Morality and Ethics in One Document

Contents
Articles
Morality 1
Ethics 8
The Golden Rule 17
References
Article Sources and Contributors 28
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 30
Article Licenses
License 31
Morality 1
Morality
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that
differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral
code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is
any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is
variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or
principles.[1] [2] [3] [4]
Morality has two principal meanings:
• In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that
distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim
about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual
or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.
• In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific
individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage
of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones
such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of
any moral truths,[5] and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative
usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics.
Philosophical perspectives
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality.
The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and
sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[6]
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 principles of
conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue,
and generally avoiding the separation 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations."[7]
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 such 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 significantly shape
individuals' "moral" decisions, they deny that those cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior.
This may be the philosophical view propounded by ethical naturalists, however not all moral realists accept that
position (e.g. ethical non-naturalists).[8]
• 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 morality is derived either from an unsupported belief that there are
objective moral facts (error theory, a form of moral nihilism), the speakers' sentiments (emotivism), or any one of
the norms prevalent in society (ethical subjectivism, in particular moral relativism). The moral relativist holds that
there is no correct definition of right behavior, and that morality can only be judged with respect to the standards
of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position often cites empirical evidence from
anthropology of sharply contrasting views of "good" as supporting its claims.[9]
Morality 2
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.
Anthropological perspectives
Tribal and territorial moralities

Celia Green has made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.[10] 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 Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’. 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 psychologists
believe this in-group/out-group discrimination has evolved because it enhances group survival. 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[11] that experimental observation indicates an in-group criterion provides one moral foundation
substantially used by conservatives, but far less so by liberals.
Comparing cultures
Peterson and Seligman [12] 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
dilemmas. 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).
Evolutionary perspectives
See also: Evolution of morality, Altruism, 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.
Morality 3
In this respect, morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human
cooperation based on their ideology to get ideologic unity. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to
elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining selfishness in order to make group living worthwhile.
Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon
that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and foster human cooperation.[13] 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, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction,
underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behaviour such as inbreeding.
The phenomenon of '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 bats 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 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.[14] In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other
in a wide variety of contexts.[15] They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social
'politics'[16] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.
Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout
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.
Neuroscientific perspectives
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,[17]
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.[18] The
inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy, and this would appear to lend support
to Decety's view.[19] [20]
Morality 4
Neuroimaging and stimulation

The explicit making of moral right and wrong judgments coincides with activation in the ventromedial prefrontal
cortex while intuitive reactions to situations containing implicit moral issues activates the temporoparietal junction
area.[21] Stimulation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex by transcranial magnetic stimulation has been shown to
change moral judgments of human subjects.[22]
Psychological perspectives
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 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 psychoanalysts such as
Sigmund Freud, who believe that moral development is the product of aspects of the super-ego as guilt-shame
avoidance.
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 liberals and conservatives, in this regard.[23] [24] [25] 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 concepts and beliefs 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. 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 Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within 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 [26] [27]
“
... 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. ”
“
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 5
Morality and religion

