1.1.

2 Definition of Morality / Ethics

What Is Morality?
Before investing yourself in the study of an
academic subject, it would be useful to first have some
idea of what you are getting yourself into. One way—
sometimes the best—to gain such an understanding is by
considering a definition. When you open your trigonometry
text or chemistry handbook, you’ll likely be given, very
early on, a definition of the area you are about to study.
So, as your teacher, I would seem to have a duty now to
present you with a definition of morality.
Even if we want to we just simply can’t. There is no
widely agreed-on definition of morality. The absence of a
definition does not leave us entirely in the dark, however.
(After all, no one has yet been able to offer informative
definitions of literature, or life, or art, and yet we know a
great deal about those things.) Indeed, we can get a good
sense of our subject matter by doing these four things:
1. being clear about the difference between
conventional and critical morality;
2. distinguishing the different branches of moral
philosophy and their central questions;
3. identifying starting points for moral thinking; and
4. contrasting morality with other normative systems,
including religious ones.
1.1.3 Conventional and Critical
Morality
Conventional Morality
Suppose you take sociology or an anthropology
course, and you get to a unit on the morality of the
cultures you’ve been studying. You’ll likely focus on the
patterns of behavior to be found in the cultures, their
accepted ideas about right and wrong, and the sorts of
character traits that these cultures find admirable. These
are the elements of what we can call conventional
morality—the system of widely accepted rules and
principles, created by and for human beings, that
members of a culture or society use to govern their own
lives and to assess the actions and the motivations of
others.
Conventional morality can differ from society to
society. The conventional morality of Saudi Arabia forbids
women from publicly contradicting their husbands or
brothers, while Denmark’s conventional morality allows
this. People in the United States would think it immoral to
leave a restaurant without tipping a good waiter or
bartender, while such behavior in many other societies is
perfectly OK.

Critical Morality
When we talk about morality in this course, we will
be referring to moral standards that are not rooted in
widespread endorsement, but rather are independent of
conventional morality and can be used to critically
evaluate its merits.
It’s possible, of course, that conventional morality is
all there is. But this would be a very surprising discovery.
Most of us assume, as I will do, that the popularity of a
moral view is not a guarantee of its truth. We could be
wrong on this point, but until we have a chance to consider
the matter in detail, I think it best to assume that
conventional morality can sometimes be mistaken. If so,
then there may be some independent, critical morality that
(1) does not have its origin in social agreements;
(2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular
prejudices; and
(3) can serve as the true standard for determining when
conventional morality has got it right and when it has fallen
into error.
That is the morality whose nature we are going to
explore in this course.

1.1.4 The Branches of Moral

Philosophy
We all know that there are lots of moral questions. So it
might help to impose some organization on them. This will
enable us to see the basic contours of moral philosophy
and also to better appreciate the fundamental questions in
each part of the field, you are about to study.
 There are three core areas of moral philosophy:
1. Value theory

 What is the good life?

 What is worth pursuing for its own sake?
 How do we improve our lot in life?
 What is happiness, and is it the very same thing as
well-being?
2. Normative ethics

 What are our fundamental moral duties?

 What makes right actions right?
 Which character traits count as virtues, which as
vices, and why?
 Who should our role models be?
 Do the ends always justify the means, or are there
certain types of action that should never be done
under any circumstances?
3. Metaethics

 What is the status of moral claims and advice?

