The Definition of Morality

Referring terms are ambiguous when the referents of a term differ from each other in sufficiently important ways. The original descriptive definition of “morality” refers to an actual code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. When the examination of large diverse societies raised problems for this original descriptive definition, different descriptive definitions were offered in which “morality” refers to a code of conduct put forward by any group, or even by any individual. Apart from containing some prohibitions on harming some others, different moralities can differ from each other quite extensively. Unlike the descriptive definitions of morality discussed earlier, which may have minimal implications for how a person should behave, the proposed normative definition of “morality” provides an explicit guide for how a person should behave. The proposed normative definition of “morality” is controversial but it does have some features that should be widely accepted. The definition allows as meaningful the commonly asked question, “Why should I be moral?” It is also compatible with the commonly held view that it is not always irrational to be immoral, however it guarantees that it is never irrational to be moral. This definition also explains why we want others to act morally and why others want us to act morally. It thus does what definitions of referring terms are supposed to do: it clarifies this term's relationship to other terms with which it is related, and helps to explain why we use the word in the way that we do.

Bibliography

• Baier, Kurt, 1958, The Moral Point of View, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

• Brandt, Richard, 1979, A Theory of the Good and the Right, New York: Oxford University Press.

• Dworkin, Ronald, 1986, Law's Empire (Legal Theory), Belknap Press.

• De Waal, Frans, 1996, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Foot, Philippa, 1978, Virtues and Vices, and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy, Berkeley: University of California Press.

• Frankena, William, 1973, Ethics, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

• Frankena, William, 1980, Thinking about Morality, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

• Gert, Bernard, 2004, Common Morality: Deciding What To Do, New York: Oxford University Press. (Paperback edition, with glossary, 2007.)

• Gert, Bernard, 2005, Morality: Its Nature and Justification, Revised Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.

• Griffiths, A. Phillips (ed.), 1993, Ethics, New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Haidt, Jonathan, 2006, The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, New York: Basic Books.

• Hare, R. M., 1952, The Language of Morals, New York: Oxford University Press.

• Hare, R. M., 1963, Freedom and Reason, New York: Oxford University Press.

• Hare, R. M., 1981, Moral Thinking, New York: Oxford University Press.

• Hauser, Marc, 2006, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, New York: Harper Collins.

• Hobbes, Thomas, 1660, Leviathan, edited by Edwin Curly, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.

• Hobbes, Thomas, Man and Citizen, (translations of six chapters of De Homine (1658) and all of De Cive (1651)), edited by Bernard Gert, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1991.

• Hooker, Brad, 2001, Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule Consequentialist theory of Morality, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

• Kant, Immanuel, 1785, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1967.

• Mill, John Stuart, 1863, Utilitarianism, edited by Roger Crisp, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

• Moore, G. E., 1912, Ethics, New York: H. Holt.

• Moore, G. E., 1903, Principia Ethica, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press.

• Sidgwick, Henry, 1886, Outlines of the History of Ethics, Boston: Beacon Press, 1960.

• Sidgwick, Henry, 1874, Methods of Ethics, Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1981.

• Singer, Peter, 1993, Practical Ethics 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

• Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (ed.), 2008, Moral Psychology Volume 1, The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations and Innateness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

• Thomson, J. J. and Dworkin, G. (eds.), 1968, Ethics, New York: Harper & Row.

• Toulmin, Stephen, 1960, An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Wallace, G. and Walker, A. D. M. (eds.), 1970, The Definition of Morality, London: Methuen.

• Warnock, Geoffrey, 1971, The Object of Morality, London: Methuen.

• Westermarck, Edward, 1960, Ethical Relativity, Paterson, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams.

• Wren, T. E. (ed.), 1990, The Moral Domain: Essays in the Ongoing Discussion Between Philosophy and the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society.
	Look up this entry topic at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Related Entries

consequentialism | ethics: natural law tradition | Hobbes, Thomas: moral and political philosophy |Kant, Immanuel | Mill, John Stuart | moral relativism

Copyright © 2011 by  Bernard Gert

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/