Many religions provide moral guidelines for their followers. They believe that the divine has instructed them with a
way to live and that following these rules will lead to good social structure, and closer communion with the divine.
A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society argues for a positive correlation
between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[28] an analysis published
later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions
to be taken from the research.[29] In another response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[30] His
conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that a complex relationship exists between
religiosity and homicide with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions
discouraging it." Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and
moral behavior[31] [32] [33] —for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.[34]
Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime,[35] with
many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one).[36] Indeed, a
meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate
deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”.[37]
Moral codes
Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate
activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. Some religious communities see the Divine
as providing these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the
Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in 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 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, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with
religious precepts. In secular communities, 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 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 codes, 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; the Five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism (see
Śīla); the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at; the Ten Commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; Judaism's
Noahide Law; and the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures.
Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that
differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious
systems and beliefs (e.g. Taoism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice.
Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive—part of human politics.
Morality 6
References
[1] Johnstone, Megan-Jane (2008). Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 102–103. ISBN 978-0729538732.
[2] Superson, Anita (2009). The Moral Skeptic. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–159. ISBN 978-0195376623.
[3] "Amorality" (http:/ / dictionary. reference. com/ browse/ amorality). Dictionary.com. . Retrieved 2010-06-18. "having no moral standards,
restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong"
[4] "amoral" (http:/ / en. wiktionary. org/ wiki/ amoral#Adjective). Wiktionary. . Retrieved 2010-09-09. "(of people) not believing in or caring for
morality and immorality"
[5] Gert, Bernard. "The Definition of Morality" (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ archives/ fall2008/ entries/ morality-definition/ ). The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition) Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University. . Retrieved
January 28, 2011.
[6] John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995.
[7] Oxford Dictionary of philosophy, 2008, p240
[8] Chapouthier, Georges, To what extent is moral judgment natural ?, European Review (GB), 2004, Nr12(2), pp179-183
[9] Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ moral-relativism/ )
[10] Green, Celia (2004). Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I-XX.
[11] "When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize", Haidt and Graham (<a
href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z">doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z</a>)
[12] Peterson, Christopher, and Martin E. P. Seligman. Character Strengths and Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
[13] Shermer, Michael. "Transcendent Morality" (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=eevvWAcMBaAC& pg=PA19& dq=shermer+
exegesis& ei=EIC1SNOiE4uWyATTmaj2Bg& sig=ACfU3U3KFh8kP8Ns8-YgpqBuI03N1JrpEg). The Science of Good and Evil.
ISBN 0805075208. .
[14] Bekoff, Marc and Jessica Pierce Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press 2009)
[15] O’Connell, Sanjida (July 1995). "Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind?". Primates 36 (3): 397–410.
doi:10.1007/BF02382862. ISSN 0032-8332.
[16] Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals (http:/ / www. amazon. com/ dp/ 0674356616).
[17] Giacomo Rizzolatti et al. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions, Cognitive Brain Research 3 131–141
[18] Vedantam, Shankar. "If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural" (http:/ / www. washingtonpost. com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/
2007/ 05/ 27/ AR2007052701056_pf. html). The Washington Post. . Retrieved 2010-05-13.
[19] de Wied M, Goudena PP, Matthys W (2005). "Empathy in boys with disruptive behavior disorders". Journal of child psychology and
psychiatry, and allied disciplines 46 (8): 867–80. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00389.x. PMID 16033635.
[20] Fernandez YM, Marshall WL (2003). "Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists". Sexual abuse : a journal of research
and treatment 15 (1): 11–26. doi:10.1023/A:1020611606754. PMID 12616926.
[21] Harenski CL, Antonenko O, Shane MS, Kiehl KA. (2010). A functional imaging investigation of moral deliberation and moral intuition.
Neuroimage. 49: 2707–2716. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.062 PMID 19878727
[22] doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.003
[23] Haidt, Jonathan and Graham, Jesse (2006). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not
recognize (http:/ / faculty. virginia. edu/ haidtlab/ articles/ haidt. graham. when-morality-opposes-justice. doc) (DOC) Social Justice Research.
[24] Morality: 2012: Online Only Video: The New Yorker (http:/ / www. newyorker. com/ online/ video/ conference/ 2007/ haidt)
[25] Why conservatives and liberals talk past each other on moral issues. | Dangerous Intersection (http:/ / dangerousintersection. org/ ?p=1445)
[26] Chomsky, Noam (2002-07-02). "Terror and Just Response" (http:/ / www. zmag. org/ znet/ viewArticle/ 11934). ZNet. .
[27] Schivone, Gabriel Matthew (2007-08-03). "On Responsibility, War Guilt and Intellectuals" (http:/ / www. counterpunch. org/
schivone08032007. html). CounterPunch. . Interview.
[28] Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the
Prosperous Democracies: A First Look" (http:/ / moses. creighton. edu/ JRS/ 2005/ 2005-11. html). Journal of Religion and Society
(Baltimore, Maryland) 7. .
[29] Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith, Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health" (http:/ / moses. creighton.
edu/ JRS/ 2006/ 2006-1. html). Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8. .
[30] 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
[31] KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative
Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4), 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x
[32] SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA
(2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 44 (3), 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x
[33] Regnerus, Mark D. & Burdette, Amy (2006) RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT FAMILY DYNAMICS. The Sociological
Quarterly 47 (1), 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x
Morality 7
[34] eg a survey (http:/ / www. ropercenter. uconn. edu/ data_access/ data/ datasets/ social_capital_community_survey. html) by Robert Putnam
showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
[35] As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2007; 34; 661 originally
published online Mar 7, 2007; DOI: 10.1177/0093854806293485
[36] For example:
• Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent
consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263–274.
• Burkett, S.,& White, M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455–462.
• 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.
• Cochran, J. K.,& Akers, R. L. (1989). Beyond Hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and
alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198–225.
• Evans, T. D.,Cullen, F. T.,Burton, V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway, R. G.,Payne, G. L.,& Kethineni, S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and
delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43–70.
• Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to
cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251–266.
• Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952–958.
• Johnson, B. R.,Larson, D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang, S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious
salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377–391.
• Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25,
323–340.
• Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20,
38–47.
[37] Baier, C. J.,& Wright, B. R. (2001). “If you love me, keep my commandments”:A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3–21.
Further reading
• Trompenaars, Fons. Did the Pedestrian Die? ISBN 1-84112-436-2
• Stace, Walter T. (1937, Reprinted 1975 by permission of MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc.). The Concept of Morals.
New York: The MacMillan Company. ISBN 0-8446-2990-1.
• Harris, Sam (2010). The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press.
ISBN 1-4391-7121-1.
• Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality" (http://www.metalog.org/files/tpb/rel.m.html), Mind, 1963.
• Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality: a Reply to Flew and Campbell" (http://www.metalog.org/files/tpb/
reply.html), Mind, 1964.
• Brown, Paterson. "God and the Good" (http://www.metalog.org/files/tpb/god.g.html), Religious Studies,
1967.
External links
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Definition of Morality (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
morality-definition/)
• Objective Morality An evolutionary approach (http://www.percepp.com/morality.htm)
• Morality and Judaism (http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=1222) chabad.org
• Wiki site for discussing and taking action on shared morals (WorldMoralMovement.org) (http://www.
worldmoralmovement.org)
• Stephen Pinker on the Psychology and Evolutionary Biology of Morality (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/
13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=print)
Ethics 8
Ethics
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is,
concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc.
Major branches of ethics include:
• Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth-values (if any)
may be determined;
• Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
• Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;
• Moral psychology, about how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is;
• Descriptive ethics, about what moral values people actually abide by.
Within each of these branches are many different schools of thought and still further sub-fields of study.
Meta-ethics
Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, and ethical statements,
attitudes, and judgments. Meta-ethics as a discipline gained attention with G.E. Moore's famous work Principia
Ethica from 1903 in which Moore first addressed what he referred to as the naturalistic fallacy. Moore's rebuttal of
naturalistic ethics, his Open Question Argument sparked an interest within the analytic branch of western philosophy
to concern oneself with second order questions about ethics; specifically the semantics, epistemology, and ontology
of ethics.
The semantics of ethics divides naturally into descriptivism and non-descriptivism. Descriptivism holds that ethical
language (including ethical commands and duties) is a subdivision of descriptive language and has meaning in virtue
of the same kind of properties as descriptive propositions. Non-descriptivism contends that ethical propositions are
irreducible in the sense that their meaning cannot be explicated sufficiently in terms of descriptive truth-conditions.
Correspondingly, the epistemology of ethics divides into cognitivism and non-cognitivism; a distinction that is often
perceived as equivalent to that between descriptivists and non-descriptivists. Non-cognitivism may be understood as
the claim that ethical claims reach beyond the scope of human cognition or as the (weaker) claim that ethics is
concerned with action rather than with knowledge. Cognitivism can then be seen as the claim that ethics is
essentially concerned with judgments of the same kind as knowledge judgments; namely about matters of fact.
The ontology of ethics is concerned with the idea of value-bearing properties, i.e. the kind of things or stuffs that
would correspond to or be referred to by ethical propositions. Non-descriptivists and non-cognitivists will generally
tend to argue that ethics do not require a specific ontology, since ethical propositions do not refer to objects in the
same way that descriptive propositions do. Such a position may sometimes be called anti-realist. Realists on the
other hand are left with having to explain what kind of entities, properties or states are relevant for ethics, and why
they have the normative status characteristic of ethics.
Normative ethics
Traditionally, normative ethics (also known as moral theory) was the study of what makes actions right and wrong.
These theories offered an overarching moral principle one could appeal to in resolving difficult moral decisions.
At the turn of the 20th century, moral theories became more complex and are no longer concerned solely with
rightness and wrongness, but are interested in many different kinds of moral status. During the middle of the century,
the study of normative ethics declined as meta-ethics grew in prominence. This focus on meta-ethics was in part
caused by an intense linguistic focus in analytic philosophy and by the popularity of logical positivism.
Ethics 9
In 1971 John Rawls published A Theory of Justice, noteworthy in its pursuit of moral arguments and eschewing of
meta-ethics. This publication set the trend for renewed interest in normative ethics.
Greek philosophy
Socrates
Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common
citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge having a
bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary. Self-knowledge was considered
necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his
capabilities to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person
must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He
posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions, are the result of
ignorance. If a criminal were truly aware of the mental and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither
commit nor even consider committing those actions. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do
it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with happiness. The
truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.[1]
Aristotle
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realizationism." In Aristotle's view,
when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At
birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. To become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be
realized. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a
poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance
with their nature and develop their latent talents in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the
ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the
awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.[2]
Aristotle asserted that man had three natures: vegetable (physical/metabolism), animal (emotional/appetite) and
rational (mental/conceptual). Physical nature can be assuaged through exercise and care, emotional nature through
indulgence of instinct and urges, and mental through human reason and developed potential. Rational development
was considered the most important, as essential to philosophical self-awareness and as uniquely human. Moderation
was encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral. For example, courage is the moderate virtue
between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct
governed by moderate virtue. This is regarded as difficult, as virtue denotes doing the right thing, to the right person,
at the right time, to the proper extent, in the correct fashion, for the right reason.[3]
Hedonism
Hedonism posits that the principle ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There are several schools of
Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even momentary desires to those teaching a
pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification
regardless of the pain and expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and
happiness for the most people.[4]
Ethics 10
Cyrenaic hedonism
Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics supported immediate gratification or pleasure. "Eat, drink and be merry,
for tomorrow we die." Even fleeting desires should be indulged, for fear the opportunity should be forever lost.
There was little to no concern with the future, the present dominating in the pursuit for immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic
hedonism encouraged the pursuit of enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be the only
good.[4]
Epicureanism
Epicurus rejected the extremism of the Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to
human beings. Epicureans observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative consequences.
Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and some unpleasant experiences endured in the present to
ensure a better life in the future. To Epicurus the summum bonum, or greatest good, was prudence, exercised through
moderation and caution. Excessive indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For example,
eating one food too often will cause a person to lose taste for it. Eating too much food at once will lead to discomfort
and ill-health. Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness. Death was not
to be feared. Fear was considered the source of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead
to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there was an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there
was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear or worry; he would be non-existent in death.
It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist, such as one's state in death in the absence of an afterlife.[5]
Stoicism
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or
Apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one's desires and emotions leads to spiritual peace. The
"unconquerable will" is central to this philosophy. The individual's will should be independent and inviolate.
Allowing a person to disturb the mental equilibrium is in essence offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to
anger you at will, you have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from material
attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not be upset, but realize it was a thing that could
break. Similarly, if someone should die, those close to them should hold to their serenity because the loved one was
made of flesh and blood destined to death. Stoic philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning
oneself to existence and enduring in a rational fashion. Death is not feared. People do not "lose" their life, but instead
"return", for they are returning to God (who initially gave what the person is as a person). Epictetus said difficult
problems in life should not be avoided, but rather embraced. They are spiritual exercises needed for the health of the
spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the health of the body. He also stated that sex and sexual desire are to
be avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man's mind. Abstinence is highly desirable.
Epictetus said remaining abstinent in the face of temptation was a victory for which a man could be proud.[6] IT is
the important factor in ethics(Raheel Waqas).
Modern ethics
In the modern era, ethical theories were generally divided between consequentialist or utilitarian theories of
philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and deontological ethics as epitomized by the work of
Immanuel Kant.
Consequentialism
Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for
any valid moral judgment about that action (or create a structure for judgment, see rule consequentialism). Thus,
from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This
view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means".
Ethics 11
The term "consequentialism" was coined by G.E.M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958, to
describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by Mill and
Sidgwick.[7] Since then, the term has become common in English-language ethical theory.
The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences in evaluating the
rightness and wrongness of actions.[8] In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally
outweigh other considerations. Apart from this basic outline, there is little else that can be unequivocally said about
consequentialism as such. However, there are some questions that many consequentialist theories address:
• What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
• Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
• How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is,
which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to hedonistic utilitarianism, a good action is one that
results in an increase in pleasure, and the best action is one that results in the most pleasure for the greatest number.
Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be
the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic
consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix on non-psychological
goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty instead of
something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted
equally. Whether a particular consequentialist theory focuses on a single good or many, conflicts and tensions
between different good states of affairs are to be expected and must be adjudicated.
Deontology
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to
ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, rather than third-party consequences of the act as
in consequentialism, or the intentions of the person doing the act as in virtue ethics. Deontologists look at rules and
duties.[9] For example, the act may be considered the right thing to do even if it produces a bad consequence,[10] if it
follows the rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”,[9] and even if the person who
does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act. According to deontology, we have a duty to act in a
way that does those things that are inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively
obligatory rule (as in rule utilitarianism). For deontologists, the ends or consequences of our actions are not
important in and of themselves, and our intentions are not important in and of themselves.
Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[11] [12] First, Kant argues
that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon).[13] Second, Kant argued that it was not the
consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.
Ethics 12
Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way, one must act from
duty, begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good
in itself, and good without qualification.[14] Something is 'good in
itself' when it is intrinsically good, and 'good without qualification'
when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse.
Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good,
such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either
intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example,
appears to not be good without qualification, because when people take
pleasure in watching someone suffering, this seems to make the
situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that
is truly good:
Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the

