what is right and wrong essay

The Difference Between Right and Wrong Essay

The purpose of ethics and morality is to work out the rules that help us to distinguish right and wrong. Despite the differences between the definition of right and wrong in various cultures, times, and among individuals, I consider that the main “wrong” is to harm other human beings, and “right” is to benefit and help others and yourself. Not harming animals is essential as well, but the present-day humanity cannot do without meat, fur, and animal testing. For me, the idea of responsibility toward environment means that we should care about future generations.

Ethics, according to Webster Dictionary, is a set of rules that are based on beliefs about what is good and what is bad (“Ethics” par. 1).

As Thomas Jefferson believed, humankind was by default granted with a moral sense that made empathy possible (Ferling 188).

The same complicated issue has attracted the attention of M. Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist. He found out that moral empathy was a tool of our survival during the evolution (Jacobus 417-418).

In earlier times, ethics was closely tied (or even substituted by) religion. According to Irish Murdoch, the idea of virtue is some kind of a bridge between religion and ethics. The idea of virtue is an essential contributor to human behavior. “The demand that we should be virtuous or try to become good,” Murdoch states, “is something that goes beyond explicit calls of duty” (Jacobus 363-364).

So, ethics is a number of certain rules based on the beliefs about good and bad, no matter if it is connected with any religion or not. It is, however, not an easy task to distinguish the good from the bad. Different cultures and even different time periods of the same culture offer their own understandings of right and wrong.

For instance, a 15-year-old pregnant girl is a shock to Western society; it is something definitely wrong, and the father of her child should be punished. For a Middle Eastern country, it is perfectly normal. Slavery was a common thing for antiquity, but it is a crime nowadays. Moreover, different people define wrong and right in different ways. William Wilberforce and the slave traders lived in the same country and time period, but for the former slave trade was a wrong thing to do, whereas the latter would not agree with him (Kerr-Ritchie 534).

Despite these crucial differences in ethical principles of cultures, epochs, and individuals, throughout human history there has been, and there is, a gradual movement toward an ideal – an ideal, according to which no human being must harm another human being. To my opinion, this should be the primary ethical principle: it is wrong when it harms others (or yourself), and it is right when it does not harm or it benefits others or yourself.

As an example, there is no sin in craving and pursuing wealth, but it becomes wrong once you decide to deceive someone for building a fortune. A person, I am sure, should behave according to this principle, i.e. not harm others, if not for a clear conscience, then at least if they want others not to harm them.

Another question that arises is whether the rules of ethics and morality coincide with civil laws. It is usually considered right to obey laws and wrong to disobey them. But, as usual, there are exceptions. M.L. King Jr., who fought against unjust laws and for the rights of black people, wrote on the issue: “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal…” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.” (Jacobus 384).

Some thinkers consider that ethical principles should be applied equally to all humans. On the one hand, I tend to agree: I cannot justify discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, disability, or other factors like these.

On the other hand, while this notion can be successfully applied to people in general, we can face hardships when applying it to some precise cases. For example, it is wrong to take an individual’s freedom from them, but what about criminals, who belong in prison? It is a bad thing to force someone to do something against their will, but what if a mentally ill person is dangerous for society and does not want to be under treatment? I must admit that ethical principles cannot be applied equally to all people and that the rejection of this conclusion would do more wrong than right.

Apart from that, an idea exists that ethical principles should go beyond humans and apply to animals as well. Probably the earliest system of beliefs to suggest this was Buddhism. According to Buddhist views, humans should not harm animals and should feel equal respect to the lives of animals and humans (“Buddhism and Animals” par. 2). Nevertheless, even Buddhism does not forbid experimenting on animals (Buddhism and Animals” par.10-11), and Buddha did not directly prohibit eating meat (“Buddhism and Animals” par. 13).

Animals testing helped develop quite a number of vital things, such as medicine. Sometimes severe frosts leave people no choice but to wear fur, and not every geographical zone has enough nutritious plants for humans to make up for not eating meat. For instance, the traditional diet of Inuit is based mainly on meat, and they can hardly sustain without eating it (Duhaime, Chabot and Gaudreault 92). It is difficult to distinguish right and wrong here. I agree that deliberate violence to animals is immoral, but I cannot reject the importance of animal testing, wearing fur, and meat consumption.

To go even further, ethical principles can be applied to the environment as well. First of all, irresponsible treatment of environmental resources, such as extensive land use or overexploitation of energy sources, is a violation of the above-mentioned principle “to do no harm to other humans.” By worsening the ecological situation, we worsen the life of future generations. A lot of thinkers believe that we should pay respect to nature itself, and for that reason spoiling nature is immoral. Conversely, I consider that nature is stronger than us, and it will find a way to cope with changes, and then it is us who will be in danger.

To conclude, for me the central ethical rule is to do no harm and to help other human beings. It is immoral to harm animals without serious purpose; unfortunately, there is still no way to avoid hurting them for meat and fur and during experiments. Our responsibility toward the environment is our duty not to nature, which is strong and able to transform, but to future generations.

Works Cited

Buddhism and Animals 2009. Web.

