good or bad. In contrast, deontological ethical theories hold that acts themselves are inherently good or bad, regardless of the consequences of acts; some religious morals fall into this category, e.g. homosexuality is a sin according to the Catholic church and yet has no harmful consequences to others.
By definition, every moral/immoral act affects the wellbeing of ourselves and others. We all have a vested interest in morality.
Positive consequentialism demands that we bring about good states of affairs, whereas negative consequentialism requires that we avoid bad ones. Stronger versions of negative consequentialism will require active intervention to prevent bad and ameliorate existing harm. In weaker versions, simple avoiding acts tending to harm others is sufficient.
Reducing suffering is more important than increasing pleasure.
When thinking about a moral issue, it is useful to assume the position of an ideal neutral observer[6]. This is a rational person who might be any one of those involved in the action being considered, thereby remaining neutral and making fair decisions free of the bias of self-interest[7].
In practice, it is very difficult to adopt the point of view of an ideal observer; individuals do not know everything about their particular situations and thus do not know all the possible consequences of their potential actions. But acting in a situation without trying to inform oneself of the circumstances can lead to the most well-intended actions yielding miserable consequences. A better-informed agent is able to bring about better consequences, e.g. Blair and the Iraq war.
Consequentialism does not necessarily solve moral questions but it is the best practical approach.
Pure consequentialism holds that an action or non-action is to be judged solely by its result. A deliberate action is no different from a deliberate decision not to act, e.g. witnessing a crime but failing to call the police. This contrasts with the "acts and omissions doctrine" which is upheld by some medical ethicists and some religions: it asserts that there is a significant moral distinction between acts and deliberate non-actions which lead to the same outcome. This contrast is brought out in issues such as voluntary euthanasia. Such moral dilemmas have the best chance of being resolved by considering the overall well-being of all concerned.
Moral disagreement
People’s moral positions can be changed through reasoning, even though this may be difficult due to their emotional attachment. The fact that there is often intractable disagreement does not mean that competing moral positions are of equal value in terms of promoting wellbeing
Religious disagreement is based on interpretation of scripture rather than an open-minded consideration of the issue. Misery and suffering is the result of scholars squabbling about what their confused ancient texts mean.
Humanists sometimes disagree about a moral issue, e.g. abortion is an issue that demonstrates the difficulties of rigid rules in moral decision making. Universal/Humanist morality is a process of comparing the pros and cons of an action.
Moral ambiguity is a lack of certainty about whether something is right or wrong. This can happen when there is insufficient evidence or where the it is impossible to know the consequences of an action, e.g. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the war by killing 150 00 people; we cannot know how many would have died otherwise.
Ranking moral problems
The most pressing moral problems in the world include war, slavery, violations of human rights, genocide, the arms trade, poverty, inequality, injustice, consequences of religious antipathies, climate change, rampant economic growth, etc.
In safe Western countries, lesser but still important moral problems include abortion, drugs, tax dodging, teenage crime, homophobia, religious education, etc.
Religion ranks actions differently from the secular society. For example, some Muslim countries rank homosexuality and blasphemy on a par with murder and punish the victims of rape. In the West, a disproportionate amount of religious energy is devoted to sexual matters and yet real, pressing problems such as exporting arms to regions of the world gripped by poverty receive relatively little attention.
The history of morality
There is a long history of ethical thought, stretching back to Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. But from the 5th to 17th centuries, morality was what the Church decreed.
Thanks to the Reformation and scientific discovery, independent ethical thought was revisited in the 18th century, resulting in the two competing movements of consequentialism (utilitarianism) and deontology (the moral nature of acts in themselves). Modern ethics grapples with the same problems today and involves philosophy, psychology, anthropology, history, literature, etc.
Despite the bad behaviour in the world today, our moral understanding continues to progress simply because morality is open to intelligent inquiry.
Morality and the law
Law is distinguished from morality by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. There is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law; laws are often evaluated and changed on moral grounds.
Unlike laws, moral norms cannot be imposed on society. Abortion is legal in the UK but is considered immoral by many people; the law is based on sound moral argument. Other laws, such as the blasphemy law, have been repealed because they are clearly immoral.
The major moral issues are the responsibility of governments and nations. Unfortunately, governments are only as good as their elected members, who often act according to their personal preferences, group affiliation, electability, short-termism, localism and slavish party allegiance.
Criminalising so-called immoral behaviour often exacerbates it or shifts it underground with worse consequences, e.g. prohibiting drugs and prostitution. Just because a powerful pious group thinks an act immoral, it is no reason to impose inhuman practices on others.
Punishment for breaking religiously inspired laws are often disproportionate to the act, e.g. executing homesexuals and blasphemers.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights is the cornerstone of international morality, even though the UN has proved ineffective because of lack of resources and selfish members. In the West, these rights are largely taken for granted, though there is a long way to go in some areas, e.g. freedom of and freedom from religion. In many countries, human rights are a low priority for governments and their populations suffer accordingly.
We are predisposed to feelings of retribution. Vengeance is one of many destructive human emotions. It reinforces our idea of a just world but is blind to the complex underlying causes of behaviour. Vengeance makes us feel good. Rather than concentrating on the causes of harmful actions and how we can mitigate them, some people prefer to label transgressors as “evil” and punish them accordingly. A justice system is immoral to the extent that it serves to satisfy our emotional desire for retribution rather than the reducing of suffering.
There may be justification for humane punishment[8] if it could be shown to increase well-being overall by deterring crime and satiating our desire for vengeance.
A person can only be morally responsible for a crime if they intended to commit it. Even then, mitigating factors are taken into account when sentencing, e.g. previous character, childhood abuse, etc. Unless you believe in free will (on which the justice system is based), criminals are simply the unlucky victims of their genes, upbringing and other factors. As our understanding increases, so will the pressure to make our justice system more humane.
The evolution of morality[9]
The precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Though animals may not possess moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile.
The basic reason that social animals live in groups is that opportunities for survival and reproduction are much better in groups than living alone. Highly social mammals such as primates and elephants have been known to exhibit traits that were once thought to be uniquely human, like empathy and altruism.
Barbara King argues that while primates may not possess morality in the human sense, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of morality. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self", and a concept of continuity.
According to Michael Schermer, primates share the following characteristics with humans which he calls “premoral sentiments”: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group
He argues that these pre-moral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups.
Animals such as Capuchin monkeys and dogs also display an understanding of fairness, refusing to co-operate when presented unequal rewards for the same behaviors.
With their larger neo cortexes, humans developed greater social intelligence, facilitated through the development of language, enabling us to infer another person’s mental state and emotions, and thereby enhance our ability to live in social groups.
Millennia of living in social groups has refined and developed our sense of morality, which comes from within us rather than from the supernatural. Individual goodwill, social responsibility, not being entirely selfish, kindness and consideration towards others. The best efforts of the most repressive cultures fail to quash such noble instincts.
At our core is a sense of cooperation, the greatest of human traits, and one that is shared with the animal kingdom. But our individual ethical intuitions are far from perfect, something which research is beginning to make clear.
Religion and morality
Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups. The adaptive value of religion could have enhanced group survival.