Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions

between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).[citation needed] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[ ] Morality may also be specifically synonymous 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.[!]["][#] Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, or the origin of morals, as well as moral epistemology, or what we $now about morals. %ifferent systems of e&pressing morality have been proposed, including deontological ethical systems which adhere to a set of established rules, and normative ethical systems which consider the merits of actions themselves. 'n e&ample of normative ethical philosophy is the (olden )ule which states that, "*ne should treat others as one would li$e others to treat oneself."[+]

Morality and ethics[edit] Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word 'ethics' is commonly used interchan!eably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition" !roup" or indi#idual. [$] %ikewise" certain types of ethical theories" especially deontolo!ical ethics" sometimes distin!uish between 'ethics' and 'morals'& 'lthou!h the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thin!" there is a usa!e that restricts morality to systems such as that of (ant" based on notions such as duty" obli!ation" and principles of conduct" reser#in! ethics for the more 'ristotelian approach to practical reasonin!" based on the notion of a #irtue" and !enerally a#oidin! the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations. [)] *escripti#e and normati#e[edit] +n its descripti#e sense" morality refers to personal or cultural #alues" codes of conduct or social mores. +t does not connote ob,ecti#e claims of ri!ht or wron!" but only refers to that which is considered ri!ht or wron!. *escripti#e ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense. +n its normati#e sense" morality refers to whate#er (if anythin!) is actually ri!ht or wron!" which may be independent of the #alues or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. -ormati#e ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense. .ealism and anti/realism[edit] 0hilosophical theories on the nature and ori!ins of morality (that is" theories of meta/ethics) are broadly di#ided into two classes& Moral realism is the class of theories which hold that there are true moral statements that report ob,ecti#e moral facts. 1or e2ample" while they mi!ht concede that forces of social conformity si!nificantly shape indi#iduals' moral decisions" they deny that those cultural norms and customs define morally ri!ht beha#ior. This may be the philosophical #iew propounded by ethical naturalists" howe#er not all moral realists accept that position (e.!. ethical non/naturalists).[3] Moral anti/realism" on the other hand" holds that moral statements either fail or do not e#en attempt to report ob,ecti#e moral facts. +nstead" they hold that moral sentences are either cate!orically false claims of ob,ecti#e moral facts (error theory)4 claims about sub,ecti#e attitudes rather than ob,ecti#e facts (ethical sub,ecti#ism)4 or else not attempts to describe the world at all but rather somethin! else" like an e2pression of an emotion or the issuance of a command (non/co!niti#ism). 5ome forms of non/co!niti#ism and ethical sub,ecti#ism" while considered anti/realist in the robust

sense used here" but are considered realist in the sense synonymous with moral uni#ersalism. 1or e2ample" uni#ersal prescripti#ism is a uni#ersalist form of non/co!niti#ism which claims that morality is deri#ed from reasonin! about implied imperati#es" and di#ine command theory and ideal obser#er theory are uni#ersalist forms of ethical sub,ecti#ism which claim that morality is deri#ed from the edicts of a !od or the hypothetical decrees of a perfectly rational bein!" respecti#ely. 'nthropolo!y[edit] Tribal and territorial[edit] 6elia 7reen made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.[8] 5he characteri9es the latter as predominantly ne!ati#e and proscripti#e& it defines a person:s territory" includin! his or her property and dependents" which is not to be dama!ed or interfered with. 'part from these proscriptions" territorial morality is permissi#e" allowin! the indi#idual whate#er beha#iour does not interfere with the territory of another. ;y contrast" tribal morality is prescripti#e" imposin! the norms of the collecti#e on the indi#idual. These norms will be arbitrary" culturally dependent and <fle2ible:" whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are uni#ersal and absolute" such as (ant:s <cate!orical imperati#e: and 7eisler's !raded absolutism. 7reen relates the de#elopment of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of pri#ate property" and the ascendancy of contract o#er status. +n/!roup and out/!roup[edit] Main article& +n!roups and out!roups 5ome obser#ers hold that indi#iduals apply distinct sets of moral rules to people dependin! on their membership of an in/!roup (the indi#idual and those they belie#e to be of the same culture or race) or an out/!roup (people not entitled to be treated accordin! to the same rules). 5ome biolo!ists" anthropolo!ists and e#olutionary psycholo!ists belie#e this in/!roup=out/!roup discrimination has e#ol#ed because it enhances !roup sur#i#al. This belief has been confirmed by simple computational models of e#olution.[>?] +n simulations this discrimination can result in both une2pected cooperation towards the in/!roup and irrational hostility towards the out/!roup.[>>] 7ary .. @ohnson and A.5. 1al!er ha#e ar!ued that nationalism and patriotism are forms of this in/ !roup=out/!roup boundary. @onathan Baidt has noted[>C] that e2perimental obser#ation indicatin! an in/!roup criterion pro#ides one moral foundation substantially used by conser#ati#es" but far less so by liberals. 6omparin! cultures[edit] [icon] This section requires e2pansion. ('u!ust C?>>) 0eterson and 5eli!man[>D] approach the anthropolo!ical #iew lookin! across cultures" !eo/cultural areas and across millennia. They conclude that certain #irtues ha#e pre#ailed in all cultures they e2amined. The ma,or #irtues they identified include wisdom = knowled!e4 coura!e4 humanity4 ,ustice4 temperance4 and transcendence. Each of these includes se#eral di#isions. 1or instance humanity includes lo#e" kindness" and social intelli!ence. 1ons Trompenaars" author of *id the 0edestrian *ieE" tested members of different cultures with #arious moral dilemmas. Fne of these was whether the dri#er of a car would ha#e his friend" a passen!er ridin! in the car" lie in order to protect the dri#er from the consequences of dri#in! too fast and hittin! a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that different cultures had quite different