 Can ethical theories, moral principles, or specific
moral verdicts be true? If so, what makes them
true?
 Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how?
 Do we always have a good reason to do our moral
duty?
1.1.5 Moral Starting Points and
Moral Status
One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing
where to begin. Some skeptics about morality deny that
there are any proper starting points for ethical reflection.
They believe that moral reasoning is simply a way of
rationalizing our biases and gut feelings. This outlook
encourages us to be lax in moral argument and, worse,
supports an attitude that no moral views are any better
than others. While this sort of skepticism might be true, we
shouldn’t regard it as the default view of ethics. We should
accept it only as a last resort.
In the meantime, let’s consider some fairly
plausible ethical assumptions, claims that can get us
started in our moral thinking. The point of the exercise is to
soften you up to the idea that we are not just spinning our
wheels when thinking
morally. There are reasonable constraints that can guide
us when thinking about how to live. Here are some of
them:
1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral
criticism. The law does not have the final word on
what is right and wrong. Neither does tradition.
Actions that are legal, or customary, are sometimes
morally mistaken.
2. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has some
mistaken ethical views, and no human being is
 wholly wise when it
comes to moral matters.
3. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a good
thing. Friendships add value to your life. You are
better off when there are people you care deeply
about, and who care deeply about you.
4. We are not obligated to do the impossible. Morality
can demand only so much of us. Moral standards
that are impossible to meet are illegitimate. Morality
must respect our limitations.
5. Children bear less moral responsibility than adults.
Moral responsibility assumes an ability on our part
to understand options, to make decisions in an
informed way, and to let our decisions guide our
behavior. The fewer of these abilities you have, the
less blameworthy you are for any harm you might
cause.
6. Justice is a very important moral good. Any moral
theory that treats justice as irrelevant is deeply
suspect. It is important that we get what we
deserve, and that we are treated fairly.
7. Deliberately hurting other people requires
justification. The default position in ethics is this: do
no harm. It is sometimes morally acceptable to
harm others, but there must be an excellent reason
for doing so or else the harmful behavior is
unjustified.
8. Equals ought to be treated equally. People who are
alike in all relevant respects should get similar
treatment. When this fails to happen—when racist
 or sexist policies are enacted, for instance—then
something has gone wrong.
9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration.
How well-off we are is important. But it isn’t the only
thing of moral importance. Morality sometimes calls
on us to set aside our own interests for the sake of
others.
10. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional
pain is bad. It may sometimes be appropriate to
cause such extreme suffering, but doing so requires
a very powerful justification.
11. Might doesn’t make right. People in power can get
away with lots of things that the rest of us can’t.
That doesn’t justify what they do. That a person can
escape punishment is one thing—whether his
actions are morally acceptable is another.
12. Free and informed requests prevent rights
violations. If, with eyes wide open and no one
twisting your arm, you ask someone to do
something for you, and she does it, then your rights
have not been violated— even if you end up hurt as
a result.

There are a number of points to make about

these claims.
o First, this shortlist isn’t meant to be
exhaustive. It could be made much longer.
 o Second, we are not claiming that the items
on this list are beyond criticism. We are only
saying that each one is very plausible. Hard
thinking might weaken our confidence in
some cases. The point, though, is that
without such scrutiny, it is perfectly
reasonable to begin our moral thinking with
the items on this list.
o Third, many of these claims require
interpretation in order to apply them in a
satisfying way. When we say, for instance,
that equals ought to be treated equally, we
leave all of the interesting questions open.
(What makes people equals? Can we treat
people equally without treating them in
precisely the same way? And so on.)

A morality that celebrates genocide, torture,

treachery, sadism, hostility, and slavery is,
depending on how you look at it, either no morality
at all or a deeply failed one. Any morality worth the
name will place some importance on
justice, fairness, kindness, and reasonableness.