world—can possibly be conceived which could be called
Immanuel Kant
good without qualification except a good will.[14]
Postmodern ethics
The 20th century saw a remarkable expansion of critical theory and its evolution. The earlier Marxist Theory created
a paradigm for understanding the individual, society and their interaction. The Renaissance Enlightened Man had
persisted up until the Industrial Revolution when the romantic vision of noble action began to fade.
Modernism, exemplified in the literary works of Virginia Woolf and James Joyce, questioned traditional religious
views. Then antihumanists such as Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault and structuralists such as Roland Barthes
presided over the death of the author and man himself. As critical theory developed in the later 20th century,
post-structuralism queried the existence of reality. Jacques Derrida argued reality was in the linguistic realm, stating
"There is nothing outside the text", while Jean Baudrillard theorised that signs and symbols or simulacra had usurped
reality, particularly in the consumer world.
Post-structuralism and postmodernism argue that the world is relational; therefore, ethics must study the complex
situation of actions. A simple alignment of idea of right and particular act is not possible. There will always be a
remainder that is part of the ethical issue that cannot be taken into account in a relational world. Such theorists find
narrative to be a helpful tool for understanding ethics because narrative is always about particular life stories in all
their lived complexity rather than consist of a the assignment of an idea or norm to an action.
David Couzens Hoy says that Emmanuel Levinas's writings on the face of the Other and Derrida's mediations on the
relevance of death to ethics are signs of the "ethical turn" in Continental philosophy that occurs in the 1980s and
1990s. Hoy clarifies post-critique ethics as the "obligations that present themselves as necessarily to be fulfilled but
are neither forced on one or are enforceable" (2004, p. 103).
This aligns with Australian philosopher Peter Singer's thoughts on what ethics is not. He firstly claims it is not a
moral code particular to a sectional group. For example it has nothing to do with a set of prohibitions concerned with
sex laid down by a religious order. Neither is ethics a "system that is noble in theory but no good in practice" (2000,
p. 7). For him, a theory is good only if it is practical. He agrees that ethics is in some sense universal but in a
utilitarian way it affords the "best consequences" and furthers the interests of those affected (2000, p. 15).
Hoy's post-critique model uses the term ethical resistance. Examples of this would be an individual's resistance to
consumerism in a retreat to a simpler but perhaps harder lifestyle, or an individual's resistance to a terminal illness.
Hoy describes these examples in his book Critical Resistance as an individual's engagement in social or political
resistance. He provides Levinas's account as "not the attempt to use power against itself, or to mobilize sectors of the
Ethics 13
population to exert their political power; the ethical resistance is instead the resistance of the powerless"(2004, p. 8).
Hoy concludes that
The ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is therefore what
imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are unenforceable precisely because of the other's
lack of power. That actions are at once obligatory and at the same time unenforceable is what put them in the
category of the ethical. Obligations that were enforced would, by the virtue of the force behind them, not be
freely undertaken and would not be in the realm of the ethical. (2004, p.184)
In present day terms the powerless may include the unborn, the terminally sick, the aged, the insane, and animals. It
is in these areas that ethical action will be evident. Until legislation or state apparatus enforces a moral order that
addresses the causes of resistance these issues will remain in the ethical realm. For example, should animal
experimentation become illegal in a society, it will no longer be an ethical issue. Likewise one hundred and fifty
years ago, not having a black slave in America may have been an ethical choice. This later issue has been absorbed
into the fabric of a more utilitarian social order and is no longer an ethical issue but does of course constitute a moral
concern. Ethics are exercised by those who possess no power and those who support them, through personal
resistance.
Applied ethics
Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations. The discipline
has many specialized fields, such as Engineering Ethics, bioethics and business ethics.
Specific questions
Applied ethics is used in some aspects of determining public policy. The sort of questions addressed by applied
ethics include: "Is getting an abortion immoral?" "Is euthanasia immoral?" "Is affirmative action right or wrong?"
"What are human rights, and how do we determine them?" "Do animals have rights as well?" and "Do individuals
have the right of self determination?"
A more specific question could be: "If someone else can make better out of his/her life than I can, is it then moral to
sacrifice myself for them if needed?" Without these questions there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance law,
politics, and the practice of arbitration — in fact, no common assumptions of all participants—so the ability to
formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing. But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public
policy. For example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as, "Is lying always wrong?" and, "If not,
when is it permissible?" is prior to any etiquette.
People in-general are more comfortable with dichotomies (two choices). However, in ethics the issues are most often
multifaceted and the best proposed actions address many different areas concurrently. In ethical decisions the answer
is almost never a "yes or no", "right or wrong" statement. Many buttons are pushed so that the overall condition is
improved and not to the benefit of any particular faction.
Particular fields of application
Relational ethics
Relational ethics are related to an ethics of care.[15] They are used in qualitative research, especially ethnography and
authoethnography. Researchers who employ relational ethics value and respect the connection between themselves
and the people they study, and "between researchers and the communities in which they live and work" (Ellis, 2007,
p. 4).[16] Relational ethics also help researchers understand difficult issues such as conducting research on intimate
others that have died and developing friendships with their participants.[17] [18]
Ethics 14
Military ethics
Military ethics is a set of practices and philosophy to guide members of the armed forces to act in a manner
consistent with the values and standards as established by military tradition, and to actively clarify and enforce these
conditions rigorously in its administrative structure. The Department of Defense 5500.7-R (DoD 5500.7-R), serves
as the primary regulatory source of ethical standards and conduct to members of the Armed Services (DoD, pg 1).
Since this is the only order used, all changes must be made by revision.
Military ethics is evolutionary and the administrative structure is modified as new ethical perspectives consistent
with national interests evolve.
Some ethical issues involving a country's military establishment, such as:
1. justification for using force
2. race (loss of capability due to race bias or abuse)
3. gender equality (loss of capability due to gender bias or abuse)
4. age discrimination (authority based upon age)
5. nepotism (unfair control by family members; also known as "empire building")
6. political influence (military members having a political position or political influence)
And others.
Moral psychology
Moral psychology is a field of study that began, like most things, as an issue in philosophy and that is now properly
considered part of the discipline of psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer
to the study of moral development.[19] However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the
intersection of ethics and psychology (and philosophy of mind).[20] Such topics are ones that involve the mind and
are relevant to moral issues. Some of the main topics of the field are moral responsibility, moral development, moral
character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, and moral
disagreement.[21]
Evolutionary ethics
Evolutionary ethics concerns approaches to ethics (morality) based on the role of evolution in shaping human
psychology and behavior. Such approaches may be based in scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology or
sociobiology, with a focus on understanding and explaining observed ethical preferences and choices.[22]
Descriptive ethics
Descriptive ethics is a value-free approach to ethics, which defines it as a social science (specifically sociology)
rather than a humanity. It examines ethics not from a top-down a priori perspective but rather observations of actual
choices made by moral agents in practice. Some philosophers rely on descriptive ethics and choices made and
unchallenged by a society or culture to derive categories, which typically vary by context. This can lead to
situational ethics and situated ethics. These philosophers often view aesthetics, etiquette, and arbitration as more
fundamental, percolating "bottom up" to imply the existence of, rather than explicitly prescribe, theories of value or
of conduct. The study of descriptive ethics may include examinations of the following:
• Ethical codes applied by various groups. Some consider aesthetics itself the basis of ethics– and a personal moral
core developed through art and storytelling as very influential in one's later ethical choices.
• Informal theories of etiquette that tend to be less rigorous and more situational. Some consider etiquette a simple
negative ethics, i.e., where can one evade an uncomfortable truth without doing wrong? One notable advocate of
this view is Judith Martin ("Miss Manners"). According to this view, ethics is more a summary of common sense
social decisions.
Ethics 15
• Practices in arbitration and law, e.g., the claim that ethics itself is a matter of balancing "right versus right," i.e.,
putting priorities on two things that are both right, but that must be traded off carefully in each situation.
• Observed choices made by ordinary people, without expert aid or advice, who vote, buy, and decide what is worth
valuing. This is a major concern of sociology, political science, and economics.
Notes
[1] Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 32-33. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN
978-1-56619-271-2.
978-1-56619-271-2.
978-1-56619-271-2.
[4] Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pg 37. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN
978-1-56619-271-2.
978-1-56619-271-2.
978-1-56619-271-2.
[7] Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). "Modern Moral Philosophy" (http:/ / www. philosophy. uncc. edu/ mleldrid/ cmt/ mmp. html). Philosophy 33:
1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943. .
[8] Mackie, J. L. (1990). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-013558-8.
[9] Stanford.edu (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ ethics-virtue/ )
[10] Olson, Robert G. 1967. 'Deontological Ethics'. In Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan: 343.
[11] Orend, Brian. 2000. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press: 19.
[12] Kelly, Eugene. 2006. The Basics of Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press: 160.
[13] Kant, Immanuel. 1780. 'Preface'. In The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott
[14] Kant, Immanuel. 1785. 'First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical', Groundwork of the
Metaphysic of Morals.
[15] Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different Voice: Pscychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[16] Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 3-29.
[17] Ellis, C. (1986). Fisher folk. Two communities on Chesapeake Bay. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
[18] Ellis, C. (1995).Final negotiations: A story of love, loss, and chronic illness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
[19] See, for example, Lapsley (2006) and "moral psychology" (2007).
[20] See, for example, Doris & Stich (2008) and Wallace (2007). Wallace writes: "Moral psychology is the study of morality in its psychological
dimensions" (p. 86).
[21] See Doris & Stich (2008), §1.
[22] Doris Schroeder. "Evolutionary Ethics" (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ evol-eth/ ). . Retrieved 2010-01-05.
References
• Hoy, D. (2005), Critical resistance from poststructuralism to postcritique, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Massachusetts.
• Lyon, D. (1999), Postmodernity, 2nd ed, Open University Press, Buckingham.
• Singer, P. (2000), Writings on an ethical life, Harper Collins Publishers, London.
Further reading
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
• The London Philosophy Study Guide (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/) offers many suggestions on
what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject: Ethics (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/
LPSG/Ethics.htm)
• Encyclopedia of Ethics. Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, editors. Second edition in three volumes.
New York: Routledge, 2002. A scholarly encyclopedia with over 500 signed, peer-reviewed articles, mostly on
topics and figures of, or of special interest in, Western philosophy.
Ethics 16
• Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good: A short introduction to ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (http://www.
worldcat.org/title/being-good-a-short-introduction-to-ethics/oclc/51644518)
• De Finance, Joseph, An Ethical Inquiry, Rome, Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1991.
• De La Torre, Miguel A., "Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins," Orbis Books, 2004.
• Derrida, J. 1995, The Gift of Death, translated by David Wills, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Fagothey, Austin, Right and Reason, Tan Books & Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 2000.
• Levinas, E. 1969, Totality and infinity, an essay on exteriority, translated by Alphonso Lingis, Duquesne
University Press, Pittsburgh.
• Perle, Stephen (March 11, 2004). "Morality and Ethics: An Introduction" (http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/
22/06/16.html). Retrieved 2007-02-13., Butchvarov, Panayot. Skepticism in Ethics (1989).
• Solomon, R.C., Morality and the Good Life: An Introduction to Ethics Through Classical Sources, New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984.
• Vendemiati, Aldo, In the First Person, An Outline of General Ethics, Rome, Urbaniana University Press, 2004.
• John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/
encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html), 6-8-1993.
• D'Urance, Michel, Jalons pour une éthique rebelle, Aléthéia, Paris, 2005.
External links
• An Introduction to Ethics (http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43789) by Paul Newall,
aimed at beginners.
• Ethics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics) entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Ethics (http://www.ditext.com/frankena/ethics.html), 2d ed., 1973. by William Frankena
• Ethics Bites (http://www.open2.net/ethicsbites/index.html) Open University podcast series podcast exploring
ethical dilemmas in everyday life.
• University of San Diego - Ethics glossary (http://ethics.sandiego.edu/LMH/E2/Glossary.asp) Useful terms in
ethics discussions
• National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature (http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nrc/) World's largest
library for ethical issues in medicine and biomedical research
• Ethics (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1985----.htm) entry in Encyclopædia Britannica by Peter Singer
• The Philosophy of Ethics (http://www.philosophyarchive.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_Ethics) on
Philosophy Archive
• Ethics updates (http://ethics.sandiego.edu/) Provides resources and updates on current literature, both popular
and professional, that relate to ethics.
• Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics (http://www.klice.co.uk/) Resources, events, and research on a range
of ethical subjects from a Christian perspective.
The Golden Rule 17
The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code,
or morality[2] that essentially states either of the following:
1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself
(positive form)[1]
2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be
treated (negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule)
The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern
concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just
treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others.[3]
A key element of the Golden Rule is that a person attempting to live by
this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or
her in-group. The Golden Rule has its roots in a wide range of world
cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve
conflicts.[1] [4] The maxim of the "golden rule" is exemplified in
many stories, such as the Parable of the Good
The Golden Rule has a long history, and a great number of prominent
Samaritan
religious figures and philosophers have restated its reciprocal, bilateral
nature in various ways (not limited to the above forms).[1] As a
concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law", as it was called
from the 1670s).[1] [5] The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon,
Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China.
Examples of statements that mirror the Golden Rule appear in Ancient Egypt, for example in the story of The
Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command:
Do to the doer to cause that he do."[6] Rushworth Kidder states that "the label 'golden' was applied by Confucius
(551–479 B.C.), who wrote a version of the Silver Rule: 'Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others
that which we do not want them to do to us.'" Kidder notes that this framework appears prominently in many
religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions".[7]
Antiquity
Ancient Babylon
Some early incarnations of the Golden Rule, found in the Code of Hammurabi, (1780 BCE),[8] and in the Torah,
dealt with ethical reciprocity in ways, such by limiting retribution to only that which was equal and equitable, as they
did concepts of retribution ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth").
Ancient Egypt
An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The
Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the
doer to cause that he do."[6] An example from a Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BCE) papyrus: "That which you hate
to be done to you, do not do to another."[9]
The Golden Rule 18
Ancient Greece
The Golden Rule in its prohibitive form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the
general concept include:
• "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus[10] (c. 640–568 BCE)
• "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[11]
• "What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean.[12] The oldest
extant reference to Sextus is by Origin in the third century of the common era.[13]
• "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." – Isocrates[14]
• "What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus[15]
• "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be
harmed'[16] ), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." – Epicurus[17]
• "One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him." –
Plato's Socrates (Crito, 49c) (c. 469 BC–399 BCE)
Ancient China
The Golden Rule existed among all the major philisophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and
Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:
• "Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master
said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?" – Confucius [18] [19]
• "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius [20]
• "If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite
their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." – Mozi
• "The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is
also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for
Virtue is faithful." –Laozi[21]
• "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." –Laozi[22]
Religion and philosophy
Global ethic
The "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic"[23] from the Parliament of the World’s Religions[24] [25] (1993) proclaimed
the Golden Rule ("We must treat others as we wish others to treat us") as the common principle for many
religions.[26] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world's major faiths,
including Baha'i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith,
Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and
Zoroastrian.[26] [27]
The Golden Rule 19
Bahá'í Faith
From the scriptures of the Bahá'í Faith:
Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.
—Bahá'u'lláh[28] [29]
And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for
thyself.
—Bahá'u'lláh[30] [31]
Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest
not.
—Bahá'u'lláh[32] [33] [34]
Beware lest ye harm any soul, or make any heart to sorrow; lest ye wound any man with your words, be he
known to you or a stranger, be he friend or foe.
—`Abdu'l-Bahá[35]
Buddhism
Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.[36]
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness,
will not attain happiness hereafter.
—Dhammapada 10. Violence
Christianity
The "Golden Rule" has been attributed to Jesus of Nazareth: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31). The common English phrasing is "Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you". A similar form appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567
(certainly in the reprint of 1583).[37]
Christianity adopted the golden rule from two edicts, found in Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a
grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself"; see also Great Commandment) and Leviticus
19:34 ("But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as
thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God"). Leviticus 19:34 universalizes the
edict of Leviticus 19:18 from "one of your people" to all of humankind.
The Old Testament Deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Sirach, accepted as part of the Scriptural canon by Catholic
Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, also express a negative form of the golden rule:
"Do to no one what you yourself dislike."
—Tobit 4:15
At the time of Hillel, an elder contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, the negative form of the golden rule already must
have been proverbial, because of the accordances with Tobit 4:15. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely,
he answered:
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go
and learn."
—Talmud, Shabbat 31a
"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."
—Sirach 31:15
The Golden Rule 20
Two passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the golden rule:
Matthew 7:12
12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the
law and the prophets.
Luke 6:31
31
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
A similar passage is Luke 10:25-28
25
And one day an authority on the law stood up to put Jesus to the test. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to
receive eternal life?” 26What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” 27He
answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your
strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ” 28“You
have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”.
The passage in the book of Luke then continues with Jesus answering the question, "Who is my neighbor?", by
telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, indicating that "your neighbour" is anyone in need.[38] Jesus' teaching,
however, goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the
positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the
other would do for them. This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasises the needs
for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt
another. Taken as a rule of judgement, both formulations of the golden rule, the negative and positive, are equally
applicable.[39]
Confucianism
Rushworth Kidder attributes the "golden" appellation to Confucius: "Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do
to others that which we do not want them to do to us."[7]
Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master
said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?[18] [19]
—Confucius, Analects XV.24 (tr. Chinese Text Project)
Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.(己所不欲，勿施于人）
—Confucius, Analects XV.24 (tr. David Hinton)
The same idea is also presented in V.12 and VI.30 of the Analects.
Hinduism
One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule
of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.
—Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)[40]
For those who set their hearts on me And worship me with unfailing devotion and faith,
The way of love leads sure and swift to me.
Those who seek the transcendental Reality,
Unmanifested, without name or form,
Beyond the reach of feeling and of thought,
With their senses subdued and mind serene
And striving for the good of all beings,
They too will verily come unto me.
—[Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter XII.][41]
The Golden Rule 21
Humanism
Many different sources claim the Golden Rule as a humanist principle:[42] [43]
Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who
may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect –
qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from.
And although it isn’t possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different
circumstances and have different life experiences, it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause
us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others. For this reason many people find the Golden Rule’s
corollary – “do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself” – more pragmatic.[42]
Islam
Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.
—Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon
Jeffrey Wattles holds that the golden rule appears in the following statements attributed to Muhammad:[44]
“Woe to those . . . who, when they have to receive by measure from men, exact full measure, but when they
have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due”
—Qur’an (Surah 83, "The Unjust," vv. 1–4)[45]
The Qur'an commends:
"those who show their affection to such as came to them for refuge and entertain no desire in their hearts for
things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves"
—Qur’an (Surah 59, "Exile," vv. 9)[46]
“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
—An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)[47]
"Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer; treat well as a
neighbor the one who lives near you, that you may be a Muslim [one who submits to God]."
—Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)[48]
“That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”[48]
"The most righteous of men is the one who is glad that men should have what is pleasing to himself, and who
dislikes for them what is for him disagreeable."[48]
Jainism
In Jainism, the golden rule is firmly embedded in its entire philosophy and can be seen in its clearest form in the
doctrines of Ahimsa and Karma
The following quotation from the Acaranga Sutra sums up the philosophy of Jainism:
Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be
destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential.
In support of this Truth, I ask you a question – "Is sorrow or pain desirable to you ?" If you say "yes it is", it
would be a lie. If you say, "No, It is not" you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not
desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is
undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.[49]
Saman Suttam of Jinendra Varni[50] gives further insight into this percepts:-
All the living beings wish to live and not to die; that is why unattached saints prohibit the killing of living
beings.
The Golden Rule 22
—Suman Suttam , verse 148

Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with
respect and compassion.
Killing a living being is killing one's own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion
to oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being.
Judaism
The concept of the Golden Rule originates most famously in a Torah verse (Hebrew: "‫)"ךומכ ךערל תבהאו‬:
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the
LORD.
—Leviticus 19:18[51] , the "Great Commandment"
This Torah verse represents one of several versions of the Golden Rule, which itself appears in various forms,
positive and negative. It is seemingly the oldest written version of that concept in a positive form.[52] All versions
and forms of the proverbial Golden Rule have one aspect in common, they all call for others the equal manner and
respect we want for ourselves.
At the turn of the eras, the Jewish rabbis were discussing the scope of the meaning of Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34
extensively:
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for
you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God.
—Leviticus 19:34[51]
Some deputized the excluding opinion, "neighbor" only refers to Jews and proselytes. Others summed up Samaritans
unto the proselytes (= 'strangers who resides with you') (Rabbi Akiba, bQuid 75b) or Jews (Rabbi Gamaliel, yKet
3,1; 27a).
The Sage Hillel formulated a negative form of the golden rule. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he
answered:[53]
That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go
and learn.
—Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"
On the verse, "Love your fellow as yourself," the classic commentator Rashi quotes from Torat Kohanim, an early
Midrashic text regarding the famous dictum of Rabbi Akiva: "Love your fellow as yourself — Rabbi Akiva says this
is a great principle of the Torah."[54]
The Hassidic perspective of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi based on the teachings of the Zohar implores one to
"repay the offenders with favors":
"So, too, in matters affecting a person's relations with his fellow, as soon as there rises from his heart to his
mind any animosity or hatred, G-d forbid, or jealousy, anger, or a grudge and the like, he allows them no
entrance into his mind and will. On the contrary, his mind exercises its authority and power over the feelings
in his heart to do the very opposite, namely, to conduct himself towards his fellow with the quality of kindness
and a display of abundant love to the extreme limits, without becoming provoked into anger, G-d forbid, or to
revenge in kind, G-d forbid, but rather to repay the offenders with favors, as taught in the Zohar, that one
should learn from the example of Yosef [Joseph] towards his brothers."
—Tanya, ch. 12
The Golden Rule 23
Israel's postal service quoted from the previous Leviticus verse when it commemorated the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights on a 1958 postage stamp.[55]
Mohism
If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite
their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.
—Mozi
Mozi regarded the golden rule as a corollary to the cardinal virtue of impartiality, and encouraged egalitarianism and
selflessness in relationships.
Platonism
The Golden Rule is a central concept in Plato's philosophy.
One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him."
—Plato's Socrates (Crito, 49c) (c. 469 BC–399 BCE)
Quakerism
"Oh, do as you would be done by. And do unto all men as you would have them do unto you, for this is but the law
and the prophet." Postscript to the Quaker peace testimony, signed by George Fox.
Sikhism
Whom should I despise, since the one Lord made us all.
—p.1237, Var Sarang, Guru Granth Sahib, tr. Patwant Singh
The truly enlightened ones are those who neither incite fear in others nor fear anyone themselves.
—p.1427, Slok, Guru Granth Sahib, tr. Patwant Singh
I am a stranger to no one, and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.
—p.1299, Guru Granth Sahib
Taoism
The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he
is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful:
for Virtue is faithful.
—Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
—T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien
Wicca
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An it harm none do what ye will.
Criticisms and responses to criticisms