Duhaime, Gerard, Marcelle Chabot and Marco Gaudreault. “Food Consumption Patterns and Socioeconomic Factors Among the Inuit of Nunavik.” Ecology of Food and Nutrition 41.2 (2002): 91-118. Print.

“Ethics.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web.

Ferling, John E. Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation . New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2013. Print.

Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers . 9th ed. 2013. Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin’s. Print.

Kerr-Ritchie, Jeffrey R. “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the Abolition of the British Slave Trade.” The Journal of African American History 93.4 (2008): 532-542. Print.

• Dead or Alive: Wright's Movie “Shaun of the Dead”
• Values and the Ethics of Whistleblowing
• The Decentering of the Global Firm
• Animal Fur Clothing: The Ethical Issues
• The Hudson’s Bay Company and the Northwest Fur Trade
• Kafka's 'The Metamorphosis' and 'Spider-Man' Comparison
• Life is a Sea of Suffering, and Sorrow Gives Meaning to Life
• Critical Evaluation of Nozick's Account of Love
• Socrates as Depicted in Equal Opportunities
• The Human Superiority Complex
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 26). The Difference Between Right and Wrong. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-difference-between-right-and-wrong/

"The Difference Between Right and Wrong." IvyPanda , 26 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/the-difference-between-right-and-wrong/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'The Difference Between Right and Wrong'. 26 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "The Difference Between Right and Wrong." January 26, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-difference-between-right-and-wrong/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Difference Between Right and Wrong." January 26, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-difference-between-right-and-wrong/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Difference Between Right and Wrong." January 26, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-difference-between-right-and-wrong/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Making Decisions About Right and Wrong

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources
• Ethical Decision Making

On occasion I ask students in my undergraduate ethics course at Santa Clara University to relate their first ethical memory--what was their first choice about right or wrong, good or bad? Most of them relate a story about a six or seven-year-old confronting a choice between honesty and desire--the ill-gotten piece of sweet, juicy bubble gum; the quickly denied detour on the way home from school to "the forbidden playground"; the resounding claim of ignorance when asked who had been using the house as a backstop just prior to the crackle and sparkle of shattered plate glass. Indeed, these are all fine examples of ethical dilemmas, those decisions between what we want to do and what we ought to do that we have been making all our lives.

All of our lives, we've been struggling with just how it is that we ought to decide. Are there lists to be made--columns of "good results" and "bad results" to be conceived, compared, and contrasted? Are there rules to follow--do this; don't do that? Are there good ways to be--be patient; don't lose your temper? We struggle not only with what in fact we ought to do, but also with how in the world we are to decide whether it is right to lie just this once.

We all tend to approach decisions about right and wrong in one of three ways. First, there are those folks who think that the results make all the difference. Why won't you lie? It will hurt people; the results are bad. Second, there are those people who follow the rules. Why won't you lie? There's a rule that says to always tell the truth, "to do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And, thirdly, there are those individuals who aren't much interested in either results or rules. They are interested in the kind of person you are--a person of compassion or courage. Why won't you lie? Because I'm an honest person, a truthful person; that's just the kind of person I am. Results; rules; character traits--all are important parts of how we decide.

Part of what makes decisions about right and wrong so difficult for us is that we don't all go about it in the same way. That is just fine, really. Such diversity in how we decide reflects the rich tapestry of resources we each bring to our decision making. Although some may argue for good results and others for following the rules, one thing is certain:  Ethics is always more than just what we might like or dislike, always more than rash opinion. My choice never to eat spinach is not an ethical choice; it merely has to do with the chemistry of my taste buds and a particular leafy green vegetable. I don't like spinach! What ethics requires of us is making judgments that we can explain, making judgments that rely not on opinion or our taste buds, but on results or rules or good habits. We need to remember that how we decide is just as important as what we decide.

Margaret R. McLean is the associate director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and director of the Health Care Ethics Program.  A version of this article appeared in the Winter 1996 edition of the O'Connor Health News , a publication of O'Connor Hospital, San Jose, California. 

Ethics and Morality: Right and Wrong

This essay about the intricate interplay between ethics and morality, elucidating their distinct yet interconnected roles in shaping human behavior and societal norms. It examines how ethics provide a framework for assessing right and wrong within specific contexts, while morality reflects individual beliefs and values. Through exploring various ethical theories and real-world dilemmas, the essay underscores the complexity inherent in ethical decision-making and the evolving nature of ethical standards. Ultimately, it emphasizes the importance of critical reflection and ethical inquiry in navigating the moral complexities of contemporary society.

How it works

Ethics and morality form the bedrock of human behavior, influencing our choices and shaping the fabric of society. While often used interchangeably, they are distinct facets of our moral compass, each offering unique insights into what is deemed acceptable or objectionable. Ethics, a product of societal norms and cultural values, prescribe guidelines for conduct within various spheres of life. Morality, conversely, is deeply personal, emanating from individual convictions and beliefs about what constitutes virtuous behavior.

Central to ethical deliberation is the interplay between consequences and principles.

