Talk:Morality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

What?

"...used within three contexts: individual distinction; systems of valued principles—sometimes called conduct morality—shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community."

THREE contexts?? well, i count two... where the fuck is the third one?? or did someone word this like a clumsy oaf 124.176.5.47 08:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

-->

Comments

---

For the line "Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience" isn't it saying that Morals are CREATED by and DEFINE society, philosophy, religion... where i think its supposed to say "Morals are created by and defined by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience" Somebody can change that if I'm right. -observed by some random guy, erase this after the change has been made, or decided that no change is needed.

---

I fixed the "gods know what's best for us" statement by deleting it. Am considering changing the "moral core" bit to include some mention of maturity- think this would also fix the problem directly below, rather than changing the footnote?

I have heard the footnote at the end "Moral core" called by a different name: maturity.

Example: 'the god(s) know what's best for us' is using language to disparage the view, not objective in the least.

Some parts copied and adapted from Sexual morality because already clear enough in that article.

that article is one of many subtopics in morality that need to be written about.

24, my changes are not opposing what you had said, but adding instead some other notes, that I imagine can combine with your definition. You added the element of personality of the conduct, that is effectively correct on a "subjective" level (by which I mean, the matter regarded from the side of the individual). But I can see that the "social" relevance of this concept can be perhaps of more commonly known evidence.

very true. The classic argument about morality is whether it comes from inside or outside the person. The Greek word "mores" or "custom" clearly defines it as a matter of what you get *caught* doing.  ;-) But they were a *shame*-based culture, as the sociologists call it. We are *guilt*-based and expect inner decisions rather than external pressures to catch us before we do things we shouldn't.

This more properly should regard those cultures that admit the "original sin", therefore those cultures influenced by the Byble (or by other eventual religions containing similar beliefs). But, even in this case, the sense of guilt only regards the relationships with religion and can influence morality only when it is a religious morality: I can see no evident effect of the sense of guilt (and I live in one of those topic areas, as you can imagine) in a common concept of morality as the abstinence from theft, which should be valuable also in Gauguin's far islands.

Not being enforced by law, morality is always volountarily accepted by the individual, but it has to be proposed before. Admitting it is a personal acceptance of what even the same individual can impose himself, the point is whether a definition of morality necessarily regards the rules to apply in the relationships with others-from-yourself, widely intended, or we can admit it in an alone individual's self-sufficient determination.

there's more on this in some of the essays at meta

I can mainly read there a distinction from ethics focused on the derivative authority or etymology. This does not help on a definition. I evidently agree with those definitions by which morality is instrumentally what a common individual has at his disposal as a help for his decisions and as a parameter for evaluating other individuals' conduct.

Of course the personal aspect is very important and as you can see, nothing was deleted, I just added some points that perhaps you might develop :-) --Gianfranco

hard to know where. Some of what is written about morals is effectively about ethics, or etiquette, and I'd like to make that distinction clear. But Morality is contentious so I'd like to see this settle down first.

Well, as above, IMHO morality is often a pragmatical effect or evolution or application of ethics, which produce theoretical schemes. But not always a morality is backed by a complex phylosophical process, and basically it does not need it to exist: just to say one, religion is not (or not always) phylosophy, but it's evident there is a religious morality. And however a morality can be expressed even in the eventual ignorance of ethics: less instructed classes do have a morality, perhaps a spontaneous one. Etiquette regards the methods of relating with other individuals, not general goals, I'd say. --Gianfranco

---

I've added a paragraph about evolutionary psychology, and another slightly rambling and speculative one following on from it, about octopuses. I think the octopus idea is highly relevant, but if the general opinion is that it is too diffuse, and not suitable for an encyclopaedia, then I have no problem with that second paragraph being condensed or removed. :-) GrahamN

the octopus example includes this phrase: "our revulsion for infanticide." The problem is, the example is comparing two species of animals, humans and octupuses. But the statement, "our revulsion for infanticide," is not true of all humans, it is likely culture-specific.

this fact does not invalidate the octopus example (not that I am so enamored of it), but it does reframe the issue. For certainly, our intelligence is closely connected with our being cultural animals, and creating different cultures. Thus, were one to suppose that octupuses had human-like intelligence, one might suppose that there would be different octopus cultures as well. And that would indeed play into discussions of morality.

That said, I am uncomfortable with comparing octopus intelligence and human intelligence -- as I would be comparing ant intelligence and human intelligence. Species survive because they are adapted to their niche. It is very difficult to compare adaptations then, because the niches are different. Surely human intelligence evolved as an adaptation to our niche. Since octopuses and ants evolved in other niches, it makes more sense to say that they have different kinds of intelligences. Slrubenstein

[Sorry about the curly apostrophes. I hadn't noticed that my word processor was doing that.]

I've never heard of a human culture that tolerated infanticide. However, I'm no anthropologist, and I may well be wrong, so I will remove the word. However, there is surely a core set of moral codes that are not culture-specific. I would be very surprised if there were any human cultures in which incest or rape were considered respectable.

In Ancient Egypt, pharoahs regularly used to marry their sisters. In Pakistan it is not infrequent for gang-rapes to be condoned or even encouraged to regain a community's honour. It may be illegal, but it is certainly acceptable to that part of the culture. "Honour killings" are another example where murder is considered to be acceptable. According to current wisdom, genocide was considered acceptable to the Nazis. You'd be surprised what has been considered to be morally justified by various cultures over the ages. AngryStan 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding to the above statement, the Spartans regulary practiced infantacide. As far as incest goes(and this, admittedly is dealt with in the appropriate article), it has long been my belief that this taboo has much to do with biological necessity.

Responding the above statement regarding Spartans 'practicing' infanticide. There is a fine line between that practice performed on one's own people, and those considered 'enemies'. Morality does not play a large part on this action to 'enemies'. Given an example, if a society condones infanticide (modern China, though not explicitly) due to varying degrees of necessity (arguably not biological), 'societal' morality can be considered; while the other society that commits infanticide through conquest (the Mongols) to prevent those conquered from reproducing as 'war' morality. I do not argue one is righteous to the next, but the conquest infanticide fits well into the kill/murder aspect of war. I hope we don't begin arguing semantics.

As to your point that human intelligence evolved as an adaptation to our niche, that is precisely the idea I was trying to explore. It seems probable to me that our morality has evolved along with our intelligence, to be very specifically suited to our biological make-up and to the kind of social animal that we have evolved to be. A hypothetical animal of equal intelligence but very different physiology and habits would surely have evolved a very different moral code. This notion might suggest that our concept of right and wrong are not universal absolutes, but are particular to the human species.

I take it that you think my idea does have some relevance in this article, so I will try to re-work the octopus paragraph to make its purpose clearer, and, if I can, to make it a little more concise, and to make its tone more neutral. GrahamN 19 July '02

I've just edited the octopus paragraph a bit, but I'm not happy with it. It is now even longer! I'd value any suggestions how it could be cut down. Maybe it would be a good idea to drop my super-octopus altogether and to stick with general terms? I'm quite fond of her, but I can see it might be for the best. :-( GrahamN 19 July '02

I have no strong objection to octopuses. I guess my larger point was this: IF you want to make claims about the intelligence of non-humans, THEN I believe octopuses, ants, pigeons, spiders, flatworms and human beings are all equally intelligent -- just intelligent in radically different and perhaps incomensurable ways.

As for culture and morality, there are many societies in which certain forms of infanticide is mandated. Whether you would consider this moral or not is another matter -- on other pages there have been recent debates over morality and cultural relativism; some people believe in a universal morality which leads them to condemn certain societies as immoral. My point is simply that there are some societies in which infanticide, at least under specific conditions, is considered not only permissible but necessary. The same is true by the way for rape. In some societies, the gang-rape of women is a socially legitimate punishment for certain crimes. Of course, we define rape as a crime, so perhaps in those societies we shouldn't call the practice rape -- call it what you will, it is the violent violation of a woman by several men.

Look at it this way: it may be true that all societies think of murder as wrong (I hesitate to say this only because it is an empirical question). Certainly, in U.S. society, people think that murder is wrong. Nevertheless, we have the death-penalty. People who support the death-penalty either do not think it is murder, or they think that it is murder that is somehow justifiable. And when the U.S. goes to war and bombs other people, many believe that is entirely justifiable.

So, is there a universal morality? What do you mean moral principles that all people SHOULD believe in, or moral principles that all people do in fact believe in? Some philosophers think there is a basis for making claims about the first kind of morality. But my sense is, if you mean the second kind (an empirical issue), there either is none, or it is so abstract (e.g. killing is wrong except when it isn't) as to be practically meaningless. Slrubenstein

I don't agree with everything you say, because since all humans have a common evolutionary ancestry, there is likely to be some common moral core, hard as it may be to define. However, your arguments are sufficiently convincing for me to delete Olivia the octopus from this article. I will miss her. I will think about her sometimes on lonely nights at home, and I hope you will too.  :-( GrahamN

I promise I will think of Olivia often. As for morality -- do not get me wrong; I would bet that in every society on earth people would agree that

killing = bad

I am just pointing out that in most societies not only do people violate this more, they also construe it so that various forms of killing are considered either justifiable or even good. And it is this fact that makes me dubious about universal mores. Perhaps the one thing we have in common, thanks to our evolution, is such plasticity in behavior, thought, and feeling -- far more plastic than even the sweetest of octupi -- that our overwhelms such quests as the attempt to define a single universal morality. Just a thought. Slrubenstein

I moved the moral back to a separate page, as it represents a separate (abit related) concept. All its changes were preserved. --Yurik 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the origin of morality

"While some philosophers, psychologists and evolutionary biologists hold that morality is a thin crust hiding egoism, amorality, and anti-social tendencies, others see morality as equally a product of evolutionary forces and as evidence for continuity with other group-living organisms."

Translation: "Some see morality as an excuse to practice evil and others see morality as a product of evolution."

Those are NOT the only two opinions about where morality comes from. A lot of people believe God has established laws for people to obey and a good encyclopedia should at least mention that. The "thin crust" may be a freudian slip for the thinly veiled weaseling of presenting two POVs to exclude the third.--The burning bush 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

which god? how many gods need to be included to satisfy a mystical sources category? Zombie81 05:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a good deal more in this article regarding the position by believers that religion is necessary to the existence of morality -- the notion that everyone would, by nature, behave in an "immoral" way if it weren't for prescriptive religion, that people aren't capable of ethical behavior with belief in God. There are loud arguments on both sides, naturally. . . . --Michael K. Smith (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Philosophers (please see history)

I removed the portion "(although they [philosophers] often use both words [i.e. morals and ethics] interchangably)...yes, they did...but do we need the ambivalence? Reinsert if we do. --VKokielov 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i HAD to get rid of a h (at the end of one of the headings with =='s on either side) it looked like this ==heading==h.

I have removed the main article, as it was considered nonsense, and no-one disagreed. Please do not attempt to recreate it, it will be considered vandalism. Thanks--131.111.8.96 14:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Add a section about Nietzsche's view of morality. He offers a good arguement on the issue of morality in some of his works.

Proposed Merge from Moral Code

I put in a merge tag, because I think Moral Code would fit better as a subtopic here. --Michael 22:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd second this, and suggest also including Public Morality 81.86.104.187 08:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

MERGED. I'm no mergist, but seriously this needed to be merged. We need less articles on Wikipedia that are more comprehensive... If someone thinks this was a mistake they are free to revert, but there's been no comments to the contrary in three months, that sounded like a call of action to me. - JustinWick 08:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was looking around for "public morals" and found "public morality" instead. Whatever you may decide on "public morality" as it stands, I need to find a place for a batch of material on the law relating to "public morals". If I put it into "public morality", this will potentially pre-empt the decision on the proposed merge, so I give you a few days to make a decision. David91 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed minor revision

Here is a minor suggested revised wording for Rational Morality:

ORIGINAL: Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus morality is necessarily one of self-interest ...

REVISED: Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus, rational morality is necessarily one of self-interest ...

Thank You, --EScribe 05:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Why did the following entry disappear within the last few days from the article? =

Rational Morality

Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus rational morality is necessarily one of self-interest and looks at man's nature and the reason he needs values, then defines the virtues, known as a moral code, that must be practiced to reach those values. Morality is "rationally accepted" and chosen. Rational morality asserts that all other "views" of morality are subjective and require some sort of sacrifice, either to the supernatural (i.e., God) or the social collective, whereas proper morality is self-evident and in the interest of the individual's happiness. Thus rational morality is synonymous with individual rights.

Thankz 66.61.36.55 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Odd use of evolutionary critique

This passage makes a weird claim.

The evolutionary critique points to the radical ways which morality differs across times and cultures among human beings. Very few activities are always morally wrong across all human societies. For example, some groups still practice forms of infanticide, incest, and paederastry, activities that would be condemned harshly in most Western societies. It has been argued that morality is simply whatever norms are present within a given society at a given time.