Many people have criticized the golden rule; George Bernard Shaw once said that "the golden rule is that there are
no golden rules". Shaw suggested an alternative rule: "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto
you. Their tastes may not be the same" (Maxims for Revolutionists; 1903). Karl Popper wrote: "The golden rule is a
good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by"
The Golden Rule 24
(The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2). This concept has recently been called "The Platinum Rule"[56]
Philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell, have objected to the rule on a
variety of grounds.[57] The most serious among these is its application. How does one know how others want to be
treated? The obvious way is to ask them, but this cannot be done if one assumes they have not reached a particular
and relevant understanding.
Differences in values or interests

Shaw's comment about differing tastes suggests that if your values are not shared with others, the way you want to be
treated will not be the way they want to be treated. For example, it has been said that a sadist is just a masochist who
follows the golden rule. Another often used example of this inconsistency is that of the man walking into a bar
looking for a fight.[58]
Differences in situations
Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a
prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out
that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others.
Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, is often confused
with the Golden Rule.
Responses to criticisms
Walter Terence Stace, in The Concept of Morals (1937), wrote:
Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes
may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be
done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into
account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in
the world had any needs or tastes in common.[59]
M. G. Singer observed that there are two importantly different ways of looking at the golden rule: as requiring
(1) that you perform specific actions that you want others to do to you or (2) that you guide your behavior in the
same general ways that you want others to.[60] Counter-examples to the golden rule typically are more forceful
against the first than the second.
In his book on the golden rule, Jeffrey Wattles makes the similar observation that such objections typically arise
while applying the golden rule in certain general ways (namely, ignoring differences in taste, in situation, and so
forth). But if we apply the golden rule to our own method of using it, asking in effect if we would want other people
to apply the golden rule in such ways, the answer would typically be no, since it is quite predictable that others'
ignoring of such factors will lead to behavior which we object to. It follows that we should not do so
ourselves—according to the golden rule. In this way, the golden rule may be self-correcting.[61] An article by Jouni
Reinikainen develops this suggestion in greater detail.[62]
It is possible, then, that the golden rule can itself guide us in identifying which differences of situation are morally
relevant. We would often want other people to ignore our race or nationality when deciding how to act towards us,
but would also want them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, desire for aggressiveness, and so on. The
platinum rule, and perhaps other variants, might also be self-correcting in this same manner.
Many uprisings are caused by failure to follow the Golden Rule. When a leader is free to speak, trade and travel, but
doesn't allow his people the same freedoms, he's breaking the Rule.
The Golden Rule 25
Cynical versions
An alternative, more cynical version of the golden rule is "He who has the gold, makes the rules."[63]
The tit for tat strategy involves initial use of the golden rule, but, reflecting its name, is mostly focused on the
vengeance that should be exacted when another appears to violate the golden rule.
Scientific research
There has been research published arguing that some 'sense' of fair play and the Golden Rule may be stated and
rooted in terms of neuroscientific and neuroethical principles.[64]
References
[1] Antony Flew, ed (1979). "golden rule". A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan Books in association with The MacMillan Press. p. 134.
ISBN 0 330 28359 X. "The maxim 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. 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".
[2] Walter Terence Stace argued that the Golden Rule is much more than simply an 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): –Stace, Walter T.
(1937, Reprinted 1975 by permission of MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc., Also reprinted January 1990 by Peter Smith Publisher Inc). The
Concept of Morals. New York: The MacMillan Company; and also reprinted by Peter Smith Publisher Inc, January 1990. p. 136.
ISBN 0-8446-2990-1.
[3] Defined another way, it "refers to the balance in an interactive system such that each party has both rights and duties, and the subordinate
norm of complementarity states that one's rights are the other's obligation."Bornstein, Marc H. (2002). Handbook of Parenting. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-8058-3782-7. See also: Paden, William E. (2003). Interpreting the Sacred: Ways of Viewing Religion.
Beacon Press. pp. 131–132. ISBN 978-0-8070-7705-4.
[4] Stace, Walter T. (1937, Reprinted 1975 by permission of MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc.). The Concept of Morals. New York: The MacMillan
Company. pp. chapters on Ethical Relativity (pp 1–68), and Unity of Morals (pp 92–107, specifically p 93, 98, 102). ISBN 0-8446-2990-1.
[5] Douglas Harper. "Entry for "golden"" (http:/ / www. etymonline. com/ index. php?search=golden+ rule& searchmode=none). Online
Etymology Dictionary. Online Etymology Dictionary. . Retrieved 10 July 2010.
[6] "The Culture of Ancient Egypt", John Albert Wilson, p. 121, University of Chicago Press, 1956, ISBN 0-226-90152-1
[7] W.A. Spooner, "The Golden Rule," in James Hastings, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 6 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1914) pp. 310–12, quoted in Rushworth M. Kidder, How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living,
Harper, New York, 2003. ISBN 0688175902. p. 159.
[8] Quote from Kenneth Bond: "...Code of Hammurabi (1780 BC). I used a translation by L.W. King with Commentary by Charles F. Horne
(1915). My version was a 1996 electronically enhanced version of the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica." (end quote).Kenneth Bond (1998).
"Religious Beliefs as a Basis for Ethical Decision Making in the Workplace" (http:/ / replay. waybackmachine. org/ 20070703102021/ http:/ /
www. humboldt. edu/ ~kmb2/ paper. html). Humboldt State University. . Retrieved 10 July 2010.
[9] "A Late Period Hieratic Wisdom Text: P. Brooklyn 47.218.135", Richard Jasnow, p. 95, University of Chicago Press, 1992, ISBN
978-0-918986-85-6
[10] Pittacus, Fragm. 10.3
[11] Diogenes Laërtius, "The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers", I,36
[12] "The Sentences of Sextus" (http:/ / www. gnosis. org/ naghamm/ sent. html). .
[13] The Sentences of Sextus Article
[14] Isocrates, "Nicocles",6
[15] Epictetus, "Encheiridion"
[16] Tim O'Keefe, Epicurus on Freedom (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=ugI3eRmNJrcC& printsec=frontcover), Cambridge University
Press, 2005, p.134
[17] Epicurus Principal Doctrines (http:/ / classics. mit. edu/ Epicurus/ princdoc. html) tranls. by Robert Drew Hicks (1925)
[18] Chinese Text Project. "[Pre-Qin and Han, Confucianism, The Analects, Wei Ling Gong, XV.24]" (http:/ / ctext. org/ analects/
wei-ling-gong#n1504). Chinese Text Project. Chinese Text Project. . Retrieved 3 September 2010.
[19] The entry for "golden rule" in A Dictionary of Philosophy, in giving examples, states: "... Confucius, for instance, was asked whether the
true way could be summed up in a single word...."Editorial consultant (for seventeen contributors): Antony Flew, ed (1979). A Dictionary of
Philosophy. London: Pan Books in association with The MacMillan Press. p. 134 (entry for "golden rule"). ISBN 0 330 28359 X.
[20] Analects XV.24 (tr. David Hinton)
[21] Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
[22] T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien (Sacred Books of the East)
[23] Towards a Global Ethic (http:/ / www. urbandharma. org/ udharma/ globalethic. html) Urban Dharma - Buddhism in America (This link
includes a list of 143 signatories and their respective religions.)
The Golden Rule 26
[24] Parliament of the World's Religions (http:/ / www. parliamentofreligions. org/ )

[25] The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions. (http:/ / www. parliamentofreligions. org/ )
[26] Towards a Global Ethic (http:/ / www. religioustolerance. org/ parliame. htm) (An Initial Declaration) ReligiousTolerance.org. - Under the
subtitle, "We Declare," see third paragraph. The first line reads, "We must treat others as we wish others to treat us."
[27] Parliament of the World's Religions - Towards a Global Ethic (http:/ / www. parliamentofreligions. org/ _includes/ FCKcontent/ File/
TowardsAGlobalEthic. pdf)
[28] The Golden Rule Bahá'í Faith (http:/ / replay. waybackmachine. org/ 20090411012403/ http:/ / www. bahainyc. org/ presentations/
goldenrule/ golden-rule10. html)
[29] Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p71
[30] The Hidden Words of Bahá'u'lláh – Part II (http:/ / info. bahai. org/ article-1-3-2-9. html)
[31] Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p30
[32] Words of Wisdom (http:/ / replay. waybackmachine. org/ 20090327104931/ http:/ / www. cambridgebahais. org/ node/ 97) See: The Golden
Rule
[33] Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings, LXVI:8
[34] Hidden Words of Bahá'u'lláh, p10
[35] Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 73
[36] Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism (http:/ / www. enabling. org/ ia/ vipassana/ Archive/ H/ Harris/ detachmentHarris. html) by
Elizabeth J. Harris (enabling.org)
[37] Vaux, Laurence (1583, Reprinted by The Chetham Society in 1885). A Catechisme / or / Christian Doctrine (http:/ / www. aloha. net/
~mikesch/ vaux. htm#48). Manchester, England: The Chetham Society. p. 48 (located in the text just before the title, "Of the Five
Commandments of the Church." Scroll up slightly to see a section saying: "The sum of the ten Commandments does consist in the love
towards god, and our neighbor (Ephe. 4., Matt. 7.). In the first Table be three Commandments: which take away and forbid sin and vice
against the worshipping of God. They forbid idolatry, apostasy, heresy, superstition, perjury, blasphemy, and move us to the pure and true
worshipping of God in heart, word and deed. In the Second table be seven Commandments, which command us to give reverence and honor to
every man in his degree, to profit all, and hurt none: to do unto others, as we would be done to ourselves."). .
[38] John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on Luke 10 (http:/ / www. christnotes. org/ commentary. php?b=42& c=10& com=wes)
[39] Moore: Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era; Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1927–1930; Vol.2, p.87, Vol.3, p.180.
[40] Mahabharata Book 13 (http:/ / www. mahabharataonline. com/ translation/ mahabharata_13b078. php)
[41] Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter XII. (http:/ / www. bartleby. com/ 45/ 4/ 12. html)
[42] Thinkhumanism.com (http:/ / www. thinkhumanism. com/ index. php?option=com_content& view=article& id=59& Itemid=69)
[43] UBC.ca (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080315200124/ http:/ / www. ams. ubc. ca/ Clubs/ humanist/ )
[44] Jeffrey Wattles, The Golden Rule (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) 4, 191–192, Questia, 24 July 2007
[45] Wattles (191)
Rost, H. T. D. The Golden Rule: A Universal Ethic, 100. Oxford, 1986
[46] Wattles (192)
Rost (100)
[47] Wattles (191), Rost (100)
[48] [English Title: Conversations of Muhammad]
Wattles (192)
Rost (100)
Donaldson Dwight M. 1963. Studies in Muslim Ethics, p.82. London: S.P.C.K
[49] Jacobi, Hermann (1884). Ācāranga Sūtra, Jain Sutras Part I, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 22. (http:/ / www. sacred-texts. com/ jai/ sbe22/
index. htm). . Sutra 155-6
[50] *Varni, Jinendra; Ed. Prof. Sagarmal Jain, Translated Justice T.K. Tukol and Dr. K.K. Dixit (1993). Samaṇ Suttaṁ. New Delhi: Bhagwan
Mahavir memorial Samiti.
[51] New JPS Hebrew/English Tanakh
[52] Plaut: The Torah — A Modern Commentary; Union of American Hebrew Congregations, New York 1981; pp.892.
[53] Gensler, Harry J. (1996). Formal Ethics. Routledge. p. 105. ISBN 0415130662.
[54] Kedoshim 19:18, Toras Kohanim, ibid. See also Talmud Yerushalmi, Nedarim 9:4; Bereishis Rabbah 24:7.
[55] "Sol Singer Collection of Philatelic Judaica" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080407164111/ http:/ / marbl. library. emory. edu/
DigitalExhibits/ stamps/ 015. html). Emory University. Archived from the original (http:/ / marbl. library. emory. edu/ DigitalExhibits/
stamps/ 015. html) on 2008-04-07. .
[56] The Busybody: The Platinum Rule (http:/ / lorenrosson. blogspot. com/ 2006/ 02/ platinum-rule. html)
[57] Only a Game: The Golden Rule (http:/ / onlyagame. typepad. com/ only_a_game/ 2007/ 05/ the_golden_rule. html)
[58] How would you feel, if a million Soviet troops stormed your Reich Capital? (http:/ / web. inter. nl. net/ users/ Paul. Treanor/ golden. rule.
html)
[59] Stace, Walter T. (1937, Reprinted 1975 by permission of MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc., Also reprinted January 1990 by Peter Smith
Publisher Inc). The Concept of Morals. New York: The MacMillan Company; and also reprinted by Peter Smith Publisher Inc, January 1990.
p. 136 (ch. 6). ISBN 0-8446-2990-1.
The Golden Rule 27
[60] M. G. Singer, The Ideal of a Rational Morality, p270