Utilitarianism, with its focus on maximizing overall happiness, weighs the outcomes of actions against their potential impact. Deontological ethics, in contrast, emphasizes adherence to moral duties, regardless of the consequences. These divergent approaches underscore the complexity inherent in ethical decision-making, as individuals grapple with conflicting values and priorities.

Ethical quandaries frequently emerge when conflicting interests or values collide, necessitating a delicate balance between competing moral imperatives. Consider the ethical discourse surrounding genetic engineering, which raises questions about the sanctity of life, human dignity, and the pursuit of scientific progress. Similarly, the ethical implications of artificial intelligence challenge us to consider issues of autonomy, accountability, and the ethical treatment of sentient beings.

Furthermore, ethics evolve in response to societal shifts, cultural dynamics, and technological advancements. As society progresses, ethical frameworks adapt to accommodate changing attitudes and values. The ongoing dialogue surrounding issues such as climate change, economic inequality, and bioethics underscores the need for ethical reflection and adaptation in the face of emerging challenges.

In summation, ethics and morality are indispensable guides in navigating the moral landscape of human existence. While ethics provide a blueprint for behavior within societal contexts, morality reflects the inner compass of individual conscience and conviction. By engaging in critical dialogue and ethical inquiry, we can strive towards a more just and compassionate society, where the principles of right and wrong serve as beacons of moral guidance.

Cite this page

Ethics and Morality: Right and Wrong. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/ethics-and-morality-right-and-wrong/

"Ethics and Morality: Right and Wrong." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/ethics-and-morality-right-and-wrong/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Ethics and Morality: Right and Wrong . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/ethics-and-morality-right-and-wrong/ [Accessed: 31 Oct. 2024]

"Ethics and Morality: Right and Wrong." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed October 31, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/ethics-and-morality-right-and-wrong/

"Ethics and Morality: Right and Wrong," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/ethics-and-morality-right-and-wrong/. [Accessed: 31-Oct-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Ethics and Morality: Right and Wrong . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/ethics-and-morality-right-and-wrong/ [Accessed: 31-Oct-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Ethics and Morality

Morality, Ethics, Evil, Greed

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person’s choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the individual to include what is determined to be right, and wrong, for a community or society at large.

Ethics is concerned with rights, responsibilities, use of language, what it means to live an ethical life, and how people make moral decisions. We may think of moralizing as an intellectual exercise, but more frequently it's an attempt to make sense of our gut instincts and reactions. It's a subjective concept, and many people have strong and stubborn beliefs about what's right and wrong that can place them in direct contrast to the moral beliefs of others. Yet even though morals may vary from person to person, religion to religion, and culture to culture, many have been found to be universal, stemming from basic human emotions.

• The Science of Being Virtuous
• Understanding Amorality
• The Stages of Moral Development

Those who are considered morally good are said to be virtuous, holding themselves to high ethical standards, while those viewed as morally bad are thought of as wicked, sinful, or even criminal. Morality was a key concern of Aristotle, who first studied questions such as “What is moral responsibility?” and “What does it take for a human being to be virtuous?”

We used to think that people are born with a blank slate, but research has shown that people have an innate sense of morality . Of course, parents and the greater society can certainly nurture and develop morality and ethics in children.

Humans are ethical and moral regardless of religion and God. People are not fundamentally good nor are they fundamentally evil. However, a Pew study found that atheists are much less likely than theists to believe that there are "absolute standards of right and wrong." In effect, atheism does not undermine morality, but the atheist’s conception of morality may depart from that of the traditional theist.

Animals are like humans—and humans are animals, after all. Many studies have been conducted across animal species, and more than 90 percent of their behavior is what can be identified as “prosocial” or positive. Plus, you won’t find mass warfare in animals as you do in humans. Hence, in a way, you can say that animals are more moral than humans.

The examination of moral psychology involves the study of moral philosophy but the field is more concerned with how a person comes to make a right or wrong decision, rather than what sort of decisions he or she should have made. Character, reasoning, responsibility, and altruism , among other areas, also come into play, as does the development of morality.

The seven deadly sins were first enumerated in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I, and represent the sweep of immoral behavior. Also known as the cardinal sins or seven deadly vices, they are vanity, jealousy , anger , laziness, greed, gluttony, and lust. People who demonstrate these immoral behaviors are often said to be flawed in character. Some modern thinkers suggest that virtue often disguises a hidden vice; it just depends on where we tip the scale .

An amoral person has no sense of, or care for, what is right or wrong. There is no regard for either morality or immorality. Conversely, an immoral person knows the difference, yet he does the wrong thing, regardless. The amoral politician, for example, has no conscience and makes choices based on his own personal needs; he is oblivious to whether his actions are right or wrong.

One could argue that the actions of Wells Fargo, for example, were amoral if the bank had no sense of right or wrong. In the 2016 fraud scandal, the bank created fraudulent savings and checking accounts for millions of clients, unbeknownst to them. Of course, if the bank knew what it was doing all along, then the scandal would be labeled immoral.

Everyone tells white lies to a degree, and often the lie is done for the greater good. But the idea that a small percentage of people tell the lion’s share of lies is the Pareto principle, the law of the vital few. It is 20 percent of the population that accounts for 80 percent of a behavior.