It sounds like the POV being pushed is that there is no common standard of morality across different cultures. What is odd about this passage is that it is not looking for moral standards across most cultures; it is claiming that for something to be universal morality it has to be always condemned by all cultures . That's kind of an impossible standard. Most cultures think it's always wrong to slaughter large numbers of your tribal 'in-group', but the Mubutushuku tribe of the Momobotosoku region of Africa kills off 90% of their tribe annually, so I guess mass murder is just another subjective Western standard of morality. Let's see an authoritive (anthropology?) source for these "some people" who think morality is "simply whatever norms are present" Seriously. I weant to see a source for these some poeple. MPS 14:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... For something to be a "universal" morality, it would have to be condemned by all cultures, by definition. The only one I've been able to think of is some variant of "keep your commitments."

Septegram 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I also want to see some citation for your remark that "the Mubutushuku tribe of the Momobotosoku region of Africa kills off 90% of their tribe annually." First of all, that would result in a non-viable population in a matter of a few years--kill off 90% of the much larger planetary population at that rate, and in ten years you don't have a viable breeding population. Second, the only Google references I've found link here. Frankly, I don't believe you.

Septegram 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would appreciate a citation for this remark. I don't see how such a society could survive more than a decade or two.

As a second point, I would like to point out that for something to be "universally wrong," it is not necessarily required that it be condemned by all cultures.

In fact, almost the reverse is true. To say that "for something to be 'universally wrong' it must be condemned by all cultures" is equivalent to saying "morality is determined by cultural acceptance", i.e. to support a morally relativist position, and to deny a morally universalist position. If something is 'universally' or 'fundamentally' wrong then it is wrong *regardless of* cultural acceptance or condemnation. If the existence of universal morality were to be accepted, it would be conceivable that something could be universally wrong if *no* cultures condemn it. As a trite example, if we accept for the sake of argument that "hacking into computer systems to cause damage is universally wrong" we can reflect that not one single person or culture in 1837 thought this.

If we do not equate "universally wrong" with "absolutely wrong", then a "universally wrong" act is just an act which is "relatively wrong for all cultures at a given point in time", and the qualifier "universal" has no sensible or useful meaning other than to reflect upon similarities between different cultures at a given point in time.

The fact that some individuals or culture do not accept particular moral codes is no evidence at all as to the existence or non-existence of "universal morality" - it could well be that there is just a minority or majority of "immoral people". This is indeed the problem with any concept of universal morality, it is (in my opinion) impossible to determine what such a code would actually be, therefore the concept is a singularly useless one regardless of whatever "truth" it might have. AngryStan 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First, how are we defining "culture" anyway? Mightn't someone be able to make an argument that culture is a purely individual thing, and therefore a total consensus -- among every single person on the planet -- is required before anything can be called "universally wrong"? The fact that some people or some groups of people commit acts which are seen to be wrong and condemned by others is not necessarily evidence of the non-existence of a universal morality. It simply demonstrates that some people, for some reason, are choosing not to follow it in practice. Arguing this line is essentially saying that our criteria for moral judgments ought to follow after moral actions and not vice versa -- that is, "good" actions are whatever we choose to do and "bad" actions are whatever we choose not to do. Rather self-defeating, is it not? --Todeswalzer|Talk 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Morality is not merely the sum of its parts, that is, its laws. It is any code at all which seeks to prevent someone from living in such a way as to act on every impulse he experiences. Laws against murder exist because people have been driven to murder. Laws against rape exist because people have been compelled to rape. etc.. Whether such activities are deemed immoral or not by a given society depends on whether they are problematic or not (murder is not problematic if the victim is being sacrificed to a god, rape is not problematic if said society's men are not threatened by women and do not care about their feelings, infanticide is not problematic if the baby is deformed and nobody cares about it, etc.) Evolution would actually render morality an obsolete and useless concept, as any intelligent evolutionist would be able to reason that any pang of conscience he feels at the thought of killing, stealing from, raping, or otherwise violating another human being is nothing but a meaningless electrical signal in his brain, to be dismissed as such. There would be no reason for him not to act on every impulse he feels except for fear of punishment, which is the only type of morality that would make sense to an evolutionist who is actually capable of deep thought. If there were no supreme law-giver (God), satisfying impulses would be the only sensible reason to continue living, any other reason would have to be an invention and could not apply to all of humanity. This problem is solved when the general public is either intellectually complacent (never questioning their priests in white lab coats or bothering to analyze the logic behind their own feelings) or if they truly believe that there is a supreme law-giver with the power to make their feelings viable as well as give instruction on how to find satisfaction in resisting certain impulses and being kind to others without benefitting oneself. Most societies today, particularly in overdeveloped nations, opt for the first solution.

Distinction between ethics and morality

I believe that there is a clear distinction between what is moral and what is ethical; the two may sometimes clash.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

"Where morality is divorced from religion, reason will, it is true, enable a man to recognize to a large extent the ideal to which his nature points. But much will be wanting. He will disregard some of his most essential duties. He will, further, be destitute of the strong motives for obedience to the law afforded by the sense of obligation to God and the knowledge of the tremendous sanction attached to its neglect."

And also -

". . . Buddhism, explicitly taught the entire independence of the moral code from any belief in God. To these arguments we reply . . . that human reason proclaims the essential dependence of morality on religious belief."

One can, by example, precieve that the act of fornication is one of immorality since most religions hold it to be a sin yet logically, legally (in most countries), and biologically - thus ethically - it would be permissible because it carries no "tremendous sanction" against it.

There are many other examples of actions which are considered immoral but are not unethical and vise versa, e.g. slavery.

Perhaps the article should make that distinction clearer. GeeOh (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your quotations demonstrate the RCC viewpoint on Morality which could be added to this article's Morality#Religion as a source of moral authority or Morality#Religiosity and morality subsections. As for Ethics vs Morality, definitions other than the ones already cites are always good, in my opinion, as long as they are properly referenced. --Cubbi (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Should Anglo Saxons be allowed to muddle themselves up? Is this an ethical question or a moral question? Please see the German language entry for a useful distinction between ethics and morality.

___________________________________________________________________________

I agree.

This is ethics not morality:

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

Obviously written by someone not objective enough. Emphasis on the religions part.

Regards, dcer

_____________________________________________________________________________

I believe Aristotle would make a distinction between morality and ethics. Morality concerns guidelines for living a 'good' life. What will make one happy in the long run. It has no 'direct' concern with how one treats others. For example; reading, learning, brushing one's teeth, embracing the idea of delayed gratification are all behaviors that improve one's life but do not involve other people.

Ethics is the subject of acceptable behavior and interaction with other people and the world.

Paul

______________________________________________________________________________

Minor issue

Perhaps it would be more grammatically correct to change the title of the first section of the article (Evolution of Morality) to Development of Morality. A very small issue, but the term evolution should be limited to biology. Dilbert 00:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be more specific when using the term "development" -- do we mean the progressive expression of moral traits over the course of human development from infant to child to adult or do we mean its evolutionary bases? I agree they're separate, but they shed light on each other and if we're going to have a section devoted to the ontogeny of morality, we should also have one devoted to its evolutionary history. --Prionesse 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor quip; please take the word "goodness" out. There is no definition in the meaning of the statement "wholesome goodness". It is vague, subjective, and carries an unreasonable biased expectation of optimistic results. Maybe it is just me, but goodness is not a word. It conveys the apex of political correctness, of Orwellian(sp?) "new-speak", by being a word that cannot be defined other then; It means what ever the -lister- wants it to mean; with the -speaker- letting self-deception happen. Please take it out. 76.170.118.217 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is prostitution Immoral?

I want a clear answer on this one.

144.132.1.37 11:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "No," as long as all parties have given their informed consent. Others would say otherwise. Are you seriously looking for an absolute answer, applicable universally?

Septegram 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no clear answer. Is it right to contribute to the suffering of the downtrodden? Is it right to contribute to the possible spread of disease? What effect do your actions have? To what extent are you personally responsible for things that are out of or only slightly in your control?

Those conditions can all exist in a marriage or any other human relationship that does not involve direct payment for sex. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we constructed a robot prostitute that had no feelings and was incapable of spreading disease or participating in any of the social ills associated with prostetution, would it be wrong to engage in the act? Of course not.

Sexual conduct in and of itself is a cultural and/or religious value judgement, not a question of morality. We only begin to discuss morality when we begin to discuss the ramifications of the act. These are seperate questions.

Yes, it is. Definately so. Provided you have 'morals' to begin with...

Yoda921 11:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda

wow yoda, good job not backing up your opinion there with anything... why is it immoral?? assuming all sex is protected, and the prostitute is not beaten up or shit like that or exploited its completely moral... she wants money, some guy wants sex, they exchange, both agree to the arrangement... :O shit a brick! nothing immoral happened!

Described that way, it sounds positively Reaganite free-market! :-) --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire discussion, while valid, is misplaced. It has little to do with the article. You might want to take this to a sexuality- or philosophy-related web forum, or at the very least move it to an article that deals with prostitution and its implications. SpectrumDT (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reader Comment

At present this article reads like a survey rather than a clarification; or, to contrast it in another way, a summary of the academic views on Morality as opposed to the everyday view.

Perhaps a better way of presenting it would be to begin with the everyday understanding of morality. I'd suggest that (as a discussion point, not as a fixed idea) that Morality in the common Western understanding, has religious underpinnings: it implies (or has come to be understood as) what is 'universally supposed to be', or is declared by God or the gods. This, as opposed to what is legal, or has been declared by humans to be right or wrong; or what is "socially acceptable": defined by society to be correct or incorrect.

I agree with these last two sentences. I think regardless of all the philosophical discussions, when people talk about "morality" they mean it absolutely. We see this in common attempts to teach children "the difference between right and wrong", as if such a difference is fixed and obvious. This weird idea does indeed, I believe, come largely from religion.

I do not think, however, that other considerations should be excluded from the discussion of morality, as you appear to suggest below. Many investigations into morality arise as an attempt to describe how morals particular morals are formed (we may assume that they do not "come from God"), or to devise acceptable systems that may be used if a society accepts that some code of morality is necessary, which we may assume to be most of the time. I do not think it is improper to consider such things under the heading of "morality", since regardless of the origins, they deal with morality as it is practised. AngryStan 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Philosophers and academics have tried to explore all these ideas, attempting to find a solid universal basis as well as boundaries for moral concepts. In doing so they have muddied the water, taking all of these into the general mix of "morality", indeed, groping into areas such as ethics, etiquette, and further afield into ideas about the good life.

Philosophers may have entered such areas in their discussions but it is confusing and perhaps even wrong to suggest that all of these ideas are really in the field of morality. The laws of physics play a role in biology but we would not suggest that biology is some sub-study of physics.

Put another way, the "common understanding" of a distinction between legality and morality is not necessarily a correct view and the academic view incorrect. But, for practical purposes--which is what an encyclopedia serves--it provides a clearer and more useful view...with academic views as an interesting but subordinate discussion....IMHO.--207.81.127.107 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Morality or Moral Relativism?

It seems as though most of the posters here are conflating or confusing morality with moral or cultural relativism.

Seems like an old discussion, but I'll respond anyway. To save time, upshot is that I think you are the one who is confused here.

Morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong. This means that which is always right and wrong and has some level of universal acceptance even if not always adhered too. Murder was considered wrong even in Nazi Germany.

Incorrect. Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy defines morality as as term that "can be used either (1) descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, (a) some other group, such as a religion, or (b) accepted by an individual for her own behavior or (2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons". The idea that "morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong" is simply incorrect, by any accepted standard.

The notion that morals change according to culture is simply a fallacy.

"Philosophy 101", as you mention below, should make it clear that the two main sides in the morality debate deal with absolutism (which you are describing) and relativism (which you are calling a fallacy), so it is hardly a "fallacy". Rather, it is a position you personally do not agree with.

Consider the following argument.

Back during the slave days, owning slaves was commonly accepted. Therefore, there was nothing immoral about owning slaves.

This is simple reduction to absurdity - so much for cultural norms. Those with background in logic should also spot the circular argument.

The argument is not circular. As per the definition (1) from the SEOP given to you above, if we define morality as the "code of conduct put forward by a society", then if something is commonly accepted, it is considered to be moral, or at least, not immoral. Therefore it is a syllogism of the form: 1. By definition, what is/was commonly accepted is/was not immoral. 2. Owning slaves was commonly accepted. 3. Therefore, owning slaves was not immoral. Classic example, nothing circular about it.

You can argue with the definition if you like, but you cannot reasonable argue the logic that flows from this definition. At least, nobody with "background in logic" would reasonably try to do so.

It is also wrong to conflate sexuality with morality.

Again, according to your personal definition. According to definition (1)(a) above, it may not be.

Unless we are talking about a violent act such as rape, morality as it refers to consensual sex between adults is a misnomer. Although it is common to use the term “morality” with regard to sex, it is simply a miss-use of the term. I have little doubt that this point is difficult to understand

because it's incorrect.

due to the wide acceptance of this error. Also, there can be numerous debates about the moral consequences of some sexual practices but these things must all be debated on there individual merit. Promiscuity in and of itself has nothing to do with morality.

Again, according to your personal definition.

It is also wrong to suggest that people acting in violation of a given religion are immoral and it is wrong to suggest that any actions sanctioned by religion are necessarily moral.

According to definition (1)(a) above, it isn't.