e2pectations (from none to almost certain).[citation needed] @ohn -ewton" author of 6omplete 6onduct 0rinciples for the C>st 6entury [>G] compared the Eastern and the Hestern cultures about morality. 's stated in 6omplete 6onduct 0rinciples for the C>st 6entury" IFne of the important ob,ecti#es of this book is to blend harmoniously the fine souls re!ardin! conduct in the Eastern and the Hestern 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 6hinese fine conduct spirits to the Hestern world. +t is hoped that this helps sol#e lots of problems the human society of the C>st century faces" includin! (but not limited to the Eastern and the Hestern cultures) what a sin!le culture cannot.J E#olution[edit] 5ee also& 'ltruismKE#olutionary e2planations" E#olution of morality" and E#olutionary ethics The de#elopment of modern morality is a process closely tied to the 5ociocultural e#olution of different peoples of humanity. 5ome e#olutionary biolo!ists" particularly sociobiolo!ists" belie#e that morality is a product of e#olutionary forces actin! at an indi#idual le#el and also at the !roup le#el throu!h !roup selection (thou!h to what de!ree this actually occurs is a contro#ersial topic in e#olutionary theory). 5ome sociobiolo!ists contend that the set of beha#iors that constitute morality e#ol#ed lar!ely because they pro#ided possible sur#i#al and=or reproducti#e benefits (i.e. increased e#olutionary success). Bumans consequently e#ol#ed pro/social emotions" such as feelin!s of empathy or !uilt" in response to these moral beha#iors. 6on#ersely" it has been ar!ued by other biolo!ists that humans de#eloped truly moral" altruistic instincts.[>L] Fn this understandin!" moralities are sets of self/perpetuatin! and ideolo!ically/dri#en beha#iors which encoura!e human cooperation. ;iolo!ists contend that all social animals" from ants to elephants" ha#e modified their beha#iors" by restrainin! immediate selfishness in order to impro#e their e#olutionary fitness. Buman morality" thou!h sophisticated and comple2 relati#e to other animals" is essentially a natural phenomenon that e#ol#ed to restrict e2cessi#e indi#idualism that could undermine a !roup's cohesion and thereby reducin! the indi#iduals' fitness.[>$] Fn this #iew" moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided sur#i#al and reproduction (inclusi#e fitness). E2amples& the maternal bond is selected for because it impro#es the sur#i#al of offsprin!4 the Hestermarck effect" where close pro2imity durin! early years reduces mutual se2ual attraction" underpins taboos a!ainst incest because it decreases the likelihood of !enetically risky beha#iour such as inbreedin!. The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by e#olutionary biolo!ists as one way to be!in to understand human morality. +ts function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources" especially for animals li#in! in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. 1or e2ample" some #ampire bats fail to feed on prey some ni!hts while others mana!e to consume a surplus. ;ats that did eat will then re!ur!itate part of their blood meal to sa#e a conspecific from star#ation. 5ince these animals li#e in close/knit !roups o#er many years" an indi#idual can count on other !roup members to return the fa#or on ni!hts when it !oes hun!ry (Hilkinson" >83G) Marc ;ekoff and @essica 0ierce (C??8) ha#e ar!ued that morality is a suite of beha#ioral capacities likely shared by all mammals li#in! in comple2 social !roups (e.!." wol#es" coyotes" elephants" dolphins" rats" chimpan9ees). They define morality as a suite of interrelated other/re!ardin! beha#iors that culti#ate and re!ulate comple2 interactions within social !roups. This suite of beha#iors includes empathy" reciprocity" altruism" cooperation" and a sense of fairness. [>)] +n related work" it has been con#incin!ly demonstrated that chimpan9ees show empathy for