[61] Wattles, p6
[62] Jouni Reinikainen, "The Golden Rule and the Requirement of Universalizability." Journal of Value Inquiry. 39(2): 155–168, 2005.
[63] Adrian Ash (March 17, 2010). "He Who Has the Gold Makes the Rules" (http:/ / www. marketoracle. co. uk/ Article17964. html).
marketoracle.co.uk. .
[64] Pfaff, Donald W., "The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule", Dana Press, The Dana Foundation, New
York, 2007. ISBN 978-1-932594-27-0
External links
• Golden Rule Poster in 13 Religions (http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/index.php)
• A short essay on the Golden Rule (http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm)
• Golden Rule in a Nutshell, referencing at least 19 religions / belief systems (http://tralvex.com/pub/spiritual/
index.htm#GR)
• Golden Rule Resources and Articles (http://www.goldenruleradical.org/)
• Rosicrucians: The Golden Rule (http://the_mystic_light.tripod.com/the_golden_rule.htm)
• Shared belief in the Golden Rule (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)
• The Golden Rule as a Global Ethos (http://www.marburger-forum.de/mafo/heft2007-1/Bor_gol.htm) by
Josef Bordat
• The Golden Rule, Ethic of Reciprocity, and the Wiccan Rede (http://www.humanreligions.info/golden.html)
• The Golden Rule in Religion (http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm)
• The Golden Rule in World Religions (http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html)
• The Rules of the Game (http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090430060944/http://19.org/index.
php?id=73,67,0,0,1,0)
• The Abolition of Man (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition3.htm) E-text of the C. S.
Lewis book The Abolition of Man, which includes a comparative appendix.
• Let's revive the Golden Rule (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/
karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule.html) (video)
Article Sources and Contributors