Consider the practice of “honor killing” in which a woman must be killed by her male relatives if she is perceived (regardless of fact) as committing a sexual indiscretion that brings shame on the family. The use of religion to justify the murder does not constitute a change in morality it only means that an attempt is made to justify the murder based on circular reasoning. i.e. It’s right because my book says so.

Which, as already explained, can be a basis for morality. It's not circular reasoning at all, you just don't agree with that particular basis. You are attempting to decry something you personally find distasteful on the incorrect grounds that it is "illogical".

A very different notion is one of “thou shall not murder.” This is not only a religious statement but a logically defendable one as well.

The existence of god is "logically defendable (sic)", just not defensible very well. Likewise for your statement, which is only logically defensible according to the truths which you accept as being self-evident.

Note that the commandment does not read “thou shall not kill.” That would be a very different and ethically problematic statement.

The bottom line is that morality is correctly defined separately from theology which is a different branch of philosophy.

Again, "correctly defined" if we accept your definition, which almost all philosophers do not. So this is not "the bottom line" at all.

Likewise, the term “morality” must not be improperly used with regard to sexual conduct.

Morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong. This is the definition.

Incorrect, see a proper definition given to you above.

Really, this is all philosophy 101. Unless you have never taken it or have been de-educated by an imposter, this should all be quite basic.

In that case, I'd suggest taking a course a little more advanced than 101 for this level of discussion. AngryStan 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Toems

Near the beginning of Morality#Morality in judicial systems, what does this mean? "it is not difficult toems" Art LaPella 17:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Moral Logic

Some forms of morality can be deduced from the following statement, "Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate." (I call it the Base Rule.) From this statement the incest taboo can be derived. Family members are, of course, related. Also, there is homosexuality which occurs from related genders and is widely considered to be immoral. Another example is cannibalism which is caused from related species. In each of these instances, related subjects are being combined when they were already combined in the first place. Without this logical statement morality is abstract. JHuber 07:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No comment other than to say this is a pretty weird and seemingly nonsensical idea which I frankly cannot make head nor tail out of. AngryStan 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Morality needen't be abstract: subjective morality is what most people mean when they talk about morality... the kind that people in funny clothes who use old books allegedly imbued with supernatural significance tend to go on about; objective morality is where you define morality and its component parts in terms of logic and reason and in context. As living organisms we are defined by the chemical self-replicating system that our genetic programming is determined by; in this context we can define "good" as all behaviours that perpetuate the system we call life, and "bad" as all those that are in conflict with the system: malfunctions, if you will.

This is defining morality in terms of adaptivity and maladaptivity at a fundamental level. Inclusive fitness as a mechanism for a more complex moral system comes about when we form groups: Groupism or Group-forming being a subsidiary genetic programming (or instinct) in support of the primary genetic programming of survival. We can then, in this context, define immorality in terms of damage to the Group: to inclusive fitness. (I call this the "This is my idea, I thought of it first, aren't I clever" Rule.)

The problem with supposedly abstract topics like this, is that they are not abstract at all; they just seem to attract abstract people who seem drawn to opportunity to define an objective concept in subjective terms.

You may well be able to argue successfully that incest, cannibalism, homosexuality are immoral, but you have to first establish whether you're using an objective or subjective system of morality.

Whether things are related or not is down to the rules of your morality; but if you're aiming for a logical morality (as opposed to "moral logic"), you have to be a bit more sophisticated than just using a blanket semantic formula like that.

You've got a very selective related-biology idea there, which doesn't stand up when you test it: related species like dogs and wolves? related people like second cousins?

Shut up.

It takes one to know one 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal about genetic altruism

Social primates - especially chimpanzee show altruism in a sense that "I will scratch your back if you scratch mine". It speculates about an altruistic gene that is needed in a social population.

If for example anarchy will develop in a country because of poverty, then both poor and rich individuals get a increased risk in being injured. That outcome is bad for all parties. Hence it is in everybodies interest to have a good social security.

If we look in the human population. We as population set up rules together that is benificiant for the population. Some individuals break against our common rules even that there lives are not at risk, Why?

Just some thoughts

--Msitua 09:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You should note that wikipedia is not for original research or ideas. Is there a published source (e.g. in a journal) for what you describe? Notinasnaid 10:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are actually a number of thinkers espousing the view that morality is at least partly the product of our evolutionary development. I can think of at least three different authors which have recently written books devoted partly or entirely to this idea: Michael Shermer (in The Science of Good and Evil), Marc Hauser (in Moral Minds) and Richard Dawkins (in The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion). This article might be very much improved if their work could be incorporated here. --Todeswalzer|Talk 03:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is already there a bit in the development of morality section. Imagine coudl be better covered, or worse EverSince 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. there is an Ethics and evolutionary psychology page which had quite strange content but I've recently rejigged so it could start to serve as an expansion of a section on this page. EverSince 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Moral Core

DELETE!

Don't like this term.

Sounds American.

Not sourced.

That whole section sounds like a patronising and subjective lecture bundling together ideas of preference, such as "Maturity". ("Moral core" sounds like a constant; "maturity" a variable). It takes one to know one 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This section strikes me as surprisingly involved. Perhaps it would be better if it were less biased. 155.212.104.246 C. Ignatius

Sounds American? What kind of exception is that? Is there some wiki policy against being an American? Why should we have to put up with your POV against America?

Why does this article have so much material on evolution and sociology -topics which have nothing to do with morality?

If this article were going to actually be on morality we should remove all the sociology and evolution nonsense and keep the moral core section. There's no wiki policy protecting rants against morality. --The burning bush 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Remove all the sociology and evolution nonsense..."

I judge that by your verbatim you lend yourself to the reason why sounding a American is to be frowned upon.

Make your point. Don't just remark that something is nonsense. --79.64.19.54 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert in the section about Religion and morality

ThAtSo, you just reverted my reorganization of the section on "Religion and morality" alleging that it introduced POV. But, were exactly is the POV? Is there anything in the reverted version not justified by the references? That edit required a lot of work, since the modifications involved careful evaluation of what each source had to say. Meanwhile, the version of the text you seem to favor discuss one of the studies in much more detail than the others, and leaves at least one study without any mention, even though it is referenced (that is, the version you reverted to has problems with undue weight). I'd say your reversion introduced POV. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

When you made the changes that I was forced to revert, you said that you were just 'reorganizing the "religion and morality" section to improve the flow and to show more precisely the findings of each study', but now you're saying that your version is more neutral. Looks like you were less than candid the first time around, which is unfortunate and certainly undermines your credibility. At this point, since you've revealed that your goal is to adjust perceived neutrality issues, it's up to you to justify this adjustment. If you want to argue that another relevant study should be added, I won't complain, but I'm a lot more skeptical of your attempt to rearrange all the sentences to tell a misleading story. ThAtSo 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My summary was and still is perfectly adequate. I carefully read all the referenced studies I could access with the goal of showing more precisely their findings, and I think I succeeded in doing so. If a more accurate description of the sources seems to have changed the balance of the text, it can only mean that the old version you reverted to is POV. This is why I said above: "I'd say your reversion introduced POV".

Even though you don't seem to believe in my good intentions, I am very interested in having a good NPOV text in the section. I already gave some reasons why I think my version is superior. Now, I'd like to ask again what exactly you feel is POV about my version. The concrete reasons why you believe my edits tell a misleading story. More precisely, I'd like you to show me were my text misrepresents the sources provided. (According to what I know about WP policy, what the sources say is the prime criteria to access bias.) I am providing a copy of the text reverted bellow so you can point were the potential bias is. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Religion and morality

In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes. Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime, with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one). 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”. Apart from this general trend, one study found that nations in which the population show strong belief in the devil and in hell have higher rates of homicide than countries with either more secular populations, or with populations that believe in God and heaven but not in its malevolent counterparts. Research also seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior on topics other than crime. There are, for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism, and data suggesting that growth in the importance of religion in adolescents' lives is consistently related to better family relations. Although a recent paper argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity of a country and certain measures of dysfunction, the methodology of the study has been criticized and an analysis published later contends that a number of problems disavow any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.

---

It's been half a month since my last post here... May I assume that there is no further objections to the text above? I intend to reintroduce it in the article. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, it's been weeks and nobody's shown the slightest bit of support for your version, which is sure to be reverted if you try to stick it in the article. ThAtSo 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You should at least point what is wrong with the version above. You are the only one complaining about it. It's weird that you seem to be ready to start a revert war over the edit, but doesn't even care to objectively evaluate the text (even though I asked you to do so many times). --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As I explained already, your entire effort is flawed from the start because you're just adding bias to overcome perceived bias. ThAtSo 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Voice Issue?

In the introductory paragraph, whoever wrote it uses the word "I", and not in quotes. I'm not sure if there are any rules about this but I wanted to ask if this possibly presented a voice issue --encyclopedia's probably shouldn't be in first person-- before I fixed it. Henry Corvel 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Morality (ethics) vs. Moralism

Is there any significant reason why the term "morality" differs substantially from the term "ethics"? Aren't they both just 2 different words for normative values, that is, ways to determine what's right/good from what's wrong/bad? If so, I propose that the article for "morality" be merged with the one for "ethics", and that "moralism" and/or "moralist" have their own articles, since these 2 terms (moralist & moralism) denote more of the arbitrary, petty, and oppressive qualities associated with taboo-enforcers and other force initiators than the term "morality" itself does, which I think most people just equate with "knowing right from wrong", which is more properly (and neutrally) covered by "ethics". Shanoman 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The philosophical; distinction between the morality and ethics is usualyy that morality is a reflection of people's actual thoughts about ethics, and ethics is the study of what peope shou8ld think about ethics. These are important differences. Moralism is different again. Those who accept common sense morality often frown on moralism. It is a rather unpleasant attitude, and I suspect (violating NPOV!) that most ethicists would feel like punching anyone who accused them of being moralistic! Anarchia 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin etymology

The word in the opening sentence ought to be mos, mores. Jorgath (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Great article with lots of information to be included

The New York Times has a great article on scientific investigations into morality that I think could be incorporated into the article [1]. Remember (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Morality is a learning process

Public Morality is education.

If we teach more people about virtues and it's positive meaning, it will contribute to public morality. Morality is goodness, in ordered to understand goodness better must we study virtues.

Sincerly, Phalanx Pursos —Preceding comment was added at 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is diabolical

So I changed it towards the better.

With all the morality that I have studied in my life, was I totally dissapointed about the misinformation which has been posted on this page. You people explain everything about morality except the fact what it really is, accept the fact that you know nothing about it. Public morality died 1500 years ago, most flawed statements prove this time and time again.

Phalanx Pursos 06:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

possible logical flaw

"The subjectiveness of morality is shown by the observation that actions or beliefs which by themselves do not cause any harm may be by some considered immoral"

it is true that one may observe that some others consider an action or belief immoral while at the same time observing that that action or belief causes no harm. Why does this imply subjectivity? It may be that your observations of harm has nothing to do with whatever objective measuring stick is used but the moralists.

If however, you mean to imply that the act of causing harm itself is a measure of subjectiveness, then morality is objective by your standards - it is whether or not you cause harm to others.

This renders this statement logically flawed, contradictory, naive, and combined with the politically charged gay marriage example, brings to question the matter of the writers bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.71.216 (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Moral Realism in the introduction

This sentence in the introduction: "Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). "

Is pretty unclear. The best I can break it down is:

"moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism) (Other stuff). And Moral anti-realism falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). "

Seems like "falsely presupposes" violates some kind of fair and neutral rule.

Am I just reading this sentence wrong? Is it trying to say that anti-realism holds that morality is derived from a false presuppositions that there are objective moral facts? If that's the case, it seems like that is redundant with the examples already listed.

Should the sentence read: "moral anti-realism would hold that morality falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory) and is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); or is an implied imperative (prescriptive);"??

I'd change it if I knew what the sentence was actually trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecnassianer (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Did the pedestrian die?

This section is pretty suspcious: the article it points to seems nothing more than a bunch of ludicrous cultural stereotypes (e.g. it asserts that the French subject turned traitor very quickly, needing only to be plied with cigarettes). The discussion page of that article raises these concerns but I can see none here, can someone who knows anything at all about the book verify that it exists, is relevant to what is being asserted here, and that the whole thing isn't just a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.182.72 (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

notes on categorization

I place the category "Concepts in Religious Metaphysics" and "Pseudo-Information Science," because the religious metaphysics doesn't utilize a developed methodology, hence the theories are not real (meaning it is implausible to occur or even perform a computerized simulation). Note that Philosophy isn't psuedoscience because they have an established method that is well develop through phenomenology / contemporary philosophy (aka philosophical method based on intuition, gut feeling, perspective, insight...etc psychological phenomenon (but regardless in partial some phenomenon are provable through neuroscience).

So please present some firm mediums such as books and research rather than blatantly presenting controversial topics (e.g. creationism vs evolution).

If you are interested in Religious Studies, I suggest trying to present a possible clear studies on how the religious concepts maybe evolved in different religion to present a clearer picture of Notion. Thanks for your time in reading this --75.154.186.99 (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Morality and Politics

I think this subject is inappropriate for this article, because it repeats some information and presents info on what liberals and conservatives in the US generally think. I don't think this content is harmful, so I'm not removing the whole section for now, but I'd like to see if someone else thinks the section contains no information the article needs that isn't already present elsewhere in the article. Rustyfence (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

article quality and distribution of topics

Sociology articles are a big weakness of Wikipedia's. We tend to acquire commonplace comments and clichés under each possible term which then tend to sit there tagged for cleanup for years.