We do know what is right from wrong . If you harm and injure another person, that is wrong. However, what is right for one person, may well be wrong for another. A good example of this dichotomy is the religious conservative who thinks that a woman’s right to her body is morally wrong. In this case, one’s ethics are based on one’s values; and the moral divide between values can be vast.

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg established his stages of moral development in 1958. This framework has led to current research into moral psychology. Kohlberg's work addresses the process of how we think of right and wrong and is based on Jean Piaget's theory of moral judgment for children. His stages include pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional, and what we learn in one stage is integrated into the subsequent stages.

The pre-conventional stage is driven by obedience and punishment . This is a child's view of what is right or wrong. Examples of this thinking: “I hit my brother and I received a time-out.” “How can I avoid punishment?” “What's in it for me?” 

The conventional stage is when we accept societal views on rights and wrongs. In this stage people follow rules with a  good boy  and nice girl  orientation. An example of this thinking: “Do it for me.” This stage also includes law-and-order morality: “Do your duty.”

The post-conventional stage is more abstract: “Your right and wrong is not my right and wrong.” This stage goes beyond social norms and an individual develops his own moral compass, sticking to personal principles of what is ethical or not.

Ongoing, wide, and unquestioning support for several leaders around the world, despite scandals, baffles observers. Research on the psychology of cults explains why.

Therapists who provide remote psychotherapy are responsible for considering what's in their background and what message it sends to their patients.

Social media anonymity serves an important function for individuals to exercise their moral courage online.

Political fissures are tearing our nation apart. To what extent do people let political attitudes affect personal relationships? The study described here addresses just that.

Explore why individuals form in-groups and out-groups and how social isolation harms society, and discover strategies to foster healthier group affiliation.

Why recorded sessions were admitted into evidence at the Menendez murder trial.

What social conditions allow liars to get away with their misbehavior?

People often face many barriers in getting needed insurance coverage for mental health problems. There's now a new source of help.

Constant exposure to negative news can numb our sense of morality and empathy. Experts explain how this happens, the risks to mental health, and how to combat desensitization.

Personal Perspective: False claims about eating pets led to threats against Haitian migrants, while accusers failed to look inward at their own acts of cruelty toward animals.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Morality?

Societal underpinnings of "right" and "wrong"

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

How Morals Are Established

Morals that transcend time and culture, examples of morals, morality vs. ethics, morality and laws.

Morality refers to the set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. It’s what societies determine to be “right” and “acceptable.”

Sometimes, acting in a moral manner means individuals must sacrifice their own short-term interests to benefit society. Individuals who go against these standards may be considered immoral.

It may be helpful to differentiate between related terms, such as immoral , nonmoral , and amoral . Each has a slightly different meaning:

• Immoral : Describes someone who purposely commits an offensive act, even though they know the difference between what is right and wrong
• Nonmoral : Describes situations in which morality is not a concern
• Amoral : Describes someone who acknowledges the difference between right and wrong, but who is not concerned with morality

Morality isn’t fixed. What’s considered acceptable in your culture might not be acceptable in another culture. Geographical regions, religion, family, and life experiences all influence morals. 

Scholars don’t agree on exactly how morals are developed. However, there are several theories that have gained attention over the years:

• Freud’s morality and the superego: Sigmund Freud suggested moral development occurred as a person’s ability to set aside their selfish needs (id) to be replaced by the values of important socializing agents, such as a person’s parents, teachers, and institutions (superego).
• Piaget’s theory of moral development: Jean Piaget focused on the social-cognitive perspective of moral development. He theorized that moral development unfolds over time alongside the progressing stages of cognitive development. Early on, children learn to adopt certain moral behaviors for their own sake (it makes them feel good), rather than just abide by moral codes because they don’t want to get into trouble. By adolescence, you can think more abstractly, and begin to make moral decisions based on higher universal principles and the greater good of society.
• B.F. Skinner’s behavioral theory: B.F. Skinner focused on the power of external forces that shaped an individual’s development. For example, a child who receives praise for being kind may treat someone with kindness again out of a desire to receive more positive attention in the future.
• Kohlberg’s moral reasoning: Lawrence Kohlberg proposed six stages of moral development that went beyond Piaget’s theory. Through a series of questions or moral dilemmas, Kohlberg proposed that an adult’s stage of reasoning could be identified.
• Gilligan's perspective of gender differences in moral reasoning . Carol Gilligan criticized Kohlberg for being male-centric in his theory of moral development. She explained that men are more justice-oriented in their moral reasoning; whereas, women are more care-oriented . Within that context, moral dilemmas will have different solutions depending on which gender is doing the reasoning.

What Is the Basis of Morality?

There are different theories as to how morals are developed. However, most theories acknowledge the external factors (parents, community, etc.) that contribute to a child's moral development. These morals are intended to benefit the group that has created them.

Most morals aren’t fixed. They usually shift and change over time.

Ideas about whether certain behaviors are moral—such as engaging in pre-marital sex, entering into same-sex relationships, and using cannabis—have shifted over time. While the bulk of the population once viewed these behaviors as “wrong,” the vast majority of the population now finds these activities to be “acceptable.”