each other in a wide #ariety of conte2ts.[>3] They also possess the ability to en!a!e in deception" and a le#el of social 'politics'[>8] prototypical of our own tendencies for !ossip and reputation mana!ement. 6hristopher ;oehm (>83C)[C?] has hypothesi9ed that the incremental de#elopment of moral comple2ity throu!hout hominid e#olution was due to the increasin! need to a#oid disputes and in,uries in mo#in! to open sa#anna and de#elopin! stone weapons. Fther theories are that increasin! comple2ity was simply a correlate of increasin! !roup si9e and brain si9e" and in particular the de#elopment of theory of mind abilities. .ichard *awkins in The 7od *elusion su!!ested that our morality is a result of our biolo!ical e#olutionary history and that the Moral Meit!eist helps describe how morality e#ol#es from biolo!ical and cultural ori!ins and e#ol#es with time within a culture. ' ;ritish poll found that the most important moral points amon! youn! people were lookin! after ones family and puttin! others before yourself.[C>] -euroscience[edit] The brain areas that are consistently in#ol#ed when humans reason about moral issues ha#e been in#esti!ated by a quantitati#e lar!e/scale meta/analysis of the brain acti#ity chan!es reported in the moral neuroscience literature.[CC] +n fact" the neural network underlyin! moral decisions o#erlapped with the network pertainin! to representin! others' intentions (i.e." theory of mind) and the network pertainin! to representin! others' (#icariously e2perienced) emotional states (i.e." empathy). This supports the notion that moral reasonin! is related to both seein! thin!s from other persons: points of #iew and to !raspin! others: feelin!s. These results pro#ide e#idence that the neural network underlyin! moral decisions is probably domain/!lobal (i.e." there mi!ht be no such thin!s as a moral module in the human brain) and mi!ht be dissociable into co!niti#e and affecti#e sub/systems.[CC] ;rain areas[edit] The e2plicit makin! of moral ri!ht and wron! ,ud!ments coincides with acti#ation in the #entromedial prefrontal corte2 (AM06) while intuiti#e reactions to situations containin! implicit moral issues acti#ates the temporoparietal ,unction area.[CD] 5timulation of the AM06 by transcranial ma!netic stimulation has been shown to inhibit the ability of human sub,ects to take into account intent when formin! a moral ,ud!ment.[CG] 5imilarly AM06/impaired persons will ,ud!e an action purely on its outcome and are unable to take into account the intent of that action. [CL] Mirror neurons[edit] Main article& Mirror neurons Mirror neurons are neurons in the brain that fire when another person is obser#ed doin! a certain action. The neurons fire in imitation of the action bein! obser#ed" causin! the same muscles to act minutely in the obser#er as are actin! !rossly in the person actually performin! the action. .esearch on mirror neurons" since their disco#ery in >88$"[C$] su!!ests that they may ha#e a role to play not only in action understandin!" but also in emotion sharin! empathy. 6o!niti#e neuro/scientist @ean *ecety thinks that the ability to reco!ni9e and #icariously e2perience what another indi#idual is under!oin! was a key step forward in the e#olution of social beha#ior" and ultimately" morality.[C)]

The inability to feel empathy is one of the definin! characteristics of psychopathy" and this would appear to lend support to *ecety's #iew.[C3][C8] 0sycholo!y[edit] 5ee also& (ohlber!'s sta!es of moral de#elopment and @ean 0ia!etKEducation and de#elopment of morality