Check out the following articles:

Value (personal and cultural), Convention (norm), Norm (sociology), Mores, Tradition

and consider how exactly their scope is delimited relative to one another and to this one.

It would be important to have fewer articles, and make sure the ones we keep are short and to the point, directly guiding the reader to the most relevant academic literature on the topic. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Below a submission for an addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Morality in teleology and deontology

In formal ethics morality is used as meaning the 'good' action. A disambiguation can be made however. In teleological ethics the word 'moral' is used as a synonym for ethics. In deontological ethics the word 'moral' is used in a more narrow sense: that act of which one can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law. A remarkable consequence of this is that teleological ethics is immoral from a deontological viewpoint.

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 seperation 'moral' considerations. The scholarly issues are complex, with some writers seeing Kant as more Aristotelian, and Aristotle as more involved with a separate sphere of responsibility and duty, than the simple contrast suggests.

Oxford Dictionary of philosophy, 2008, p240

I will make a reference out of this quote, but we might include this quote, for reference purposes. Let me know if any one has any feedback. --Faust (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs)

Sorry for forgetting the sig... --Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no reactions have been given I will add this under an ethical header. If needs be we can discuss things here after that still. --Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, after reading the introduction I placed the little part there (with a small edit to suit the place in the text). Since the entire heading was already about ethics and a mention of the word usage of the word 'morality' in ethics this seemed prudent. --Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference with definitions immorality and amorality

I had placed a reference with the definitions mentioned aboven, but this has been removed for an unclear reason. The fact is that Kant defines these in his 'Kritik der Reinen Vernunft' and it seems to me that definitions like that should be referred to a source at all times. Now, a user has removed this reference for reasons of inappropriateness. I hereby state that I will replace the reference, unless a really good reason will be given why a reference of a definition should not be given. --Faust (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) This concerns this reference: Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Immanuel Kant, P25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, could you please quote Kant's definitions and specify the reference (for instance, which edition of the Kritik are you talking about?). My main objection however is the fact that Kant held a very specific view on morality. Referring to his particular definitions of related terms in the article's first paragraph, which as I wrote is supposed to be a general introduction to the term "morality", would therefore be inappropriate. Zaspino (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, the entire point Kant is making and why this part of the article is UNCPECIFIC is the difference between im- and a-. The deontological idea of morality that I am sure you are referring to is a specific one, but follows from the meaning of the word. So, you are merely confusing the two issues. It is your removal and comments that are inappropriate. --Faust (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will elaborate a little for your benefit. Something that is a moral is something that has got nothing to do with morality (in the wide sense). Something that is immoral is something that goes against morality (in the wide sense). This leads to a question as to what exactly is moral than. That is up to the understanding of the subject. The subject will try to act in a way it understands as 'good'. However, this may still cause people unintended suffering. This is why Kant separated the hypothetical and the categorical imperative. One may cause harm inadvertently. This subsequently leads to the more narrow approach to morality. It is a strong argument for Kant's idea. Regardless, it proves the differences between his narrow approach to morality and the im- and a- distinction, which is mere linguistics. Kant does use the im- an a- distinction to construct his narrow moral view though. In fact, it is the very meaning of the word from its creation albeit misused and wrongfully interpreted, which shows the importance of separating between the hypothetical and categorical imperative: it reveals the inconsistencies in one's reasons.--Faust (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, an online source I have found:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Amoral

--Faust (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, but I fail to see how it underpins the necessity of referring to the Kritik der reinen Vernunft in the first paragraph of the article. So my objection still stands.

And remember, you claimed that Kant defined the terms "amorality" and "immorality" in his treatise Kritik der reinen Vernunft. That is why you wanted to insert the reference in the first place, isn't it? So just for clarity's sake a renewed request: could you please quote those definitions? Zaspino (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see your problem with my reference. I have given an online source that shows it was Immanuel Kant who said so. The separation can only have come from a paleontologist sine teleologists do not separate immoral and amoral, leading to the fact that immoral and moral are not separated. This is why the difference between the hypothetical and the categorical needed to be formulated, hence only Kant could have done so. I am also saying that I know Kant said so (I have read so myself), in fact Schopenhauer for instance credits him for it. He uses it to get to his idea of free will and will an sich in his World as Will and Representation. The only thing is that the grand total is about 4 pages long. Kant has a tendency to draw things out, you see. I will not retype 4 pages here, nor will I read a number of online pages to find the section.

To me the only problem here is you. It is not the fact that you are unfamiliar with any philosophies at all, but something else. The proof has been given, the source has been given, the place is thereby proven to be appropriate. So, why are you still blocking this reference? It is the first time a reference needed a reference that I have ever heard of by the way, but I humored you regardless. I even gave you some lessons. What is your point of view that blocks you from admitting your mistake?

--Faust (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In the general introduction to the concept of morality you provided two concise and very general definitions of the terms "amorality" and "immorality" with a specific reference to Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft, which I objected to for the reasons stated above. Now it also turns out that, contrary to your earlier claim, the source you referred to (Kant's treatise) doesn't contain any definitions. I mean, let's face it, four pages of long-winding sentences can hardly be considered a proper definition, whichever way you look at it.

By the way, you wrote "nor will I read a number of online pages to find the section." Why not? If you download this and use the search function, it shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to find that section. Just tell me where in the online version of Kant's Kritik the definition of both of the terms starts and where it ends. Zaspino (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

1)I didn't provide the text. I only added the reference since Kant is credited for it, he should be referred to.

2)With that the burden of proof shifts to you. You obviously think Kant is not to be credited with that, so please feel free to back that idea up with proof. If you cannot supply any, I will replace the reference.

3)The search function is flawed. There are 1000000 mentions of the word moral in the critque, but only a few show up.

4)Why don't you answer the question: "what is your point of view"?

--Faust (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1)+2) Your reference to Kant in the lead paragraph of the article would convey the wrong impression that those terms were coined by Kant, or that the definitions were taken directly from Kant's treatise, or that they are exclusively associated with Kant's work.

3) Okay, my bad (I didn't know the google books search function was flawed). But anyway, if you know your way around Kant's work, it shouldn't be much of a problem to find the four pages you referred to above. Suppose you would indeed put back your reference, how then would it enlighten any possible readers if it doesn't direct them to a specific page of Kant's treatise?

4) I don't see what my point of view has got to do with our disagreement. I simply object to irrelevant or faulty references being inserted in a wikipedia article. Zaspino (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Zaspino: Faust wants to insert the reference and therefore the burden of proof lies with him. Furthermore, the distinctions between moral, amoral and immoral were made long before Kant made its entrance on the philosophical scene. The distinction between moral and immoral, for example, is also used within teleological ethics, as this article in the Encyclopedia Brittancia clearly demonstrates. (If this distinction would not apply, teleological ethics would not be ethics at all. Of course it is possible to argue that teleological ethics is not ethics at all, but that is not the way authoritative handbooks of ethics talk about the subject. Encyclopedians are there to represent what authoritative handbooks say, not to refute it). Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a retracing of our steps. You asked for a reference of the reference and I have given it to you. The reference of the reference proves that the definitions were Kantian and that should be enough for you. Since it isn't it is clear your POV is what is in the way. That is why your POV is important. Now, if you think this isn't true, please prove that. If you cannot I will place my reference back again.--Faust (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, I urge you not to put back your reference, since two users (Theobald Tiger and me) strongly object to it. Please try to properly address our complaints instead of focussing on my POV. Zaspino (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Zaspino, I have properly addressed your complaints. Why are you retracing our steps? Apart from that I can only say that even in a crowd of thousand, the truth is still the truth and a lie still a lie. --Faust (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, You have not properly adressed our complaints. Chasing after truths is not an encyclopedic activity. That you can do in your own writings elsewhere. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not replaced the reference as of yet, but it should be there. I will walk another path. --Faust (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Undid revision

I undid the revision of 76.168.95.118. An active denial is a moral consideration, and therefore equal to immorality, as per the definition. --Faust (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing intro to reflect proper definition of amorality

I am requesting an RFC to seek WP:Consensus on the definition of amorality specifically in relation to morality.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) The intro currently reads: "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is a passive indifference toward morality." This sentence should be changed. According to the well-sourced definition of amorality on its own page, amorality can be either of several things (indicated by the word "or"): "Amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." In this article the definition is necessarily restrictive, failing to give full faith to other sources of definitions of amorality. I propose it be changed to instead read "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." "Disregard" in this instance does not refer to immorality for the simple reason that disregard does not positively indicate opposition. This change may be slightly more wordy, but it is the most concise yet clear definition available that does justice to the concept of amorality. Faust, unless you have objections to raise I will change this in an hour or so. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia has no set time limit - it can take days to achieve new consensus. Second, re-adding will be edit-warring. Thank you for starting discussion, but do not re-add (as per WP:BRD) unless new consensus is reached. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I made a mistake per WP:BRD and that my original edit was lacking compared to my new suggestion above. That said, I have already shown that Faust's original objection was patently false as a matter of definition established in the corresponding article on amorality. This is a minor edit to bring the passing reference in this article in line with the sourced definition in the main article and I only failed to mark is as such in case my understanding of the minor edit policy was similarly lacking. I will not add the above-proposed change until Faust comments per policy, but I would at least like to point out that Faust has a history of making random contentious objections to any change in this article, and it is my opinion that his objections should be ignored outright as a matter of definition. The definition of amorality in the intro to this article is clearly lacking, and a fuller definition is supplied and sourced in the main article. Why leave Faust the option of preventing a helpful minor edit, potentially for "days to achieve a new consensus", when there is clearly no issue beyond Faust's petty insistence on undermining the possible legitimacy of amorality as a non-passive viewpoint despite the sourced establishment of such in the main article on amorality? 76.168.95.118 (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the anon here on the definition of amorality. Someone acting immorally would think "I agree that this act is contrary to the correct standards of morality, but I'm doing it anyway." Someone acting amorally would either think nothing and just act, or if he thought anything, he would think "I deny that there are correct standards of morality, so my actions cannot be contradicting them." (Of course these are both just issues of intention; a deontologist or consequentialist, who doesn't care so much about intentions as a virtue ethicist would, might say "that act is immoral", as in "contrary to the correct standards of morality", regardless of whether the perpetrator of the act agrees with those standards or not.) --Pfhorrest (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I am surprised at all of your reactions. The reason for this is because in the proposed change the difference between immorality and amorality will be null and void. Although I am aware that such a confusion is a well known position in this, it should not be in the general declaration of the terms. The reason immorality is defined as amorality is because a certain 'goal' is wielded by the actor. An act is 'good' when it adds towards achieving the goal (a.k.a. the good) and no further interest is taken in the act itself. Since morality has been thought over (and discarded) by the actor it is immoral and not amoral. The expression 'the end justifies the means' applies. Because of this POV the actor has no further interest in examining the act, as long as the POV is achieved. The act only appears amoral to the actor because of the POV (denial). Since it therefore is a POV that makes one come to this reasoning it should be placed in the article as a POV. This has previously been done under the ethical perspectives header. Can everybody agree to that? --Faust (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that amorality is always immorality because a moral person (supposedly you are the standard of such a person) would equate immorality and amorality? This reasoning is fallacious and biased. A non-POV position must define amorality by itself, independent of the meaning of morality - amorality and morality are opposing but not directly opposite, and it is not necessary to assume an objective morality to reject it, which the current definition in this article implies. It is true that a non-amoral person would most likely call an amoral person "immoral", but contrary to your view of the world there is not (and almost surely never will be) consensus on objective morality. Considering this lack of consensus, the only possible non-POV definition is the one I proposed from the amorality article: "...amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." Only if you assume an objective existing moral system can you define amorality as it is currently defined in this article, and to assume such would be biased towards the views of moral realists. 157.242.159.225 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) (76.168.95.118 on a different network)

It sounds like you didn't understand the point I was making, Faust. Lets try this exercise for clarification.

Lets says person P does some action X (or declares his intent to do X), and then someone else asks "but is X moral?" I am saying that:

• If P answers "yes", then P is doing X from a moral intent (he intends to act in accordance with morality).
• If P answers "no", then P is doing X from an immoral intent (he intends to act against morality).
• If P answers either "I don't know" or "I don't care", then P is doing X from an amoral intent (he does not have any concern for morality either way).

You seem to want to put "I don't care" together with "no" under the category of "immoral". Would you say that is an accurate description of your position? --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@ A forest:I am glad you see things my way Pfhorest. That is my point exactly. What you miss is that when a person evaluates a moral and then decides to disregard that. That is immorality. Amorality is when no moral is concerned in the act (or reasoning). However, humans always evaluate their actions. Choosing to let a certain principle of action be something that one does not will others to do unto the oneself is a conscious choice against morality. Amorality is in that sense something else entirely: something not concerned with 'the good', but with the 'the well' or something, however, this is very much in dispute since all acts are weighed in our minds, conscious or not. So, your entire example is moot. Let us set up an example that is actually to the point:

Lets says person P is evaluating action X. I am saying that:

• If P thinks X is moral, than he intends to act in accordance with morality.
• If P think X is immoral and wants to go on with it anyway, than he intends to act in contradiction to morality.
• If P doesn't know or doesn't care and still wants to go on with it, than he intends to act in contradiction to morality.