In some regions, cultures, and religions, using contraception is considered immoral. In other parts of the world, some people consider contraception the moral thing to do, as it reduces unplanned pregnancy, manages the population, and reduces the risk of sexually transmitted illnesses.

7 Universal Morals

Some morals seem to transcend across the globe and across time, however. Researchers have discovered that these seven morals seem somewhat universal:

• Defer to authority
• Help your group
• Love your family
• Return favors
• Respect others’ property

The following are common morality examples that you may have been taught growing up, and may have even passed on to younger generations:

• Have empathy
• Don't steal
• Tell the truth
• Treat others as you want to be treated

People might adhere to these principles by:

• Being an upstanding citizen
• Doing volunteer work
• Donating money to charity
• Forgiving someone
• Not gossiping about others
• Offering their time and help to others

To get a sense of the types of morality you were raised with, think about what your parents, community and/or religious leaders told you that you "should" or "ought" to do.

Some scholars don’t distinguish between morals and ethics . Both have to do with “right and wrong.”

However, some people believe morality is personal while ethics refer to the standards of a community.

For example, your community may not view premarital sex as a problem. But on a personal level, you might consider it immoral. By this definition, your morality would contradict the ethics of your community.

Both laws and morals are meant to regulate behavior in a community to allow people to live in harmony. Both have firm foundations in the concept that everyone should have autonomy and show respect to one another.

Legal thinkers interpret the relationship between laws and morality differently. Some argue that laws and morality are independent. This means that laws can’t be disregarded simply because they’re morally indefensible.

Others believe law and morality are interdependent. These thinkers believe that laws that claim to regulate behavioral expectations must be in harmony with moral norms. Therefore, all laws must secure the welfare of the individual and be in place for the good of the community.

Something like adultery may be considered immoral by some, but it’s legal in most states. Additionally, it’s illegal to drive slightly over the speed limit but it isn’t necessarily considered immoral to do so.

There may be times when some people argue that breaking the law is the “moral” thing to do. Stealing food to feed a starving person, for example, might be illegal but it also might be considered the “right thing” to do if it’s the only way to prevent someone from suffering or dying.

Think About It

It can be helpful to spend some time thinking about the morals that guide your decisions about things like friendship, money, education, and family. Understanding what’s really important to you can help you understand yourself better and it may make difficult decisions easier.

Merriam-Webster. A lesson on 'unmoral,' 'immoral,' 'nonmoral,' and 'amoral.'

Ellemers N, van der Toorn J, Paunov Y, van Leeuwen T. The psychology of morality: A review and analysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017 . Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2019;23(4):332-366. doi:10.1177/1088868318811759

Curry OS, Mullins DA, Whitehouse H. Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies . Current Anthropology. 2019;60(1):47-69. doi:10.1086/701478

Encyclopædia Britannica.  What's the difference between morality and ethics?

Moka-Mubelo W. Law and morality . In:  Reconciling Law and Morality in Human Rights Discourse . Vol 3. Springer International Publishing; 2017:51-88. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49496-8_3

By Amy Morin, LCSW Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

The Elements of Ethics (1910)

• by Bertrand Russell

III. Right and Wrong.

The ideas of right and wrong conduct are, as we have seen, those with which ethics is generally supposed to be most concerned. This view, which is unduly narrow, is fostered by the use of the one word good , both for the sort of conduct which is right , and for the sort of things which ought to exist on account of their intrinsic value. This double use of the word good is very confusing, and tends greatly to obscure the distinction of ends and means. I shall therefore speak of right actions, not of good actions, confining the word good to the sense explained in Section II . (§ 12 ¶ 1)

The word right is very ambiguous, and it is by no means easy to distinguish the various meanings which it has in common parlance. Owing to the variety of these meanings, adherence to any one necessarily involves us in apparent paradoxes when we use it in a context which suggests one of the other meanings. This is the usual result of precision of language; but so long as the paradoxes are merely verbal, they do not give rise to more than verbal objections. (§ 12 ¶ 2)

In judging of conduct we find at the outset two widely divergent methods, of which one is advocated by some moralists, the other by others, while both are practised by those who have no ethical theory. One of these methods, which is that advocated by the utilitarians, judges the rightness of an act by relation to the goodness or badness of its consequences. The other method, advocated by intuitionists, judges by the approval or disapproval of the moral sense or conscience. I believe that it is necessary to combine both theories in order to get a complete account of right and wrong. There is, I think, one sense in which a man does right when he does what will probably have the best consequences, and another in which he does right when he follows the dictates of his conscience, whatever the probable consequences may be. (There are many other senses which we may give to the word right , but these two seem to be the most important.) Let us begin by considering the second of these senses. (§ 12 ¶ 3)

The question we have to ask ourselves is: What do we mean by the dictates of the moral sense? If these are to afford a definition of right conduct, we cannot say that they consist in judging that such andsuch acts are right , for that would make our definition circular. We shall have to say that the moral sense consists in a certain specific emotion of approval towards an act, and that an act is to be called right when the agent, at the moment of action, feels this emotion of approval towards the action which he decides to perform. There is certainly a sense in which a man ought to perform any act which he approves, and to abstain from any act which he disapproves; and it seems also undeniable that there are emotions which may be called approval and disapproval. Thus this theory, whether adequate or not, must be allowed to contain a part of the truth. (§ 13 ¶ 1)