(ohlber! Model of Moral *e#elopment +n modern moral psycholo!y" morality is considered to chan!e throu!h personal de#elopment. ' number of psycholo!ists ha#e produced theories on the de#elopment of morals" usually !oin! throu!h sta!es of different morals. %awrence (ohlber!" @ean 0ia!et" and Elliot Turiel ha#e co!niti#e/de#elopmental approaches to moral de#elopment4 to these theorists morality forms in a series of constructi#e sta!es or domains. 5ocial psycholo!ists such as Martin Boffman and @onathan Baidt emphasi9e social and emotional de#elopment based on biolo!y" such as empathy. Moral identity theorists" such as Hilliam *amon and Mordechai -isan" see moral commitment as arisin! from the de#elopment of a self/identity that is defined by moral purposes& this moral self/identity leads to a sense of responsibility to pursue such purposes. Ff historical interest in psycholo!y are the theories of psychoanalysts such as 5i!mund 1reud" who belie#e that moral de#elopment is the product of aspects of the super/e!o as !uilt/shame a#oidance. E#en thou!h we ha#e a sense of responsibility to pursue moral purposes"[accordin! to whomE] we still" at least occasionally" en!a!e in immoral beha#iour. 5uch beha#iours ,eopardi9e our moral self/ ima!e4 howe#er" when we en!a!e in immoral beha#iours we still feel as thou!h we are moral indi#iduals. Moral self/licensin! attempts to e2plain this phenomenon and proposes that self/ima!e security increases our likelihood to en!a!e in immoral beha#iour. Hhen our moral self/ima!e is threatened" we can !ain confidence from our past moral beha#iour. The more confident we are" the less we will worry about our future beha#iour which actually increases the likelihood that we will en!a!e in immoral beha#iours.[D?][D>] Monin and Miller (C??>)[D?] e2amined the moral self/licensin! effect and found that when participants established credentials as non/pre,udiced persons" they were more willin! to e2press politically incorrect opinions despite the fact that the audience was unaware of their credentials. Morality and politics[edit] +f morality is the answer to the question 'how ou!ht we to li#e' at the indi#idual le#el" politics can be seen as addressin! the same question at the social le#el" thou!h the political sphere raises additional problems and challen!es.[DC] +t is therefore unsurprisin! that e#idence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. @onathan Baidt and @esse 7raham ha#e studied the differences between liberals and conser#ati#es" in this re!ard.[DD][DG][DL] Baidt found that 'mericans who identified as liberals tended to #alue care and fairness hi!her than loyalty" respect and purity. 5elf/identified conser#ati#e 'mericans #alued care and fairness less and the remainin! three #alues more. ;oth !roups !a#e care the hi!hest o#er/all wei!htin!" but conser#ati#es #alued fairness the lowest" whereas liberals #alued purity the lowest. Baidt also hypothesi9es that the ori!in of this di#ision in the Nnited 5tates can be traced to !eohistorical factors" with conser#atism stron!est in closely knit" ethnically homo!enous communities" in

contrast to port/cities" where the cultural mi2 is !reater" thus requirin! more liberalism. 7roup morality de#elops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to re!ulate beha#ior within a culture or community. Aarious defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. +ndi#iduals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess moral fiber " whereas those who indul!e in immoral beha#ior may be labeled as socially de!enerate[disambi!uation needed]. The continued e2istence of a !roup may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality4 an inability to ad,ust moral codes in response to new challen!es is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positi#e e2ample would be the function of 6istercian reform in re#i#in! monasticism4 a ne!ati#e e2ample would be the role of the *owa!er Empress in the sub,u!ation of 6hina to European interests). Hithin nationalist mo#ements" there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not sur#i#e or prosper without acknowled!in! one common morality" re!ardless of its content. 0olitical Morality is also rele#ant to the beha#iour internationally of national !o#ernments" and to the support they recei#e from their host population. -oam 6homsky states that [D$][D)] I ... if we adopt the principle of uni#ersality & if an action is ri!ht (or wron!) for others" it is ri!ht (or wron!) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral le#el of applyin! to themsel#es the standards they apply to othersOmore strin!ent ones" in factOplainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response4 or of ri!ht and wron!" !ood and e#il. J I +n fact" one of the" maybe the most" elementary of moral principles is that of uni#ersality" that is" +f somethin!'s ri!ht for me" it's ri!ht for you4 if it's wron! for you" it's wron! for me. 'ny moral code that is e#en worth lookin! at has that at its core somehow.