However, if the entire concept never entered P's mind something else has happened, than P is amoral. So, thinking something over in an ethical way and than deciding that that consideration is not important is, in fact, immoral. Hence my points.

@157.242.159.225: I am suggesting that a conscious evaluation of an act, with the conclusion of not caring if or not wanting that one would be treated in the same manner is immoral. And I am saying that this is one of the factors involved (denial) in upholding a certain 'goal' as 'the good'...as the endresult (as stated above). Therefore it is a POV. That is also how I know you are biased.

NOTE: One might simply consider the lingual difference between a- and un-. I am having trouble coming up with a good example, but I hope you will bear with me.

Examples:

• To undo something is to make something naught what once was: the opposite of what it is.
• To be agnostic is not to have gnosticism exist for one.

The difference is a--> not present, un- (or im-)-->the opposite of the present.

Any dictionary can suffice as a source.

ADDENDUM: Kant introduced this into ethics, from which he constructed the more narrow idea of morality (as a foundation for his ideas). However, this lingual construction has always been present and that it is, in fact, the sudden disappearance of this difference in ethics that is the symptom (and evidence) of the POV. IN ANY CASE it would be very strange to remove the separation between the terms from the defining of the terms..

I hope it will be clear to all those involved that this apparent chance in discussion is actually a continuation of the discussion above and that I have already sourced my position, but that the others involved have not. This was imply another way to get what they wanted, by means of an anonymous source even. Let us not retrace our steps again and let the people who what to contest linguistics as well as valid sources come up with a good counter argument with a source or forever hold their peace.

STIPULATION: A wikipedia article cannot be considered a source.

--Faust (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your grammar is atrocious so it is very difficult to understand what you are trying to say, or even to tell if you understood me to begin with. I gather that English is not your first language (you are Dutch yes?) but when you condescend with edit summaries like "The last lesson I will give for this topic" it makes me much less inclined to try to parse your scrawl. Also, please stop accusing me of bias; aside from WP:Assume good faith, I am a notorious champion of NPOV on moral philosophy issues around here. I'm not even sure what bias you think I have: I'm not saying amorality should be left out of the article, nor that amorality is the same thing as immorality. I'm just saying that I agree with the anon user here about whether "I don't care whether this is moral or not" counts as amoral or immoral. You and I both agree that not knowing whether something is moral or not counts as amorality, and intending to do something one considers to be not moral counts as immorality. It's just on the question of whether disregarding the question of whether something is moral or not counts as amorality or immorality, that we differ.

You bring up agnosticism as a parallel example on the simple linguistic branch of your argument. I think that makes a very good analogy. If the prefix "a-" worked the way you seem to imply it does when applied to "morality", only people who had never heard of the concept of God would count as "agnostic". But plenty of people weigh the arguments for and against God's existence and aren't persuaded either way, they don't know even though they've thought about it, and they still count as agnostic. Plenty other people hear the arguments for and against and decide it's not an important question to them, they don't know, and they don't care to know -- and they're still agnostic.

Likewise, a person who acted without ever stopping to think about whether his intended actions were right or wrong would be amoral, as you say. But so would a person who stopped, wondered about it, couldn't decide whether his intended actions would be right or wrong, but went ahead and did something anyway not knowing whether it was right or wrong. And so would someone who was asked whether his intended actions were right or wrong and decided he didn't need to worry about that. Only if he stopped, asked himself, "is this right or wrong", decided "it's wrong", and then went ahead and purposefully did it anyway, would he be acting from an immoral intent.

Of course, the action itself is going to be either moral or immoral; amoral actors, by disregarding concern for morality, end up committing a lot of immoral acts. But the amorality occurs in the intention, not in the action; and someone can simply refuse to consider the morality of their actions, and be just as amoral as someone who was unsure of the morality of their actions or someone who never thought to consider the morality of their actions. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you ask for dictionary citations, here are some wikt:amoral#Adjective (sense #2): "(of people) not believing in or caring for morality and immorality". Everything that dictionary.com can find] agrees, e.g. "having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person." (emphasis mine). Everything else that google can find seems to equate amoral with immoral, which I agree is incorrect. Incidentally, that dictionary.com entry suggests that "amoral" was "First used by Robert Louis Stephenson (1850-1894) as a differentiation from immoral", not by Kant as you suggest. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pshorest, before I respond properly first these two:

1) Are you the user posting under IP 157.242.159.225? Because I called the reasoning of that user bias, not the user tself, although it might be understood as following from that. I did so because I was called bias, while my position is the only unbiased position in this mess, which is why I support that position. Anyway I did not call you bias, as far as I know, although it seems that you are not separating the reasoning-in-itself from the quantification thereof, leading to the biased position again. Anyway, if I am making a claim and I give sources for that and I give sources for the sources, while the other does nothing of a kind and is merely stating a theory which supports POV's and is unwilling to leave the unfounded position I think it to be very strange.

2) I think my grammar is not so bad. I get the remark more often though. Unvaried by people not able to see through paradoxes. So, my second question is if you understand what ontology is and how this creates paradoxes. From there you will understand my point in this and the construction of my sentences.

--Faust (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, I have already informed you that I am both 157.242.159.225 and 76.168.95.118; the user Pfhorrest is not me but it seems that in calling my reasoning biased you would include all you share that same reasoning, including Pfhorrest as well as myself and any dictionary. I do not see this issue as one of sources: Kant can say whatever he wants about morals, but this is a linguistic and rational issue that can only be debating using reason and possibly dictionaries as sources. I still fail to see any bias in my own reasoning: I simply think that there are two ways to consider this issue, from the position of a moral realist and the position of a moral skeptic. To avoid bias I will consider the potential arguments of both.

The moral realist would argue that there are objective morals. From this comes three categories: the moral person, the immoral person, and the amoral person. Given a consideration of action, the moral person decides that the action is in line with realistic morals and acts accordingly, the immoral person decides the action is not in line with realistic morals but still does not act accordingly, and the amoral person decides that no consideration is necessary because he has passively failed to notice the moral contention.

The moral skeptic would argue that there are not objective morals (but that there may or may not be subjective for himself only). From this again comes the same three categories: the moral person, the immoral person, and the amoral person. Given a consideration of action, the moral person decides that the action is in line with their personal moral system and acts accordingly, the immoral person decides the action is not in line with their personal moral system but still does not act accordingly, and the amoral person decides that no consideration is necessary because he actively rejects a personal moral system.

Thus we are given three choices in writing this article.

(1) Assume the position of a moral realist, and write that amorality is passive and falls under the category of immorality. This is biased to the POV of a moral realist.

(1) Assume the position of a moral skeptic, and write that amorality is active and does not fall under the category of immorality. This is biased to the POV of a moral skeptic.

(3) Assume neither position and include a definition that covers both possibilities, leaving the reader to apply whatever filtering devices he wishes: "Amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs."' I contend that this last option is the only possible non-biased option, because it covers both the view of a moral realist and that of a moral skeptic. On what grounds do you disagree?

-76.168.95.118 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I second the anon's comments above, but at Faust:

• My apologies for thinking you were accusing me of bias, I did not see your "@" addressing that comment to the anon here, and thought it was a continuation of your comments toward me. Note however that you did say "That is also how I know you are biased", which sure sounds to me like you were calling him biased, not just one bit of reasoning put forth by him.
• Perhaps calling your grammar bad was too narrow; it is not just your grammar per se, but your overall sentence construction and the words you use, which makes the things you're trying to say very opaque and difficult to parse. For example when you say "Unvaried by people not able to...", I imagine you meant what a native English speaker would probably write as "Invariably, by people who are unable to...". I don't bring this up to attack you personally, you undoubtedly speak much better English than I speak Dutch; I just mean to flag that it is very difficult to understand you, which may be a source of some of our apparent disagreement here.
• And I am very familiar with the subject of ontology, but I don't get your reference to "how this creates paradoxes", and what being able to "see through paradoxes" has to do with understanding you. Are you claiming to be speaking in paradoxes? And what has that to do with ontology?

--Pfhorrest (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Ip&Pfhorest: Apologies, I am losing my patience with Zaspino and Theobald, who have followed me here to continue a dispute from nl.wiki. I guess I have taken this out on you two. My impatience is definitely my shortcoming.

Furthermore: I do not agree with your assessment that passive amorality is equal to immorality. You two are taking into account if an actor believes in morals as having a value in ethics or not. This is improper for an introduction to the terms in my opinion. I will elaborate below in two points:

1) An introduction to the terms should be clear and state the separation. That is what it does now. I think it should remain that way and separations should be made in disambiguantions in this article.

2) Depending on what one thinks holds value one can come to different opinions on what is immoral and what is amoral. The general understanding of the term remains the same though. Although I agree with the separation you are making I am firmly of the belief that we should elaborate said positions below the introduction of terms, as is done now. Depending on ones belief in the entire idea of morals one can come to a different idea of what is immoral or amoral clearly.

ANYWAY, the entire argument is about what goes where, not a difference of opinion of definitions between the three of us if I understand correctly. However, I do feel as if the only reason this change was proposed was to counter my Kant reference, but I may be mistaken. Note to Pfhorest: Kant died before the person you say is credited with the distinction was born. Other than that I don't care about the referece that much. I just thought it nice to give credit to whom deserves it. --Faust (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I also don't much care about who coined the term, I just noticed that while looking for definitions and thought it interesting. Perhaps that person first used "amoral" in English, since Kant was writing in German and (correct me if I'm wrong) I doubt the same word is used in German?

Anyway, I think the issue here is one about definitions, not just about "what goes where". As far as I can see we are all agreeing that:

• "amoral" and "immoral" definitely do not mean the same thing as each other
• the article should say what the difference between them is
• the article should not take a stance on what particular rules constitute morality (i.e. which, if any, moral judgements are correct)

The question at hand is whether refusing to make a moral judgement (actively ignoring moral considerations) counts as "amoral", or only neglecting to make a moral judgement (passively being ignorant of moral considerations) counts. Note that refusing to make a moral judgement is not the same as purposefully acting against one's own moral judgements.

To elaborate on my earlier example: Let's say that person P is about to perform action X. Then, consider all the possible scenarios:

1. P stops to ask himself if X is a moral thing to do; then either:
   1. P decides that X is a moral thing to do
   2. Or, P decides that X is not a moral thing to do.
   3. Or, P can't decide whether or not X is a moral thing to do.
   4. Or, P decides that there is no correct answer to the question of whether or not X is a moral thing to do.
2. Or, P doesn't stop at all to wonder whether or not X is a moral thing to do.

Then after one of those things, P does X.

Now, regardless or whether or not X really is the moral thing to do under whatever system or morality (if any) happens to be the right one, the question is whether P did X out of moral intentions, immoral intentions, or amoral intentions.

I, and all the definitions I cited above, say that 1.1 is moral, 1.2 is immoral, and all the rest are amoral; whether P can't decide on an answer, P doesn't think there is an answer, or P just didn't think to ask the question to begin with, either way P is acting without first deciding whether or not X is right or wrong.

You seem to be saying that 1.1 is moral, 2 is amoral, and... all the rest are immoral? That part I'm not clear on. You seem to think that 1.4 is the same thing as 1.2, but then what about 1.3? And do you see how 1.4 and 1.2 are different situations, even if you classify them as same type of moral evaluation (be it amoral or immoral)? --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@IP: Kindly do not edit the article before reaching contention. I undid your revision because I think that you misinterpret the entire thing, or maybe I am. Above I did not have the idea there was a real difference of opinion between us, but now I do. Morality is not about the rulebase, it is about the will for acting in such a way that one thinks everybody should act. A set of morals is a rulebase and therefore cannot become moral. Wielding a rule that should apply always is that inequality because acts should alway be seen in the light of the intent. So, the point is not that the moral should be known to everybody, or to be defined at all, just that one can will everybody to act in that manner in that situation. So, immorality is not willing that universality and amorality is never having thought of it, or it never having applied. Exactly what is stated now btw. Are we on the same page? --Faust (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just a matter of wording? I agree that the intro should contain short definitions that can be expanded upon lower in the article or in other articles. But as I and several others have pointed out, this definition is too short. It is not clear because it drops half the definition, which in my proposal is covered by the word or. As you say, "one can come to different opinions on what is immoral and what is amoral," but given that we have two directly opposed definition of "amoral," one which considers a position of moral realism and one which considers a position of moral skepticism, we must include both in the briefest way possible. This is accomplished by the definition in the intro to the article for amorality. The meanings of those two opposing viewpoints are important and discussion of the relative value of each should be reserved to the body of the article, but the definition as it stands now is incomplete because it ignores one of the two possible definitions of amorality. I do not wish to have a philosophical or ontological discussion with you right now, and this is hardly the appropriate place. Can you accept that and allow the change to be made? 76.168.95.118 (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have followed this as it has come to my attention through my browsing of random pages. I believe the edit by 79.182.17.168 appears to make sense from a prospective of leaving out the part that Faust finds objectionable but includes parts of the definition supported by all other users, including myself, 79.182.17.168, and what appears to be Pfhorrest and 76.168.95.118/157.242.159.225.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@IP, I have asked for a block for you since you are starting an edit-war and are refusing to make your case here. I will continue the discussion with Pfhorest, who is interested in the subject and reasonable in his argumentation. Since he and you have the same opinion according to you, your case can be made by him without edit warring.