It is, however, fairly evident that there are other meanings of right conduct, and that, though there is an emotion of approval, there is also a judgment of approval, which may or may not be true. For we certainly hold that a man who has done an action which his conscience approved may have been mistaken, and that in some sense his conscience ought not to have approved his action. But this would be impossible if nothing were involved except an emotion. To be mistaken implies a judgment; and thus we must admit that there is such a thing as a judgment of approval. If this were not the case we could not reason with a man as to what is right; what he approves would be necessarily right for him to do, and there could be no argument against his approval. We do in fact hold that when one man approves of a certain act, while another disapproves, one of them is mistaken, which would not be the case with a mere emotion. If one man likes oysters and another dislikes them, we do not say that either of them is mistaken. (§ 13 ¶ 2)

Thus there is a judgment of approval , and this must consist of a judgment that an act is, in a new sense, right. The judgment of approval is not merely the judgment that we feel the emotion of approval, for then another who disapproved would not necessarily hold our judgment of approval to be mistaken. Thus in order to give a meaning to the judgment of approval, it is necessary to admit a sense of right other than approved . In this sense, when we approve an act we judge that it is right, and we may be mistaken in so judging. This new sense is objective , in the sense that it does not depend upon the opinions and feelings of the agent. Thus a man who obeys the dictates of his conscience is not always acting rightly in the objective sense. When a man does what his conscience approves, he does what he believes to be objectively right, but not necessarily what is objectively right. We need, therefore, some other criterion than the moral sense for judging what is objectively right. (§ 13 ¶ 3)

§13, n. 1: The judgment of approval does not always coincide with the emotion of approval. For example, when a man has been led by his reason to reject a moral code which he formerly held, it will commonly happen, at least for a time, that his emotion of approval follows the old code, though his judgment has abandoned it. Thus he may have been brought up, like Mohammed’s first disciples, to believe it is a duty to avenge the murder of relations by murdering the murderer or his relations; and he may continue to feel approval of such vengeance after he has ceased to judge it approvingly. The emotion of approval will not be again in question in what follows. ↩

It is in defining objective rightness that the consequences of an action become relevant. Some moralists, it is true, deny the dependence upon consequences; but that is to be attributed, I think, to confusion with the subjective sense . When people argue as to whether such and such an action is right, they always adduce the consequences which it has or may be expected to have. A statesman who has to decide what is the right policy, or a teacher who has to decide what is the right education, will be expected to consider what policy or what education is likely to have the best results. Whenever a question is at all complicated, and cannot be settled by following some simple rule, such as thou shalt not steal , or thou shalt not bear false witness , it is at once evident that the decision cannot be made except by consideration of consequences. (§ 14 ¶ 1)

In common language the received code of moral rules is usually presupposed, and an action is only called immoral when it infringes one of these rules. Whatever does not infringe them is regarded as permissible, so that on most of the occasions of life no one course of action is marked out as alone right . If a man adopts a course of action which, though not contrary to the received code, will probably have bad consequences, he is called unwise rather than immoral. Now, according to the distinction we have made between objective and subjective rightness , a man may well act in a way which is objectively wrong without doing what is subjectively wrong, i.e. what his conscience disapproves. An act (roughly speaking, I shall return to this point presently) is immoral when a man’s conscience disapproves it, but is judged only unwise or injudicious when his conscience disapproves it, but is judged only unwise or injudicious when his conscience approves it, although we judge that it will probably have bad consequences. Now the usual moral code is supposed, in common language, to be admitted by every man’s conscience, so that when he infringes it, his action is not merely injudicious, but immoral; on the other hand, where the code is silent, we regard an unfortunate action as objectively but not subjectively wrong, i.e. as injudicious, but not immoral. The acceptance of a moral code has the great advantage that, in so far as its rules are objetively right, it tends to harmonize objective and subjective rightness. Thus it tends to cover all frequent cases, leaving only the rarer ones to the individual judgment of the agent. Hence when new sorts of cases become common, the moral code soon comes to deal with them; thus each profession has its own code concerning cases common in the profession, though not outside it. But the moral code is never itself ultimate; it is based upon an estimate of probable consequences, and is essentially a method of leading men’s judgment to approve what is objectively right and disapprove what is objectively wrong. And when once a fairly correct code is accepted, the exceptions to it become very much fewer than they would otherwise be, because one of the consequences of admitting exceptions is to weaken the code, and this consequence is usually bad enough to outweigh the good resulting from admitting such and such an exception. This argument, however, works in the opposite direction with a grossly incorrect code; and it is to be observed that most conventional codes embody some degree of unwarrantable selfishness, individual, professional, or national, and are thus in certain respects worthy of detestation. (§ 15 ¶ 1)