Morality Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=426919808 Contributors: -- April, .:Ajvol:., 24ip, 999, AbstractClass, Across.The.Synapse, Aerithkitanya, AfC, Ahoerstemeier,
Akashner, Alan Liefting, Alan.ca, Aldnonymous, Alexjohnc3, AlphaEta, Altenmann, Amplitude101, Anarchia, Anaxial, Andres, Andy M. Wang, Andycjp, AngryStan, Anna Lincoln,
AnnaAniston, AnnaFrance, Anonymous Dissident, Antandrus, Anthere, Apotheosis247, Arcette, Aristeo, Arrgh406, Art LaPella, Asdfjkl1235, Ataru, Aude, B1111111, BBBBAAAA, Badgernet,
Banno, Barrrower, Bart133, Bdijkstra, Ben Ben, BennyQuixote, Black-Velvet, BlueDevil, Bobo192, Born2cycle, Boyarkin, Boyd Reimer, Briaboru, Brian0918, Bryan Derksen, Bumm13,
CIreland, CanadianLinuxUser, Canfield, Cantiorix, Capricorn42, CarlKenner, Carlossuarez46, Caroline-howe, CesarB, Cessator, Charles Matthews, ChesterMarcol, ChildofMidnight, Chiubaca,
Cjwright79, ClamDip, Clemmy, Clicketyclack, Cmichael, Commander Keane, Con air, CorbinMc, Correogsk, Crusio, Ctbolt, Cubbi, Cubs Fan, D. Webb, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DSGruss,
Dacoutts, Daedalus969, Daegred, Danny, DarkJesuit, Darkfrog24, Darkmaster2004, Darvinwallis, Davidsonfilms, Dbabbitt, Dbachmann, Dchall1, Dcljr, DeadEyeArrow, Dekaels, Deor,
DerHexer, DevastatorIIC, Dgies, Dhammapal, Diggers2004, Dilbert3, Discospinster, DocWatson42, Dougweller, Drake Dun, Dreadstar, Dreampsy, Dreap, Dududuh, Duncharris, Durin, Durral,
Dylanpack, Dysmorodrepanis, EJSawyer, EScribe, EastTN, Ed Poor, Edgar181, Edgarde, El C, ElinorD, Elmondo21st, Epbr123, Eric13777, Eu.stefan, EuroTom, EverSince, Everyking,
Fairandbalanced, Faithlessthewonderboy, Falcon8765, Faust, Favonian, Fenice, FinnWiki, FisherQueen, Fishwristwatch, Flo98, FlyingToaster, ForesticPig, Forever Dusk, Forttt, Freakmighty,
FreplySpang, Frowanda, Funnyfarmofdoom, Furrykef, Fuzzform, Fyrael, Gabriel Kielland, Gail, George100, Gianfranco, Ginsengbomb, Gire 3pich2005, Glenn, Goethean, Goodnightmush,
Gorillasapiens, GraemeL, Grafen, Graham87, GrahamN, GreatBigCircles, Gregbard, Gregpierce2, Grizzlegritz, Guanaco, Gumruch, Gurch, Gurpreet gupy, Gwernol, Gökhan, Hadal, Hajoedr,
Halmstad, Hans Adler, Hertz1888, HolIgor, Hpmons, Hugh Mason, I dream of horses, IPSOS, Icarus3, Ich, Icut4you, Igiffin, Igoldste, Ilkali, Imperatoromnium, InKindDirect, InNotOf395,
Infinity0, Instantnood, Inter, Interwiki gl, Iridescent, Iridius, Isomorphic, J-stan, J.delanoy, JASpencer, JNW, JRR Trollkien, Jandalhandler, Jauhienij, Jay Litman, Jay-Sebastos, JeremyA,
JoeSmack, Johan1298, John Hyams, JohnClarknew, JohnOwens, Jon Cates, Jon186, Josh.Pritchard.DBA, Jossi, Julian Mendez, JustinWick, Kagredon, Kaisershatner, Kalexander, Karl-Henner,
Kartasto, Kbdank71, Kboy, Keramida, Kf4bdy, Kidlittle, Kimberley-ritchie, Kingpin13, Kjkolb, Knucmo2, Krash, Krawi, Kristamaranatha, Ktsquare, Kungfuadam, Kusyadi, Kwiki, Kzollman, L
Kensington, L0b0t, Lacrimosus, Lambiam, Larklight, Leandro Prudencio, LeaveSleaves, Leinad-Z, Leodorcey, Leszek Jańczuk, Leuko, Lev lafayette, Levi Stahl, Levineps, LittleHow,
Lkesteloot, Loot23, Lottamiata, Lymonhead, MCTales, MER-C, MPS, MPerel, Madhava 1947, Magioladitis, Magog the Ogre, Malo, Mangopeach, Manticore, Marciscool67, Maresuke369,
MarkGallagher, MarnetteD, MarsRover, Marskell, Matthew Yeager, Mattis, Matuku, Mav, Max Naylor, Mayooranathan, McNoddy, Mdebets, Mel Etitis, Mendaliv, Meno25, Mermaid from the
Baltic Sea, Mesimoney, Message From Xenu, Metamagician3000, Methcub, Michael Hardy, Michfan2123, Micru, Miketwo, MilkMiruku, Misarxist, Mishuletz, Misterstark, Mjroots, Mksmith,
Moemin05, Moeron, Mokgand, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Mpls.Ayers, MrBell, MrChupon, Muchness, Myemaildw, NLUT, Napot900, Nat Krause, NawlinWiki, Neelix,
NerdyScienceDude, Netesq, Nghtwlkr, Ngorongoro, Niemesrw, Nikodemos, Nneonneo, Noahlaws, Noh Boddy, Nommonomanac, Northfox, Notinasnaid, Nwbeeson, Ohnoitsjamie,
Okiefromokla (old), Ondrop, OottoO, Oxymoron83, PS., Paige Crowell, Panzuriel, Papep, Pariah, Paterson Brown, Paul.Paquette, Peter Fleet, Pfhorrest, Pgr94, Phalanxpursos, Philip Trueman,
Phirazo, Piano non troppo, Pictureuploader, Pile-Up, Pilotguy, PinchasC, Pinethicket, Piotrus, Plasynins, Player 03, Please Don't Block, Portillo, Primalchaos, PrincessofLlyr, Prionesse,
Prodvocalist, PwdrHnd, Q3dc, QuadrivialMind, QuantumEleven, R'n'B, R9obert, RESURGAM, RHaworth, RJCraig, Rafaelgarcia, Rama's Arrow, Random Nonsense, Randomblue, Ranger2006,
Rarichter, Raul654, Rauschpotato, RazorICE, RedWordSmith, Regancy42, Rettetast, RexNL, Rhobite, Rich Farmbrough, Richard D. LeCour, Richard holt, Richard-of-Earth, Richard001, Rikva,
Rjwilmsi, Rmallott1, Romanc19s, Rossford, RoyBoy, Rpop, Rror, Rstockbower, Rudrasharman, Rursus, Ruud Koot, Ruzihm, S, SJP, Saadanis, Sam Hocevar, Sam Korn, Samoboow,
SamuelAdamsOMG, Sardanaphalus, Seba5618, Shambalala, Shattered, Shell Kinney, Shiznick, SigmaEpsilon, Silivrenion, SiobhanHansa, Sjmantyl, Skenmy, Skiddermash, Skinnyweed, Skraz,
Skunke, Skywalker, Sluzzelin, Smehrdad, Smokizzy, Snakey Jake, Snigbrook, SnowFire, Socrates lives, SocratesJedi, Solarusdude, SonicAD, Spatfield, Spitfire, Spondoolicks, SpuriousQ,
Stalefries, Steel, Steevven1, SteinbDJ, Steohawk, Stevertigo, Stevietheman, Stewartadcock, Str1977, Subash.chandran007, Subliminalinertia, Superpaul3000, Supertigerman, TYelliot, Tal Shafik,
Tapir Terrific, Tasha0316, Tatarian, Taymaz.azimy, TeaDrinker, Tealwisp, Tee2008, Tesseract2, Texture, ThAtSo, The Advocate, The Anome, The Right Hon. Bonney Eberndu, The Rt
Honourable Bonney Eberndu, TheGWO, TheMidnighters, TheRedPenOfDoom, Theda, Theo Pardilla, Theobald Tiger, Theodork, Therighthandofgodhisword, Tide rolls, Tigeroo, Tocharianne,
Tomchiukc, Trcole123, Tregoweth, True Pagan Warrior, Truman Burbank, Trusilver, Tseno Maximov, Tuxthepenguin6, Twas Now, Uberisaac, Uriah923, VKokielov, Vegetator, Velho, Verbum
Veritas, Viiiccc, Vitalsigns.md, WJBscribe, Wafulz, Waggers, Wapondaponda, Warrickball, Wavehunter, Wayne, Weyes, WhisperToMe, White Cat, Wikididact, Wikidudeman,
Wikipediarules2221, Wolfdog, Xyzzyplugh, Yath, Yidisheryid, You knnow who, Yurik, Z-d, Zalgo, Zaspino, Zidel333, ‫یکیو یلع‬, 739 anonymous edits
Ethics Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=427653408 Contributors: ...adam..., 1exec1, 24ip, 4twenty42o, 7, @pple, A Macedonian, Aapo Laitinen, Abdullais4u, Abethecop,
AbsolutDan, Academic Challenger, Acather96, Acidrainyday, Adam Conover, Addshore, Adhall, AdjustShift, Adriaan, Adrian Scholl, Aesopos, Afterwriting, Aitias, Ajgorhoe, Alansohn, Alexf,
Allstarecho, Amcfreely, AmiDaniel, AnaisSatin, Anarchia, Anaxial, Anclation, Andonic, Andres, Andrewa, Andrewpmk, AndySimpson, Andycjp, Angela, Ann Stouter, Anomalocaris,
Anonymous101, Antaeus Feldspar, Antandrus, Anthere, Apierrot, Aranherunar, Ardonik, Arex, ArielGold, Arjun01, Ashirwad Gogoi, Astronautics, Augusta, AxelBoldt, Axeman89, Axlq,
Banno, Barek, Barrrower, Bbulkow, Beautiful.wave, Beland, Bemoeial, Ben Ben, BenBildstein, Benedictadolson, Bfigura's puppy, Biker Biker, Bioethica Americana, Biŋhai, BlazerKnight,
Bo99, Bobo192, Bogdanb, Bongwarrior, Boyd Reimer, Brian0918, BrianH123, Bryan Derksen, CLW, CO, COLBERTRULZ, CQ, CRGreathouse, Cadorj, Calion, Calixtekabore, Caltas,
Camembert, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, CanisRufus, Capricorn42, Caravaca, CardinalDan, Carl Turner, Carlossuarez46, Carole Jean, Cast, Causa sui, Cburnett, Chrislk02, Christian List,
Cinnamon42, Closedmouth, Common Man, Condem, Conversion script, Cool Hand Luke, Copsewood, Coralmizu, Craig Pennington, Crazy head, Creol, Crudnick, Cubbi, Cubs Fan, Cunado19,
Cybercobra, Cymbalta, Cyrus Andiron, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DCDuring, DMacks, DVD R W, Dacoutts, Daegred, Danjyates, Danmo99, Danski14, Davewho2, David Delony, Davidstrauss,
Dawn Bard, Dbachmann, Dekaels, Dekisugi, Delldot, Demonhunter698, DerHexer, Dhodges, Dialectic, Disavian, Discospinster, Donama, DouglasGreen, Dr.enh, Dramageek, Dreadstar,
Dreampsy, Drsuzyb, Dspradau, Du dilsta, Dysart09, Dysepsion, Ed Poor, EddEdmondson, Editor2020, Editor510, Edivorce, Edward321, Eeekster, El C, Elembis, Elkman, Elmondo21st,
Emperorbma, Endomion, EntmootsOfTrolls, Epbr123, Ephilei, Erianna, Eric-Wester, Erik Daniel P, EronMain, Error slow, EuroTom, Evb-wiki, EverSince, Evercat, Evil saltine, Fan-1967,
Faradayplank, Faré, Fatallight, Fishbefish, Fixer1234, Flewis, Flex, Flo98, FoxDiamond, Frankie0607, FranksValli, Franthor, Freakshownerd, FreplySpang, Fsvallare, Funandtrvl, Furrykef,
Fuzzypeg, Fæ, G0dsweed, Gail, Gaius Cornelius, Galorr, Galoubet, Gawaxay, General Wesc, George Richard Leeming, Gilemon, Gilliam, Gimboid13, Ginsengbomb, Giuseppe Fusco, Gleaman,
Glen, Glenn, Go for it!, GoDawgs, Gojiro0, Graham87, Grandia01, Gravitan, Gregbard, Grizzlegritz, Grucio, Grunge6910, Gthb, Guanaco, Gurch, Gurpreet gupy, Gyrobo, HJ Mitchell, HRV,
Hadal, Hadesplague, Hagerman, HalfShadow, Heimstern, HenryLi, Hgilbert, Hi jagdish, HiLo48, Hiernonymous, High Elf, Hitnrun321, Homama, Horiavulpe, Hu12, Husond, Hut 8.5, IGeMiNix,
Icut4you, Ida Shaw, Ig0774, Ignacio500, Infinity0, Iridescent, Islington warrior, Ivan, IvanLanin, Ixfd64, J.delanoy, JDCMAN, JONJONAUG, JRR Trollkien, Ja 62, JaGa, Jagun, Jahiegel,
James086, Jamesbdunn, JamieS93, Jasperdoomen, Jauerback, Jauhienij, Jeandré du Toit, Jeff3000, Jeroboambramblejam, Jh51681, Jim Wilkinson, JimWae, Jimlyttle, Jimmaths, Jj137, Jni,
JoeMauer, JoeSmack, John C PI, John Carter, Johnbrownsbody, JonathanDLehman, JonathanFreed, Jorunn, Josh Parris, JoshHolloway, Joshdenomey76, Joshdick, Jossi, Jpoelma13, Jrtayloriv,