@Pfhorrest: I will reply to your argments after some stretching and situps. --Faust (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, I am not the other IPs. I am an anon who has regularly edited articles by locating articles in need of editing solely via the Random Page tool. It seems as if my IP address was switched prior to this edit, something out of my control and up to my ISP (Verizon). I wish to reiterate that I do not believe I broke WP:3RRand a block request is a bit premature. In addition, using Whois shows substantial difference between the IP of mine and the original change, which you will note originated in Israel. I was soley acting with concensus at the time, which is also why I put up an RfC on this article: to shore up a better consensus.173.58.234.86 (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• RfC response. I agree with the anon that the less restrictive definition is preferable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• RfC response. I disagree with the anon that the less restrictive definition is preferable since with that the separation between the terms is lost. --Faust (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The core of the matter: ontology

As Pfhorrest said:

1. P stops to ask himself if X is a moral thing to do; then either:
   1. P decides that X is a moral thing to do
   2. Or, P decides that X is not a moral thing to do.
   3. Or, P can't decide whether or not X is a moral thing to do.
   4. Or, P decides that there is no correct answer to the question of whether or not X is a moral thing to do.
2. Or, P doesn't stop at all to wonder whether or not X is a moral thing to do.

I suggest we all understand that there is an ontological difference going on here. On the first level we see the question of thinking of morality or no and at the second level we see the question why an actor who is thinking about morals decides to act according to a universality or not. This is why I am saying that in the introduction of terms there should be made mention of the terms amoral and immoral (as opposed to moral) and that the second level are positions, which should be discussed below that, as POV's...which is what it is like now...

NOTE: In response to Pfhorrest : I am saying that 1.1 is moral, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 are immoral because morality has been contemplated and that the only immoral position is that of 2. This is also what the words amorality and immorality mean. After that statement we can discuss positions (special understandings of certain terms) to come to unique definitions of such words. --Faust (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I presume you mean "the only amoral position is that of 2". If that is so, then I am at least clear on where you stand now.

However, you can't just flat-out state "this is what the words amorality and immorality mean", because that is what the debate is about. I cited several dictionary definitions above suggesting that things like 1.3 and 1.4 count as amoral just as much as 2 does. All I've seen from you is a claim to the effect that Kant says that 1.3 and 1.4 are instead immoral, without a direct quote or a link to the passage where he claims such. Even then, that is only a testament to what Kant considers immoral or amoral; it is not a neutral definition of what those words simply mean, as you keep claiming.

But in any case, even if there are dictionary sources to the effect that only 2 counts as amoral, I have concretely shown that there are other sources which claim otherwise, so the definition in the article cannot just state your position conclusively without violating NPOV. The anon IP editor's version (that you reverted) which used "or" language covers both possibilities neutrally: it means at least one of these things, possibly but not necessarily both. For that matter, so do the dictionary definitions I've already cited: they only say that "amoral" is sometimes used to mean 2 and sometimes 1.3 or 1.4, since dictionaries only document the use of language and don't prescribe what use is correct. That, as you say, would be a subject for discussion further down in the article (or really, for discussion on Amorality or Amoralism rather than here at all).

In short: your preferred version says "immorality is X, and amorality is Y", and then further down in the article "amorality is sometimes considered Y and sometimes considered Z". That makes the short summary in the lede not a neutral summary of the article: it should say "Immorality is X, and amorality is Y or Z", and then further down discuss who says it's Y and who says it's Z in further detail. But if there are some sources which say it's Z, and the lede only says it's Y, then the lede is not neutral and needs to be fixed, like the anon IP editor's version did. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY. Thank you, Pfhorrest, for your continued dedication to clearing up this issue. Now, the two of us and a few other users keep making this point, and Faust keeps countering that the "or" definition does not belong in the intro. At what point does this discussion end? I am not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, but Wikipedia:Consensus#Improper_consensus-building has two passages I find relevant:

(1) "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace."

The important part of this passage is "existing documentation in the project namespace." Nobody has questioned the definition of amorality in that article's intro - in fact, the talk page is empty besides templates. The alternative to dispute resolution, a vote, seems pointless as not one editor has supported Faust.

(2) "One or more editors who oppose a viewpoint that many other editors support may engage in tendentious editing practices where they refuse to allow consensus they don't agree with and are willing to perpetuate arguments indefinitely, effectively "filibustering" the discussion. This may eventually result in a "consensus" in their favor simply by outlasting proponents of the opposing viewpoint, but this cannot reasonably be considered a true consensus."

My understanding is that consensus is properly reached by convincing argument, not majority opinion, but this talk page is a testament to an ongoing battle of Faust v. community that started long before my edit. Would I be wrong if I interpreted this rule to mean that I can go ahead and make the edit anyway, as only one editor objects and does so on grounds that nobody else has claimed to find convincing? The issue can be reopened in the future if Faust offers more convincing support or a number of other editors weigh in on his side of the discussion, but right now Faust's reverts do seem to be little more than filibustering. I mean no disrespect to Faust, and I am in no rush, but this is clearly going nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.95.118 (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Pfhorrest's reasoning seems objective and watertight to me, whereas Faust shows a tendency to present his Kantian take on the matter as the neutral approach. Anyway, there appears to be enough support for the proposed change to be inserted in the lead paragraph once and for all. Zaspino (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have decided that I will no longer participate in the editing of this page at this time. I wish to state that I still agree with the edit that the Israeli IP made if the third part of the definition is so objectionable. I do believe that conformity must exist between the definition of amorality on the page morality and at amorality. I also believe that consensus can be reached with greater participation from the RfC. I sadly am not the most qualified in philosophy and as such this is a bit over-technical now and believe that RfC and help from the Philosophy Wikiproject will do this article good. But as far as definitions go, the clarity offered by the the other anon's and Pfhorrest definition is what all of Wikipedia should strive for. And due to the what is likely to become edit warring, it seems compromise including two of the three parts the majority seems to desire (Israeli IP) is the best way forward for now. But I won't make that change myself.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Pfhorrest: My argument was the meaning of a- and un-. any dictionary will do. I have seen no refutations of this argument, only remarks without any sources. So, for now I would urge any and all individuals who claim the definition of amorality and immorality otherwise, to refute this linguistic fact.

NOTES:

1) I have dropped my idea of a reference to Kant since I really don't care about that reference.

2) You were right Pfhorrest, I meant Amoral and not IMmoral.

@IP: I responed at the block request. If I am incorrect I apologize, but I find that hard to believe.

--Faust (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a?&qsrc=

a-6: var. of an-1 before a consonant, meaning “not,” “without”: amoral; atonal; achromatic.

NOT or WITHOUT. In amoral, this would mean NOT moral or WITHOUT morals. Your definition covers NOT, synonymous with immoral, but it does not consider WITHOUT

Without: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/without

with·out: –preposition:

1. with the absence, omission, or avoidance of; not with; with no or none of; lacking: without help; without shoes; without her helping me; without him to help.

2.free from; excluding: a world without hunger.

3.not accompanied by: Don't go without me.

4.at, on, or to the outside of; outside of: both within and without the house or the city.

5.beyond the compass, limits, range, or scope of (now used chiefly in opposition to within ): whether within or without the law.

To cover all of these, we must define amoral as NOT moral (immoral) OR, via the different definitions of without included in the definition of a-, absence, omission, avoidance of, lacking, excluding, or not accompanied by. Only the definition from the intro to amoral covers ALL of these - your definition, which is currently used in the article, does not cover all of these. Settled? 157.242.159.225 (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IP, you are misquoting me. I am clearly separating between a- and im- (or un-). The difference is difficult to voice (because of the close relation of without and counter in common language) in a few words, but is that a- means without or not in the equation (so to speak) and im- (or un-) means to counter, or oppose: actively. Your definition is incorrect and you can check any and all dictionaries for that. Your own source actually proves it, but is unclear because of the above reason.

The examples given by Pfhorrest are much more to the point than yours, so I will elaborate with his again. The only one being a- is the one that has nothing to with (morals). From certain unique definitions of other terms involved we can conclude that there are other unique meanings of the words amoral and immoral, but those are positions (POV's) and should be discussed below or on other pages. At least not with a general introduction of the terms. I hope you can understand my point. If not, kindly elaborate why you think a POV should be voiced in a general introduction of the terms. --Faust (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: After consulting the amorality page I must conclude that it states exactly what I am stating. --Faust (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, not every person posting using an IP is the same person, and I demand you stop harassing me with accusations to the contrary on the admin noticeboard. I suggest you drop this right now - your confusion over the difference between a-, im-, and un- clearly results from your difficulties with English. Multiple editors including myself, several IP users, and Phorrest have already addressed your complaints several times. We have reached a consensus and you are filibustering. Do whatever you want to nl.wiki but leave language matters on en.wiki to people who know what they're talking about. This page currently has an intro definition for amorality that matches the page amorality, as I suggested several days ago. Do not change it back, as you are the only user now involved in edit warring. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, who ever all of the sudden appearing IP's are I do not care. I just have very serious doubt as to the objectivity of these editors since the content that is now being changed has stood unchallenged for months, but when I add a reference for it suddenly unregistered editors appear from 'all over the place', trying to add content without even giving A source for their claims. Before this content is going to be changed, I would like to see at least ONE source (preferably a credible one) before we reach consensus. Another wikipedia article cannot be the source for this.

Now, claims on the quality of my English I will ignore. My English is nigh perfect. Never in my life have I had a lower grade than an A. Perhaps yo should reconsider your own. I do admit my use of the English language being uncommon though.

SO, the issue is that a- and im- have separate meanings. I am aware that this is often obscured by the usage in common language. An argument can be made for the POV of misuse of language and the change of meaning by the usage of the majority, which has lead to the definitions of some theories that confuse the separation of morality and ethics and think the words mean the same thing. However, I have not even seen a source for this POV.

I am disappointed Pfhorrest. I thought you were different.

--Faust (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose a different choice of words here. On the amorality page the general idea becomes clear because of the example given, but we may choose to change the choice of words there as well. The idea is as follows:

"amorality is an absence of a set of moral belief, but, depending on several points of view, can also be interpreted as indifference towards, or disregard of a specific set of moral beliefs."

Lat me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Faust wrote above: "I would like to see at least ONE source" and "I have not even seen a source" for the inclusive definition of amorality he is arguing against. However, several people have already given a variety of sources. The phrasing that was imported from Amorality has the following citations attached to it over there (which admittedly should have been, but were not, imported when the phrasing was; although the existence of these sources there was noted here earlier):

• Johnstone, Megan-Jane (2008). Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 102–103. ISBN 978-0729538732. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Superson, Anita (2009). The Moral Skeptic. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–159. ISBN 978-0195376623. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• "Amorality". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 2010-06-18.

Earlier in this thead I cited several sources from online dictionaries myself:

• The same [Dictionary.com] link as above, which reads in part "having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong"
• Wiktionary, which reads "(of people) not believing in or caring for morality and immorality"

None of these are claiming that "amoral" and "immoral" mean the same thing, as you seem to think we are arguing; they merely disagree with you (who have still not provided a source for your claim) about which of those two categories certain types of attitudes belong in. Looking back through the talk history, I notice a source that you cited early on as evidence that "moral" and "immoral" mean different things (which, I emphasize again, no one is disputing here). Even that source which you cited acknowledges what we're all saying, in fact the bulk of what it has to say about amorality is about the sense which you deny:

• [WordIQ]: "amoral persons either do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (see the so-called Antisocial personality disorder) or else do not subscribe to any moral code. This latter may in turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. Someone may maintain that he will do as he likes and let others do the same, if they so desire, without turning this into a general principle as, for example, Kant's categorical imperative would require. Because whoever says so only expresses his personal preference or informs about the way he is going to act, the position is consistent. An amoralist might also make a stronger point that moral systems are arbitrary and unfounded on the whole, which is an epistemic or anthropological claim and not an ethical one. For this principled sort of amoralist, see Stirner and to a degree Marquis de Sade."

Since you have yet to provide a single source (aside from original research derived from dictionary definitions of the prefixes "a-" and "im-" and vague references to something Kant said somewhere) for your claim that "amoral" means only "passive indifference toward morality" and not the more inclusive "absence of, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs", I am going to revert again to that version (and add in all the sources that should have been in there before). Since 76.168.95.118, 79.182.17.168, 173.58.234.86, User:Zaspino, and I, have all instituted this inclusive version (or close variants thereof) and you keep reverting to your restrictive version, and you have yet to name a reliable source restricting the definition of amorality to what you say it is, you are the one who is edit warring; specifically, you are engaging in WP:Tendentious editing, in particular "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions". --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC) ADDENDUM: In the spirit of compromise this reinstated version will include qualifying language similar to Faust's suggested compromise in the subsection above, but without giving preferential treatment to his favored element of the disjunction. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pfhorrest, I am glad we agree on what annoys. I hope nobody will behave in such a manner in this dispute again. Secondly, I am also glad we agree on the fact that sources should be given. I have given a source for my source. I dropped the interest in it though, since I think it is even more important that a general introduction of the term should be objective, and impartial. In my opinion the proposed change is partial.