What is objectively right, then, is in some way dependent on consequences. The most natural supposition to start from would be that the objectively right act, under any circumstances, is the one which will have the best consequences. We will define this as the most fortunate act. The most fortunate act, then, is the one which will produce the greatest excess of good over evil, or the least excess of evil over good (for there may be situations in which every possible act will have consequences that are on the whole bad). But we cannot maintain that the most fortunate act is always the one which is objectively right, in the sense that it is what a wise man will hold that he ought to do. For it may happen that the act which will in fact prove the most fortunate is likely, according to all the evidence at our disposal, to be less fortunate than some other. In such a case, it will be, at least in one sense, objectively wrong to go against the evidence, in spite of the actual good result of our doing so. There have certainly been some men who have done so much harm that it would have been fortunate for the world if their nurses had killed them in infancy. But if their nurses had done so their action would not have been objectively right, beause the probability was that it would not have the best effects. Hene it would seem we must take account of probability in judging of objective rightness; let us then consider whether we can say that the objectively right act is the one which will probably be most fortunate. I shall define this as the wisest act. (§ 16 ¶ 1)

The wisest act, then, is that one which, when account is taken of all available data, gives us the greatest expectation of good on the balance, or the least expectation of evil on the balance. There is, of course, a difficulty as to what are to be considered available data; but broadly we can distinguish, in any given state of knowledge, things capable of being forseen from things which are unpredictable. I suppose account to be taken of the general body of current knowledge, in fact the sort of consideration which people expect when they ask for legal or medical advice. There is no doubt this brings us nearer to what is objectively right than we were when we were considering the actually most fortunate act. For one thing, it justifies the unavoidable limitation to not very distant consequences, which is almost always necessary if a practical decision is to be reached. For the likelihood of error in calculating distant consequences is so great that their contribution to the probable good or evil is very small, though their contribution to the actual good or evil is likely to be much greater than that of the nearer consequences. And it seems evident that what it is quite impossible to know cannot be relevant in judging as to what conduct is right. If, as is possible, a cataclysm is going to destroy life on this planet this day week, many acts otherwise useful will prove to have been wasted labour, for example, the preparation of next year's Nautical Almanac; but since we have no reason to expect such a cataclysm, the rightness or wrongness of acts is plainly to be estimated without regard to it. (§ 16 ¶ 2)

One apparent objection at once suggests itself to the definition. Very few acts are of sufficient importance to justify such elaborate and careful consideration as is required for forming an opinion as to whether they are the wisest. Indeed, the least important decisions are often those which it would be hardest to make on purely reasonable grounds. A man who debates on each day which of two ways of taking exercise is likely to prove most beneficial is considered absurd; the question is at once difficult and unimportant, and is therefore not worth spending time over. But although it is true that unimportant decisions ought not to be made with excessive care, there is danger of confusion if this is regarded as an objection to our definition of objective rightness. For the act which, in the case supposed, is objectively wrong is the act of deliberation. And the deliberation is condemned by our definition, for it is very unlikely that there is no more beneficial way of spending time than in debating trivial points of conduct. Thus, although the wisest act is the one which, after complete investigation, appears likely to give the most fortunate results, yet the complete investigation required to show that it is the wisest act is only itself wise in the case of very important decisions. This is only an elaborate way of saying that a wise man will not waste time on unimportant details. Hence this apparent objection can be answered. (§ 17 ¶ 1)

One further addition is required for the definition of the objectively right act, namely, that it must be possible . Among the acts whose consequences are to be considered we must not include such as are either physically impossible to perform or impossible for the agent to think of. This last condition introduces difficulties connected with determinism, which are discussed in Section IV . Ignoring these difficulties, we may say that the objectively right act is that one which, of all that are possible, will probably have the best consequences. (§ 18 ¶ 1)

We must now return to the consideration of subjective rightness, with a view to distinguishing conduct which is merely mistaken from conduct which is immoral or blameworthy. We here require a new sense of ought , which it is by no means easy to define. In the objective sense, a man ought to do what is objectively right. But in the subjective sense, which we have now to examine, he sometimes ought to do what is objectively wrong. For example, we saw that it is often objectively right to give less consideration to an unimportant question of conduct than would be required for forming a trustworthy judgment as to what is objectively right. Now it seems plain that if we have given to such a question the amount and kind of consideration which is objectively right, and we then do what appears to us objectively right, our action is, in some sense, subjectively right, although it may be objectively wrong. Our action could certainly not be called a sin, and might even be highly virtuous, in spite of its objective wrongness. It is these notions of what is sinful and what is virtuous that we have now to consider. (§ 19 ¶ 1)

The first suggestion that naturally occurs is that an act is subjectively right when it is judged by the agent to be objectively right, and subjectively wrong when it is judged to be objectively wrong. I do not mean that it is subjectively right when the agent judges that it is the act which, of all that are possible, will probably have the best results; for the agent may not accept our above account of objective rightness. I mean merely that it is the one towards which he has the judgment of approval. A man may judge an act to be right without judging that its consequences will be probably the best possible; I only contend that, when he truly judges it to be right, then its consequences will probably be the best possible. But his judgment as to what is objectively right may err, not only by a wrong estimate of probable consequences, or by failing to think of an act which he might have thought of, but also by a wrong theory as to what constitutes objective rightness. In other words, the definition I gave of objective rightness is not meant as an analysis of the meaning of the word, but as a mark which in fact attaches to all objectively right actions and to no others. (§ 20 ¶ 1)