1.2.2 Other Normative Systems

We can also better understand morality by contrasting its
principles with those of other normative systems. Each of
these represents a set of standards for how we ought to
behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break.
 There are many such systems, but let’s restrict
our focus to four of the most important of them: those that
govern the law, etiquette, self-interest, and tradition.
Law
The fact that a law tells us to do something does
not settle the question of whether morality gives its stamp
of approval. Some immoral acts (like cheating on a
spouse) are not illegal. And some illegal acts (like voicing
criticism of a dictator) are not immoral. Certainly, many
laws require what morality requires and forbid what
morality forbids. But the fit is hardly perfect, and that
shows that morality is something different from the law.
That a legislature passed a bill is not enough to show that
the bill is morally acceptable.
Etiquette
We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to
standards of etiquette. Forks are supposed to be set to the
left of a plate, but it isn’t immoral to set them on the right.
Good manners are not the same thing as morally good
conduct. Morality sometimes requires us not to be polite or
gracious, as when someone threatens your children or
happily tells you a racist joke. So the standards of
etiquette can depart from those of morality.
Self-interest
The same is true when it comes to the standards of
self-interest. Think of all of the people who have gotten
ahead in life by betraying others, lying about their past,
breaking the rules that others are following. It’s an
unhappy thought, but a very commonsensical one: you
sometimes can improve your lot in life by acting immorally.
And those who behave virtuously are sometimes
punished, rather than rewarded, for it. Whistleblowers who
reveal a company’s or a government official’s corruption
are often attacked for their efforts sued to the point of
bankruptcy, and targeted for their courageous behavior.
Though the relation between self-interest and morality is
contested, it is a plausible starting point to assume that
morality can sometimes require us to sacrifice our well-
being, and that we can sometimes improve our lot in life
by acting unethically.
Tradition
Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition. That
practice has been around a long time does not
automatically make it moral. Morality sometimes requires
a break from the past, as it did when people called for the
abolition of slavery or for allowing women to vote. And
some nontraditional, highly innovative practices may be
morally excellent. The longevity of a practice is not a
foolproof test of its morality.

1.2.3 Morality and Religion

The Presumed Connection between Morality and
Religion
In popular thinking, morality and religion are
inseparable: People commonly believe that morality can
be understood only in the context of religion. Thus the
clergy are assumed to be authorities on morality. When
viewed from a non-religious perspective, the universe
seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value
and purpose.
The Divine Command Theory
The basic idea is that God decides what is right
and wrong. Actions that God commands are morally
required; actions that God forbids are morally wrong, and
all other actions are permissible or merely morally neutral.
This theory has a number of attractive features.
 It immediately solves the old problem of the
objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of
personal feeling or social custom. Whether
something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It
is right if God commands it and wrong if God
forbids it.
 The Divine Command Theory explains why any of
us should bother with morality. Why shouldn’t we
just look out for ourselves? If immorality is the
violation of God’s commandments, then there is an
easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will
be held accountable.
There are, however, serious problems with the theory.
 Atheists would not accept it, because they do not
believe that God exists.
 But there are difficulties even for believers. One can
be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right because the
gods command it, or do the gods command it
 because it is right? This is a question of whether
God makes the moral truths true or whether he
merely recognizes that they’re true.
First, we might say that right conduct is right
because God commands it. But this idea encounters
several difficulties.
1. This conception of morality is mysterious.
2. This conception of morality makes God’s
commands arbitrary.
3. This conception of morality provides the wrong
reasons for moral principles.
The second option has a different drawback.
 In taking it, we abandon the theological conception
of right and wrong. When we say that God
commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is
right, we acknowledge a standard that is
independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior
to God’s command and is the reason for the
command.

1.2.4 God and Morality (Part 1)

Part 1 of a pair. Stephen considers the relationship between
morality and God. Specifically, he asks: is morality the same
thing as the commands of God? Is there no morality if there is
no God? Ultimately, Stephen will argue that morality and God's
commands are distinct, even if there is a God and she commands
moral things. However, in this first video, Steve considers why
you might like the view that morality just is God's commands.

Speaker: Dr. Stephen Darwall Links to an external site.,

Andrew Downey Orrick Professor of Philosophy, Yale
University. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.

1.2.4 God and Morality (Part 2)

Part 2 of a pair. Stephen considers the relationship
between morality and God. Specifically, he asks: is
morality the same thing as the commands of God? Is
there no morality if there is no God? Stephen thinks
the answer to both these questions is 'no'. He argues
that if you believe God exists and that we should
follow his commands *for certain reasons*, then you
should *not* think that morality just is whatever God
commands.