To argue my case I will use all of your own sources. They all state that Amoral is that act, of which the actor has not over thought morality in any way, as opposed to immoral, which is the active refusal to act according to a specific moral code. By choice of words this can be obscured though.

However, if these definitions are correct to you, than all we have to do is argue about the way it is going to be said.

Please, continue arguing and do not let Theobald, Zaspino and IP's get you anxious enough to behave in said annoying manner.

--Faust (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To be specific, please look into what your own sources are saying concerning the difference between immorality and amorality in the sense that the choice of words concerning indifference is always supported by the remark not considering being amoral. The reason this is being done is because misinterpretations because of POV's leads to a strange choice of words. That is why the specifications are called for (and thus answered) in all sources given. This is my argument, nothing more and nothing less. As sources I give all your won sources and Kant and Schopenhauer to boot. --Faust (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, lets look at the source you provided, [WordIQ], which as I mentioned above goes into the greatest detail on the kind of amorality which you seem to be saying should not count as amorality. I'm going to keep the words exactly the same, plus my own emphasis again, but break it into bullets for clarity:

amoral persons either

1. do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (see the so-called Antisocial personality disorder) or else
2. do not subscribe to any moral code.

This latter may in turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. Someone may maintain that he will do as he likes and let others do the same, if they so desire, without turning this into a general principle as, for example, Kant's categorical imperative would require. Because whoever says so only expresses his personal preference or informs about the way he is going to act, the position is consistent. An amoralist might also make a stronger point that moral systems are arbitrary and unfounded on the whole, which is an epistemic or anthropological claim and not an ethical one. For this principled sort of amoralist, see Stirner and to a degree Marquis de Sade."

What you seem to be arguing against including is the second kind there. These two points are also what I interpret Dictionary.com's "unaware of or indifferent to" language to mean, and Wiktionary's "not believing in or caring for" seems like it could mean either #1 and #2 here, or just two variants of #2. ("Not believing in" can be a purposeful choice, e.g. plenty of atheists choose not to believe in God, it's not like they've just never heard of him).

It sounds, from your response to my five-part breakdown earlier, like you want the article to say that only people to whom it never occurred to wonder if something was moral or not count as "amoral"; but only the first disjunct above describes that. The part everyone else is trying to get inclusively mentioned (i.e. we want amorality to be defined as either what you're saying, or this other thing) is the "principled sort of amoralist" who intentionally "do[es] not subscribe to any moral code", believing that "moral systems are arbitrary and unfounded on the whole". (All quotes from your source above). That type of attitude, we all agree, is not the same as purposefully acting against a moral code, which we all agree counts as "immoral" rather than "amoral".

You seem to be saying that that second kind of sense is a "mistaken" or "POV" sense, and so should be ignored, or at best noted further down the article; but notable people (Stirner and Marquis de Sade noted in your source, and others noted, with reliable citations, at Amoralism#History) have held to this sense, have held that point-of-view, and so if you are attempting to exclude it on the grounds that that point of view is incorrect, then you are in violation of WP:NPOV. A neutral definition must be inclusive of all notable points of view; it cannot state one point of view as simple fact and then qualify another equally notable point of view as merely someone's opinion. It's not as if your point of view is broad scientific consensus and the other is fringe pseudoscience; both are merely the opinions of different philosophers and so must be treated equally in this article. We (everyone here but you) agree that the definition in the lede of this article must be inclusive of both senses, yet you persist in trying to exclude all but the one sense which you consider the only correct one. That is POV-pushing, not what we are doing. Since you seem to be a fan of psychoanalysis, might I suggest that perhaps you are projecting your own characteristics onto the rest of us? --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at this article's history page: really Faust? Is it possible to get Faust's account banned from editing this article, and restricted to activity on the talk page only? He clearly has a history of pushing his own viewpoint, ignoring consensus, and edit-warring to the extreme. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: It is not me that is doing so...All of you are... --Faust (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagged "variously" as weasel-words

The word "variously" is self-evident in having a definition that includes the word "or," and further is not in line with the cited sources. I contend that the word "variously" adds nothing to the article and should be removed, but I tagged rather than edited to allow for a period of discussion. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's redundant, but I don't see how it's out of line with the citations, and I certainly don't see how it's weasel words. I don't strongly object to its removal, but I think it makes it clearer that the following list is a disjunction of various different things meant by "amorality", and not all meant to be different ways of saying the same thing.

Speaking of being in line with the sources, however, I was thinking that perhaps we should change the list to ""unawareness of, indifference toward, disbelief in, or apathy toward..." to better match the quoted sources from dictionary.com and wiktionary, which say respectively "unaware or indifferent" and "not believing or caring". --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the weasel tag doesn't fit perfectly, but its the best fit to describe the problem I had in reading it. You can remove the tag if you think that's best now that this discussion is open. Pfhorrest, I support your rendition because it follows the cited sources. In addition, your rendition has more clearly distinct categories. However, I think "indifference toward" and "apathy toward" are synonymous, so I suggest dropping one or the other. In such a case, as the definition would come directly from two sources that share a part of the definition and each provide an extra part the other doesn't, I would support the inclusion of the word variously (but with the current wording I think it still applies). 76.168.95.118 (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed about redundancy. I'll change it to "unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in..." then, and remove the weasel tag since you (if I understand you) support "variously" with that new wording. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Once and for All

Okay, apparently this is a difficult thing to grasp, so I am going to be clear about this once and for all. The only reason it is said of amorality that an individual does not subscribe to a moral code (or words of similar meaning) is because an act can be amoral when it had been PREVIOUSLY decided to not consider a certain set of morals. Therefore an act can be amoral at a certain moment if at that moment that morality has not been considered. The reason this is specifically mentioned is because of the ambiguity of the issue when morals have been considered and dropped (previously) and not considered (actually). Since it is actually not considered it is called amoral.

All of the five cited sources have this in common. Please check. If there are any difficulties with this, please discuss them here and do not prolong the edit-war that all of you seem intent to wage.

I was just watching 'The reality of the virtual', in which Zizek is giving credit to Kant for just this particular distinction (a- versus im-). He notes Kant did this in his early works. It is known as the distinction between negative judgment and indefinite judgment. In this movie mentioned around the 47th minute. The example given is ' You aren't human' and 'You are inhuman'. A funnier one might be 'You are not dead' and 'You are undead'.

The thing of it is that one can negate a predicate or not affirm a predicate. This difficulty comes into play when there is no opposite of a term, like good and bad for instance. Not good or not bad exist, but ungood is superfluous (and therefore does not exist). The suffix has no more part to play.

Anyway, I will await some studied responses. --Faust (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, what is it exactly about the current version which you think goes against that explanation you give in the first paragraph of this sentence?

Also, what is it that you think goes against the cited sources, considering the current words come directly from the cited sources?

And once again, nobody is disputing that there is a difference between amoral and immoral. We're disputing which of those categories certain things count as. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is that this part "indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles" is amoral only if this was done in a previous reasoning, leading to not considering morality in the actual reasoning. Therefore it is misleading in the sense that it appears to point towards the thought that immorality and amorality are equal to each other when one simply does not will that the maxim under discussion should be universally applied. I under stand this to be a valid position, but not an impartial definition. Hence my ontological statement and proposal, which the article does in the undisputed version. I hope this is clear since I will be out the coming period. --Faust (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's really simple here. I'm not interested in debating the actual philosophy with you: you can't communicate clearly enough for that to be worth my time. All that matter is whether the text in the article is supported by the sources.

Dictionary.com says "unaware or indifferent", and Wiktionary says "not believing or caring". The text of my version of the article, citing these sources (and others which agree with them in a longer-winded way), says "unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in". Interpret all those words however you want, but they are the words directly from the sources, so there is no way you can possibly claim that the sources do not support them.

Furthermore, if you agree that it is a valid (by which I hope you mean notable and well-sourced) position, then it must be represented and cannot simply be discarded. My version says "variously defined as" to allow for the definition to include any but not necessarily all of the following disjunctions. So "unawareness of or indifference to" is covered by that. "Indifference to or disbelief in" is covered by that. "Unawareness or disbelief in" is covered by that. "Indifference" is not qualified so it could be "passive" or "active" as you choose. You are the one trying to exclude what even you consider a "valid" definition, in favor of your one preferred definition; my version is inclusive of your definition and others, all well-sourced. Therefore my version is the impartial one, not yours.

And finally, please stop calling it the "undisputed" version. It was the version before a change, but it is now disputed by everyone but you. Both versions are currently disputed: mine by you, yours by everyone else. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

History links for everyone's reference

I've just pulled together a nice easy list of links for anyone wondering about the history of this dispute in the article space itself, who doesn't want to wade through it all one step at a time:

• [2] 76.168.95.118 adds
• [3] Faust reverts
• [4] 76.168.95.118 reinstates addition
• [5] Faust reverts
• [6] 79.182.17.168 compromises
• [7] Faust reverts
• [8] 173.58.234.86 reinstates compromise
• [9] Faust reverts
• [10] Zaspino reinstates compromise
• [11] Faust reverts
• [12] Pfhorrest reinstates compromise
• [13] Faust reverts
• [14] Pfhorrest further compromises plus sources
• [15] Faust reverts
• [16] 193.41.42.13 reinstates sourced version
• [17] Faust reverts
• [18] Zaspino reinstates sourced version
• [19] Faust reverts
• [20] Pfhorrest reinstates sourced version
• [21] Ohnoitsjamie reverts
• [22] Zaspino reinstates sourced version

--Pfhorrest (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that everybody can see that the discussion concerning my addition of a reference was already running on the TALK page and that the entire issue started with my adding of a reference. Please, do not be bias... --Faust (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned that was a separate issue from this. Zaspino questioned the relevance/support of your Kant source to the passage, but nobody was disputing the content of the passage at that time. The content dispute began when 76.168.95.118 expanded the passage. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Morality and ethics

Completely apart from all of the above hubbub, I would like to suggest that the third "definition" of Morality, and the "Ethical perspectives" section, be merged together into one section about the relationship between ethics and morality.

My first thought was that the contents of the "Ethical perspectives" section really belonged as a part of the third "definition"; but that seemed too long. Then I noticed that the source for the split definitions is the SEP article on "Definition of Morality", which only mentioned the first two; and the history of this article shows it was originally only those two, then someone added the third point.

I think the relation between the different senses of "ethics" and "morals" or "morality" are definitely worthy of note, but I don't think they belong in the lede there alongside the descriptive and normative senses.

Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and been bold and done something similar to this: I rolled the "Ethical perspectives" section together with the third bullet point, trimmed down and refined the result, and left it as a paragraph about the relation between 'ethics' and 'morality', right after the "two principle meanings".

I also tidied up the huge paragraph about realism and anti-realism into two bullets with a lead sentence and a little cleanup mini-paragraph, correcting some slightly incorrect wording in it as well.

I also fixed the superfluous spaces between the refs at the end of the first paragraph.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for confirmation that at least one other editor has noticed and approved: all looks good to me. 157.242.159.225 (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. The "Ethical perspectives" section didn't fit in well with the rest of the article. Zaspino (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

redirect from "propriety"

I was just redirected to this page from a search for "propriety" and would like to submit that morality and propriety are not thoroughly synonomous. While there may be many arguments regarding morality, propriety is by nature more heavily contextual and based upon social custom than any kind of argumentation. This blanket redirect seems a little odd to me--as an example I will cite my own concern here, which is with propriety rather than morality.75.64.191.225 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Beg pardon, the redirect was actually from "Appropriate."75.64.191.225 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

So now what? The page is stuck in an incorrect, disputed, grammatically incorrect, and unsourced version, and we all have to convince Faust, who is clearly never, ever going to relent on this issue, before it can be changed at all? Where do we go from here? --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I protected the page as is, which was substantially similar to before the edit warring, per Wikipedia:PP#Content_disputes. If there are changes that need to be made due to bad grammar, I'll definitely make them. As for the edit warring, I note Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) was involved on his "side," so it's not like this is a clear-cut issue. Can't you all just come to an agreement? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The bad grammar is just the missing period at the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph. Thank you for fixing that.

Ohnoitsjamie has not made any comments on the talk page at all, or responded to my request to do so, so unless you've heard otherwise I'm pretty sure he just passed by in the course of his regular adminly duties to say "no edit warring", with no interest in the article content itself. I imagine the capitals in my edit summary caught his attention.

As for just coming to an agreement, everyone else who's commented here besides Faust has, and Faust's behavior not only here but across Wikipedia makes me inclined to believe that he is not interested in reaching an agreement. Two of us (the second anon to join the dispute, and then myself) have made attempts at compromising with Faust, my own attempt backed by five sources and using the words directly from those sources, and Faust has simply reverted straight back again making the same unfounded assertions without any attempt to work with the compromises. As I told him on my talk page, I am usually a fan of the "talk things to death" approach, but there comes a point when you realize the other party just has their fingers in their ears and there's not much point talking anymore.