Julian Mendez, Juliancolton, Juliangarside, Jusdafax, Justian, Justin W Smith, Justpetehere, KF, KGasso, KI, KSchutte, Kaganer, Kai-Hendrik, Kaldari, Kalle, Kanonkas, Karl-Henner, Karol
Langner, Katalaveno, Kelvin Knight, Ken95, Kennovak, Kesuari, Kid kiru, Kikuchiyo, Killiondude, KrakatoaKatie, Kudret abi, Kurykh, Kwh, KyraVixen, Kzollman, L Kensington, L33tminion,
LCP, Larissa19662, Larry_Sanger, LeaveSleaves, Legaleagle86, Leon7, Lethesl, Liaun, Lifeartist, Lightdarkness, Lightningfox, Lights, Ling.Nut, Literateur, Ljay2two, Logologist,
Loonymonkey, Loot23, Lotu, LouI, Lsolum, Lucidish, Ludvikus, Luk, Luna Santin, MECU, MER-C, Mackenzie kenzy, Maclyn611, Madhava 1947, Magic.Wiki, Malcolm Farmer,
Markalanfoster, Markus Dragonblood, Marskell, Mato, Maurice Carbonaro, Mayooranathan, Mdebets, Meaghan, Mebden, Meekywiki, Meeples, Metadat, Metalhead103, Mhkhng, Michael
Hardy, Michael Snow, Mikael Häggström, Mike R, Mindspillage, Minimac's Clone, Mkcmkc, Mkeranat, Mkmcconn, Modernist, Moralsandethics, Mostafa.Hassan, Mwanner, Myanw, NCurse,
Natalie Erin, NativeForeigner, NawlinWiki, Neverquick, NewEnglandYankee, Nibuod, Nick81, Ninly, Nirvana2013, Nivix, Nixdorf, Nixón, Nomirror, Nonoffensive1234, NorwegianBlue,
NotAnonymous0, Notheruser, Notinasnaid, Nposs, Numbo3, OlEnglish, Oli Filth, Onorem, Owl, Paraphelion, Pascal.Tesson, Pastordavid, Pathwrote, Pauli133, Paxik, Pdemecz, Pekayer11,
Pengo, PeregrineAY, Pete Hartree, Pfhorrest, Pgk, Phaedrus86, Phantomsteve, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Phdarts, Phil Boswell, Philip Trueman, Phronetic, Piano non troppo, Pierpietro,
Pinethicket, Pkirlin, Poli08, Pollinosisss, Poor Yorick, Posidonious, Postmodern Beatnik, Poulton, Pro66, Prokaryote, Proofreader77, Prototypebeta, Pushnell, Quantpole, Qwert, R dizzle,
R12556, R9obert, RDF, RJII, RK, RainbowOfLight, Ramendra Nath, Randomword, Razimantv, Razor820, Rbonvall, Rdsmith4, Reach Out to the Truth, Reaper Eternal, Red dwarf, Redhotone,
Rednblu, RexNL, Rfl, Rhwentworth, Rich Farmbrough, Richard001, Richardxthripp, Rjwilmsi, Robbie098, Robert Daoust, Ronhjones, RoyBoy, Rubbaducky42, Rursus, Ruy Pugliesi,
Ryanmcdaniel, S, SAE1962, Sam Clark, Sango123, Sannse, Sardanaphalus, Sasquatch, Savant1984, Sceptre, Sdcrym, Seanmason, Sebleblanc, Selket, Semper Ama, Serche, Sesu Prime,
Shambalala, Shanoman, Sharon habel, ShaunMacPherson, Sheilrod, Shim'on, Shizhao, ShowToddSomeLove, Sietse Snel, Simplebrain, Siroxo, Sketchmoose, Skomorokh, Sky Attacker,
Skywalker, Sluzzelin, SnappingTurtle, SocratesJedi, Somebodhi, Sonofecthelion, Sparticus, SpeedyGonsales, SpuriousQ, Steevven1, Stephenb, Stephendupont69, Stevenwmccrary58, Stevertigo,
Sundar, Sylvain Mielot, Symane, Synchronism, T of Locri, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, TastyPoutine, Tawker, Taymaz.azimy, Tbannist, Tbhotch, Tee2008, TeresaTeng, Terra Novus, The
Anome, The Nut, The Philosophical Penguin, The Thing That Should Not Be, The enemies of god, TheGWO, TheProject, Themfromspace, Thingg, Thorn969, Thumperward, Tide rolls, Tim314,
Timwi, Tito4000, Titoxd, Tommy2010, Tony Fox, TonyClarke, Tosun, Turidoth, Twobitsprite, UBeR, Ultramarine, Uncle Dick, Ungtss, Unschool, Unyoyega, UrghartSatisPeter, Uriah923,
Useight, Vanished user, Vardabooks18, Vary, VasilievVV, Vassyana, Veinor, Velho, Vincej, Visium, Voiceimitator, Vuong Ngan Ha, Wafulz, Walter Görlitz, Washdivad, Wavelength, Wayne
Slam, West.andrew.g, Where, WhitePlazma, Wik, Wiki Roxor, Wiki emma johnson, Wiki4fun, WikiDao, Wikiloop, Williamlindgren, Willtron, Wimt, Witchzilla, Wolfdog, Woohookitty,
Wshun, X201, XDanielx, Xgkkp, Xyzzyplugh, Y0kai, Yansa, Yelyos, Yidisheryid, Yk Yk Yk, YouRang?, Yuren, Z6mu280O, ZX81, Zackmiri, Zearin, Zebardyn, Zero939, Zip3, Zsalamander,
Саша Стефановић, 1368 anonymous edits
The Golden Rule Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=427144379 Contributors: -Ril-, 3bulletproof16, A Macedonian, A Nobody, ABCD, Abie the Fish Peddler, Adoniscik,
Aesopos, After Midnight, Airborne84, Akamad, Alanbrowne, Alansohn, Alassius, AldoNadi, Alexf, Alexis Brooke M, Alieseraj, Amalthea, Anarchia, Andycjp, Antandrus, Antony272b2,
Apterygial, Arancaytar, Arrow740, Artost, Asenine, Ashley Y, Atropos, Aude, AugPi, Aymatth2, BBhounder, BD2412, Baa, Badjumbly, Banaticus, Barek, Beit Or, Ben Ben, Bigtimepeace,
Bkalafut, Bless sins, Bobo192, Boojum, Boyd Reimer, Bryan Derksen, Bueller 007, BullRangifer, Bunnyhop11, Calieber, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Canar, Capricorn42, Carolmooredc,
Chmod644, Chowbok, Chris Rocen, Chris Strolia-Davis, Cilynx, Cimon Avaro, Citicat, Clinkophonist, Codex Sinaiticus, Collinpark, Collins.brendan, Common Man, CommonsDelinker,
Conversion script, Cretog8, Cunado19, Cybercobra, DLH, Danglingdiagnosis, Darwinzape, DavePolewka, Davek121, David Chester, Dayofswords, DealtDream, Deeptrivia, DenisDiderot,
Dennymeta, Df747jet, Diego Moya, Digerateur, Discospinster, Dmcq, Dmerrill, Doc Tropics, Donnie Love, Doremítzwr, Doristein, Drawn Some, Dremo, Drernie, Dweep, Dysprosia, ESkog,
Earthdenizen, EddieVanZant, Editor2020, Egern, Emmanovi, Emmo827, Encyclopedist, Epbr123, Eric Kvaalen, Eric.werk, Erutuon, Esperant, Etaoin, Evrik, Ewulp, FWBOarticle, Fig wright,
Filll, FinalDeity, Flex, Flyguy649, Foobar, For7thGen, Frjohnwhiteford, Furrykef, Gaius Cornelius, GalaazV, Gary D, Gbog, Gcmarino, Ghirlandajo, Gilliam, Gillo, Glass Sword, Glmr202,
Globaleducator, Golbez, Goochelaar, Goustien, Grantb, Gregbard, Grenavitar, Ground Zero, Gthb, GunnarRene, Gurch, HG, Hairy Dude, HantuDuppy, Happinessiseasy, Henrygb, Highest
Heights, Ian Pitchford, Ida Shaw, Igoldste, Ikip, Imsoclever, In Tyler We Trusted, In defense, Independenza, Indian Chronicles, Infinity Ryan, Infracaninophile, Insanity Incarnate, Itaqallah,
JHunterJ, JRR Trollkien, Jaci987, Jagged 85, Jaknouse, Jbsteiny, Jc37, Jdtapaboc, Jeandré du Toit, Jeepday, Jeff G., Jeff Muscato, Jeff3000, Jesus Saves!, Jimofbentley, Jodyw1, John W Carlson,
Johnbod, Jon513, Jonathan Tweet, Juan Ponderas, Kafziel, Kalimg, Karada, Karol Langner, Kenilworth Terrace, Kidlittle, Kingshiadric, Klaos, Kopovoi, Krista FB, Krys Tamar, Kukini,
Kunstderfuge, Kynn, Larry Lawrence, Larry R. Holmgren, Laurinavicius, Lbeaumont, Lee Daniel Crocker, Leszek Jańczuk, Liever, Liftarn, LilHelpa, Linda Kemp, Ling.Nut, Lisa, Livajo, Lotje,
Luis Dantas, Lumos3, Madfreakoftheweak, Maghlover, Magicxcian, Mahmoodh, Malaiya, Mamgeorge, Marcus Brute, Mark23061, Marskell, MartinHarper, Martino3, Maruan, Mberteig, Mbhiii,
Mboverload, Mchavez, Meishern, Menj, Mesk125, Michael Hardy, Mikiemike, MilkMiruku, MindlessXD, Mitar, Mwanner, MyTwoCopperCoins, Navidazizi, Neutrality, Nicdafis, Nirvana2013,
Ocanter, OceanSplash, Olivier, Oni1, Ost316, P337, Paiconos, Panglos, Paraparanormal, Paul Barlow, Paulo Bañadera, Peace01234, Peregrin1979, Phase42, Pictureuploader, Pigsonthewing,
Pince Nez, Pingveno, Pinnerup, Plasticup, Posidonious, Prester John, Profoss, Projection70, Prov33, Proxima Centauri, Pryoidain, Q Chris, Qichris, Quadell, Quantling, RSpeeter, Rafael1001,
Reagle, RexNL, Rich Farmbrough, Rigadoun, Rjakew, Robby.is.on, Robnpov, Romith, Rrburke, Rufasto, Rumpelstiltskin223, Rursus, Ryz05, S, Saddhiyama, Sarah's Mama, Savetheted, Scmdn,
ScottForschler, Seglea, Severinus, Sgtlion, Shaddack, Shadowjams, Shanoman, Shastra, Sheilrod, SimonWaters, Sladen, SlimVirgin, Slp1, Smanzoor, Smeggysmeg, Spellcast, Spherical Time,
StAnselm, Stefan Kruithof, Stephen, Stephen B Streater, Steven J. Anderson, Stevertigo, StoatBringer, Stods, Stratvic, Striver, Sufisticated, SummerPhD, Svick, Sweetfreek, TAway, TShilo12,
Taam, Tableawesomewalrus, Tarheel95, Tavdy79, Techisbest, Tediouspedant, Tehpeabody, Teknomegisto, TexasDawg, That Guy, From That Show!, The Advocate, The Anome, The Epopt, The
Thing That Should Not Be, TheTruth12, Theissue, Thiseye, Titanium Dragon, TitaniumCarbide, Tito-, Tnxman307, TonyClarke, Trident13, Trivialist, Truth is relative, understanding is limited,
Tttecumseh, Uthanc, Vadakkan, Valley2city, Veinor, Versus22, Viriditas, Vision3001, Vivianspilot, WLU, WTD, Warbola, Warhorus, Wayne Slam, Wcb9320, Wclark, Wefa, Wesley,
WickedMacJack, Wiki-uk, WikiSlasher, Wikignome0530, Wikiklrsc, Wikit2007, Wildspell, William M. Connolley, Woohookitty, Words in sanskrit, Wshun, Wtmitchell, Xandar, Xiner, Yahel
Guhan, Yonderboy, Youdontsmellbad, Z-d, Zero0000, Zigger, ZuluPapa5, Zweibieren, 743 anonymous edits
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 30
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Image:Immanuel Kant (painted portrait).jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: unspecified
Image:Vincent Willem van Gogh 022.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_022.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: EDUCA33E,
Emijrp, Ilse@, Rlbberlin, Vincent Steenberg, W., Wst
License 31
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/

Morality and Ethics in One Document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morality and Ethics in One Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

Realism and anti-realism

Tribal and territorial moralities

In-group and out-group

Neuroimaging and stimulation

Morality and politics

Morality and religion

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the

Particular fields of application

The Golden Rule

Religion and philosophy

—Suman Suttam , verse 148

Criticisms and responses to criticisms

Differences in values or interests

[24] Parliament of the World's Religions (http:/ / www. parliamentofreligions. org/ )

[60] M. G. Singer, The Ideal of a Rational Morality, p270

Article Sources and Contributors

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

You might also like