Speaker: Dr. Stephen Darwall Links to an external

site., Andrew Downey Orrick Professor of Philosophy,
Yale University. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.

Summary / Key Takeaways Module

1
There is no widely agreed-on definition of morality. The
absence of a definition does not leave us entirely in the
dark, however.
What we can do is to get a good sense of our subject
matter by doing two things:
 1. Being clear about the difference between
conventional and critical morality
 2. Distinguishing morality with other normative
systems.
Conventional Morality
 the system of widely accepted rules and principles,
that members of a culture or society use to govern
their own lives.
Critical Morality
 It refers to the moral standards that are
independent of conventional morality and can be
used to critically evaluate its merits.
Three core areas of moral philosophy
Value theory
Normative ethics
Metaethics
Moral Starting Points
1.Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral
criticism.
2.Everyone is morally fallible.
3.Friendship is valuable.
4.We are not obligated to do the impossible.
5.Children bear less moral responsibility than adults.
6.Justice is a very important moral good.
7.Deliberately hurting other people requires justification.
8.Equals ought to be treated equally.
9.Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration.
10.Agony/suffering is bad.
11.Might does not make right.
12.Free and informed requests prevent rights violations.
Other Normative Systems
 We can also better understand morality by
contrasting its principles with those of other
normative systems.
 Other normative systems also represent a set of
standards for how we ought to behave, ideals to
aim for, rules that we should not break but are
different from morality.
 There are many such systems, but let’s restrict our
focus to four of the most important of them: those
that govern the law, etiquette, self-interest, and
tradition.
The Divine Command Theory
 The basic idea is that God decides what is right and
wrong.
  Actions that God commands are morally required;
actions that God forbids are morally wrong, and all
other actions are permissible or merely morally
neutral.

2.1.2 Moral Reasoning in Ethical

Issues
Reason and Impartiality
Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons;
and second, morality requires the impartial consideration
of each individual’s interests.

Moral Reasoning
When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting
to assume that we just know what the truth is, without
even having to consider arguments on the other side.
Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no
matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be
irrational; they may be nothing but the by-products of
prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let
our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason.
This is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to
do is always the thing best supported by the arguments.
Of course, not every reason that may be advanced is a
good reason. There are bad arguments as well as good
ones, and much of the skill of moral thinking consists in
discerning the difference.
The first thing is to get one’s facts straight. The facts
exist independently of our wishes, and responsible moral
thinking begins when we try to see things as they are.
Next, we can bring moral principles into play. In our
three examples, a number of principles were involved: that
we should not “use” people; that we should not kill one
person to save another; that we should do what will benefit
the people affected by our actions; that every life is
sacred; and that it is wrong to discriminate against the
handicapped. Most moral arguments consist of principles
being applied to particular cases, and so we must ask
whether the principles are justified and whether they are
being applied correctly.
The role application of routine methods is never a
satisfactory substitute for critical thinking, in any area.
Morality is no exception.

The Requirement of Impartiality

Almost every important moral theory includes the
idea of impartiality. This is the idea that each individual’s
interests are equally important; no one should get special
treatment. At the same time, impartiality requires that we
do not treat the members of particular groups as inferior,
and thus it condemns forms of discrimination like sexism
and racism.
2.1.3 The Minimum Conception of
Morality
The Minimum Conception of Morality
We may now state the minimum conception:
Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s
conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best
reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the
interests of each individual affected by one’s action.
This paints a picture of what it means to be a
conscientious moral agent. The conscientious moral agent
is someone who is concerned impartially with the interests
of everyone affected by what he or she does; who
carefully sifts facts and examines their implications; who
accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them
to make sure they are justified; who will “listen to reason”
even when it means revising prior convictions; and who,
finally, is willing to
act on these deliberations.
As one might expect, not every ethical theory
accepts this “minimum.” This picture of the conscientious
moral agent has been disputed in various ways. However,
theories that reject it encounter serious difficulties. This is
why most moral theories embrace the minimum
conception, in one form or another.