We are to consider then the suggestion that an act is moral when the agent approves it and immoral when he disapproves it; using moral to mean subjectively right and immoral to mean subjectively wrong . This suggestion, it is plain, will not stand without much modification. In the first place, we often hold it immoral to approve some things and disapprove others, unless there are special circumstances to excuse such approval or disapproval. In the second place, unreflecting acts, in which there is no judgment either of approval or disapproval, are often moral or immoral. For both these reasons the suggested definition must be regarded as inadequate. (§ 20 ¶ 2)

The doctrine that an act is never immoral when the agent thinks it right has the drawback (or the advantage) that it excuses almost all the acts which would be commonly condemned. Very few people deliberately do what, at the moment, they believe to be wrong; usually they first argue themselves into a belief that what they wish to do is right. They decide that it is their duty to teach so-and-so a lesson, that their rights have been grossly infringed that if they take no revenge there will be an encouragement to injustice, that without a moderate indulgence in pleasure a character cannot develop in the best way, and so on and so on. Yet we do not cease to blame them on that account. Of course it may be said that a belief produced by a course of self-deception is not a genuine belief, and that the people who invent such excuses for themselves know all the while that the truth is the other way. Up to a point this is no doubt true, though I doubt if it is always true. There are, however, other cases of mistaken judgment as to what is right, where the judgment is certainly genuine, and yet we blame the agent. These are cases of thoughtlessness, where a man remembers consequences to himself, but forgets consequences to others. In such a case he may judge correctly and honestly on all the data that he remembers, yet if he were a better man he would remember more data. Most of the actions commonly condemned as selfish probably come under this head. Hence we must admit that an act may be immoral, even if the agent quite genuinely judges that it is right. (§ 21 ¶ 1)

Unreflecting acts, again, in which there is no judgment as to right or wrong, are often praised or blamed. Acts of generosity, for example, are more admired when they are impulsive than when they result from reflection. I cannot think of any act which is more blamed when it is impulsive than when it is deliberate; but certainly many impulsive acts are blamed—for example, such as spring from an impulse of malice or cruelty (§ 21 ¶ 2)

In all these cases where reflection is absent, and also in the case of inadequate reflection, it may be said that blame does not belong properly to the act, but rather to the character revealed by the act, or, if to some acts, then to those previous deliberate acts by which the character has been produced which has resulted in the present act. The cases of self-deception would then be dismissed on the ground that the self-deceiver never really believes what he wishes to believe. We could then retain our original definition, that a moral act is one which the agent judges to be right, while an immoral one is one which he judges to be wrong. But I do not think this would accord with what most people really mean. I rather think that a moral act should be defined as one which the agent would have judged to be right if he had considered the question candidly and with due care; if, that is to say, he had examined the data before him with a view to discovering what was right, and not with a view to proving such and such a course to be right. If an act is unimportant, and at the same time not obviously less right than some obvious alternative, we shall consider it neither moral nor immoral; for in such a case the act does not deserve careful consideration. The amount of care which a decision deserves depends upon its importance and difficulty; in the case of a statesman advocating a new policy, for example, years of deliberation may sometimes be necessary to excuse him from the charge of levity. But with less important acts, it is usually right to decide even when further reflection might show the present decision to be erroneous. Thus there is a certain amount of reflection appropriate to various acts, while some right acts are best when they spring from impulse (though these are such as reflection would approve). We may therefore say that an act is moral when it is one which the agent would judge to be right after an appropriate amount of candid thought, or, in the case of acts which are best when they are unreflecting, after the amount and kind of thought requisite to form a first opinion. An act is immoral when the agent would judge it to be wrong after an appropriate amount of reflection. It is neither moral nor immoral when it is unimportant and a small amount of reflection would not suffice to show whether it was right or wrong. (§ 22 ¶ 1)

We may now sum up or discussion of right and wrong. When a man asks himself: What ought I to do? he is asking what conduct is right in an objective sense. He cannot mean: What ought a person to do who holds my views as to what a person ought to do? for his views as to what a person ought to do are what will constitute his answer to the question What ought I to do? But the onlooker, who thinks that the man has answered this question wrongly, may nevertheless hold that, in acting upon his answer, the manwas acting rightly in a second, subjective, sense. This second sort of right action we call moral action. We held that an action is moral when the agent would judge it to be right after an appropriate amount of candid thought, or after a small amount in the case of acts which are best when they are unreflecting; the appropriate amount of thought being dependent upon the difficulty and importance of the decision. And we held that an action is right when, of all that are possible, it is the one which will probably have the best results. There are many other meanings of right ; but these seem to be the meanings required for answering the questions: What ought I to do? and What acts are immoral? (§ 23 ¶ 1)

The Elements of Ethics was written by Bertrand Russell , and published in his Philosophical Essays in 1910. It is now available in the Public Domain .

Fair Use Repository