Is there some further dispute resolution process we can call upon, besides the RfC which has been of little to no help so far? --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I will do a bit more research when I get home tonight so I can give a better response. I'm sorry to have to put this off any further but the world calls. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Magog, I eagerly await your response. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magog, for a broader picture of Faust's behavior you might also want to check Talk:Teleology and Talk:Deontological ethics. Zaspino (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, upon further inspection, this is what I've found about the edit war, and how I should have handled it:

• Protection was one legitimate course of action.
• There is edit warring all around, which isn't acceptable.
• Faust is edit warring alone against numerous editors. I currently count four, excluding the possibility of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) stepped into the edit war, but it appears it was more of a drive-by edit to avoid discourage further edit warring.
• Faust is removing sourced information. Whether the sources are faithful to the added text or not is difficult to say, especially as one is Wiktionary (not a RS), and two are books I don't have access to.
• Faust is refusing to even acknowledge he is editwarring [23] and is accusing the other editors of tag-teaming [24], which seems to be unfounded.
• Faust's claim that he is reverting to a pre-dispute version is correct per WP:BRD. However, four editors are currently opining against his POV, which shows me that the "D" portion of BRD has been attempted and come out not in Faust's favor.
• All editors appear to be editing in good faith to support their POV. I'm not quite sure how discussion hasn't managed to get everyone to agree.

If I'd been aware of the third point, especially given Ohnoitsjamie being a drive by editor, I would have blocked, not protected. As such, what I'm going to do is unprotect the article, and serve notice to everyone that edit warring will get them blocked, even if not necessarily violating 3RR. If any one editor reverts more than one time in the short future, I will block that editor. I don't see either side's edits as OK and not the other side's; I am neutral on the content of the edits itself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again Magog. I have a question about what you wrote above. When you say that if you had been aware of the third point, you would have blocked instead; who do you mean you would have blocked? All of us, just Faust, someone else? Thanks, --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As the edit war has died down, I've removed the sanctions. If it become a problem again, by all means report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Morals gone too far

There is a word I miss in the English language. What would you call overzealous morals? What I mean is applying morals to situations where it does not work in the wrongful belief that it does. Can any mother tongue speakers of English help me?

2010-09-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Moralizing" might be something like the word you're looking for, but Wikipedia is not a forum so this is not the place to be asking anyway. --Pfhorrest (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Try the ref desk. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

These where not to any help to me. When I looked up “moralize” on Wiktionary the explanations did not say anything about it being overzealous.

2011-01-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect definition of morality

This page defines "Morality" as "a sense of behavioral conduct", but the Oxford English dictionary defines it as "Ethical wisdom; knowledge of moral science.". These two definitions are entirely incompatible, for the reason that ethical wisdom requires conscious thinking, whereas "a sense" does not. A dog has "a sense of behavioural conduct", but a thinking human being has morality.

I think the definition should be more inline with the traditional definition to be found in the Oxford English dictionary. The definition used in the current article removes the conscious element, which is essential to what morality is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksolway (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscientific perspectives ...

Stands out here more for some reason than other banal feuilletonistic overreachings on brain imaging studies of varying quality, unavoidable these days. Suggest editorial action to put some perspective on the perspective. Lycurgus (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

1 Moral codes
2 Morality and religion
3 Morality and politics
4 Philosophical perspectives
4.1 Realism and anti-realism
5 Scientific Perspectives
5.1 Anthropology
5.1.1 Tribal and territorial moralities
5.1.2 In-group and out-group
5.1.3 Comparing cultures
5.3 Role in Human Evolution
5.4 Physiology
5.4.1 Mirror-neurons
5.4.2 Neuroimaging and stimulation
5.5 Psychology

Lycurgus (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Also didn't see any mention of the applied mathematics treatment of the subject which spans a number of subtopics but primarily Game Theory, e.g as treated in sources such as László Mérő, Moral Calculations: Game Theory, Logic, and Human Frailty 1998, ISBN 0-387-98419-4 Lycurgus (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral lede

In response to some recent edit churn in the lede, I've made some tweaks to neutralized it between consequentialist, deontological, and aretaic conceptions of morality, and also between realist and anti-realist conceptions. That is to say, there are different notable (and each controversial) moral theories which say that morality is about something in the mind of the actor, something about the action itself, or something about what that action brings about; but the lede has been drifting toward an aretaic (virtue-centered) and frankly somewhat anti-realist conception, that morality is about acting in accordance with one's beliefs about what is good, as opposed to doing what is actually good, or to effecting good states of affairs. I've just trimmed out some words now in a way that I hope leaves it open for interpretation that morality may be about any of those things, but in any case is about some kind of differentiation between good and bad in one domain or another, and leaving that in turn open for interpretation on whether any such differentiation is actually any more correct than another. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resources

• A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change (Environmental Ethics and Science Policy) by Stephen Gardiner (Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the Program on Values in Society, University of Washington, Seattle) Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (May 4, 2011) ISBN-13: 978-0195379440 [25]

• Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril by Editors Kathleen Dean Moore and Michael P. Nelson, publisher Trinity University Press; 1st Printing edition (August 31, 2010) ISBN-13: 978-1595340665

• Ethics of Climate Change: Right and Wrong in a Warming World (Think Now) by James Garvey publisher Continuum (March 21, 2008) ISBN-13: 978-0826497376

• A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming by Michael S. Northcott publisher Orbis Books (October 31, 2007) ISBN-13: 978-1570757112

See global warming (climate change), ethics, effects of climate change on humans (effects of global warming in general for non-humans), risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth, Climate ethics, Climate justice

99.190.87.173 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of those sources are clearly unreliable; still, there may be a possible improvement in the article related to them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

wikilinked publisher. 99.181.141.143 (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about the Moral Core section

The section on the "moral core," specifically the first sentence, confused me. It currently reads: 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.

A less confusing way to word it might be: Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual. In contrast to the idea of a "creator" and the creator's rules or moral code, belief in a moral core focuses on the similarities and differences between individuals. 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.

However, the topic of the importance of similarities (and differences?) between individuals would benefit from some further elaboration. Any suggestions?

Thanks, Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnewton37 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs improvement tags

I added some tags. With such a high volume of readers, I feel that it merits a good deal of improvement. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary qualification

I just reverted the addition of some unnecessary and biased qualifiers ("judged or defined as") to the definition in the first sentence of the lede. By any account, morality distinguishes between right/wrong or good/bad, whatever those turn out to be. If they are meaningless, then moral nihilists are right, and there is no morality, so the qualifiers are unnecessary for this purpose. If they are something independent of anyone's opinions, than moral universalists are right, and the qualifiers are biased against this position. If they are whatever people judge or define them to be, then moral relativists are right, and the qualifiers are biased in favor of this position. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Simon Blackburn

Quoting Simon Blackburn is like quoting Alfred E Neuman. Both are equally educated about their craft. For example, Simon's commentary about Exodus 22:18 clearly demonstrates he either doesn't know much about the Bible, or he's being intentionally disingenuous. Either way, IMHO this whole paragraph reads more like an ad for his book than an intellectual exercise. JimScott (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of material

I reverted the deletion of an entire paragraph of properly sourced material. Please follow the guidelines in Wikipedia's policy on preserving material versus a mass deletion of material. This is not a finished article and Wikipedia is a work in progress. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So as not to delete your material I added a paragraph inviting readers to ensure, particularly when it comes to the discussion of moraltiy, to look at sources of opposing oppinion and to emphasise the importance of looking at scriptures in context. The link provided a reasonably short summary considering the short attention span of most internet users Thanks Gerne1 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Whle you may not, I concur with Pfhorrest's removal of the paragraph. Please review WP:NOTESSAY for some guidelines on this type of edit. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion and Morality (Divorce)

I added another study by the Barna Group and reworded the passage concerning divorce rates. It is now a paraphrase encompassing both references and seems to be fairly neutral, IMO. There are other ways to handle this. We could be more accurate within the text and provide more detail about the individual studies (although the section is getting long now), or add a note section in the manner of Common English usage misconceptions with a note providing further details for the present version. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Though accurate in one sense, I don't think your edits will address User:Gerne1's concerns which started this discussion. It seems to me he is noting the wide spread of divorce rates among different religions as reported in that study, with two prominent groups of religions each being significantly lower than the average divorce rate, even more so than atheists and agnostics. This makes it difficult to say with a neutral face (if I may coin a phrase) that the irreligious categorically have lower divorce rates than the religious: though if we had to give a yes or no answer on that issue, the answer would be yes they are, such an answer hides a lot of important subtleties to the issue.

The more accurate thing to do would be, as he was trying to do, breaking it down into the statistics of each religion... but then that starts getting far beyond the point that the citation is meant to support. So I think it better just not to make that point at all. As it is technically supported by the citations I would not personally object to it, but I can see the grounds for considering it disingenuous. (Full disclosure of bias: I am if anything nor merely irreligious but anti-religious, so I am not trying to defend religion here as I suspect is Gerne1's motivation). --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps another compromise, getting more to the point, would be to state that atheists and agnostics have "lower than average" divorce rates, rather than comparing them to "faith groups" directly, as for one-to-one comparisons with individual faith groups that's not always true, but it is true compared to the aggregated group of all religions, and that is directly entailed by it being "lower than average". A possible extension of that verbiage could be "lower then average ... faith groups" or some such, which makes that entailment more clear. If Gerne1 objects still, a parenthetical qualifier "(though some individual faith groups have still lower rates)" or the like could be appropriate. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agreed with the idea in your first paragraph above. That's why I reworded the passage as I did after the revert. I think the wording I chose is similar to what you suggest in your second paragraph. There are other ways to word it, of course. What do you think about the current version? --Airborne84 (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

just editing a bit of Wikipedia having a few more days off work involuntarily. To declare my bias I have to state that I am a deist who subscribes to the philosophy of Christianity based on the values of rationality and logic, e.g. no miracles, but in the first instance I am a scientist. When firsts confronted with the statistics on an internet blog I was surprised by the claim of atheists having the lowest divorce rate linked to Wikipedia, and as a scientist and used to check out source material I was hurt in my pride in “my Wikipedia” to have such obvious misinterpretation of statistical data. Following your deletion of my calculation of successful married couples in the population putting atheists well below the national average I figures that you did not like it, thus putting in the raw data for the readers to draw the conclusion themselves if they are able to do so, before you claim that the multiplication of 2 numbers represents original research.

Gerne1 (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your edits in principle. And you're right that the text probably did not accurately reflect the source. But please don't mistake our efforts as trying to keep your edits out. We still have to follow Wikipedia policies and try to adhere to the standards of what good writing in an encyclopedic article is. You'll find, I think, that by making suggestions or edits within Wikipedia's policies and working with us, that you'll get the best results. Thanks for your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear what the emphasis on atheists and agnostics marrying less is. It doesn't affect the statistical figures, because the figures are already per-married-person (so it's not like lower divorce rates can be divided by lower marriage rates to get a comparable figure, since the figures are already people-who've-been-divorced divided by people-who've-been-married). The point of that paragraph seems to be "religions often prohibit divorce, but look, the they divorce more (per marriage) on average than irreligious people", so I'm not sure what adding "but the irreligious get married less too" adds to that, since its not like the irreligious prohibit marriage or anything. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But instead of removing the material, I'll just move it to a note. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you feel the divorce statistic has any importance? If you want to mention it then please do it factual and without bias. I also figure that you do not understand the impact of subpopulation selection but then not everyone is into statistics and science. Non religious people live more often in cohabiting relationships that cannot get divorced. This is also mentioned in the article that you cite and documented elswhere http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf. The socioeconomic bias in the statistic is ignored which makes it unfit for purpose.

As it says in the introduction to Wikipedia, contributions should be seen as in good faith. We Wikipedians do not use this phrase as an argument against atheist contributors but in order to reflect a positive and fair attitude to the material we work on. An article on Religion and morality not discussing greek and modern philosophy but based on incompetent statistical analysis and polemic literature is not enzyclopedic material but hypocricy

Gerne1 (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It could be reasonably argued that the passage about divorce is a bit of an aside within the text. It could also be argued that it is relevant, in the same way that crime could be viewed as peripherally related to morality, even though its nuances can only be captured here in a simplistic and incomplete manner. If you prefer, I wouldn't object to moving the passage about divorce rates to a note to make the text flow smoother. I'll open that possibility up to the other editors here for comment. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I propose to delete (or move) the paragraph in the "Religion and morality" section that has to do with faith and crime. It just strikes me as out of place. There are two issues here:

1. The studies seem to focus on the United States and thus the paragraph doesn't adhere well to WP:Worldview. Of course, that could be addressed in various ways.

2. The biggest issue is that the paragraph itself is only relevant if laws are the same as morals. I don't think they are. Morals of individuals, groups, and societies inform laws, but they are not the same.

I have some material that I could add to that section from Phil Zuckerman's book, Society Without God, illustrating how some of the planet's least religious countries (e.g., Denmark and Sweden) have "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world," as well as other relevant indicators.

But I don't really want to add the material because I think the paragraph should simply be struck or moved to another article. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of other editors here. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While I will be the first to agree that morality and legality are certainly not the same thing, I think they bear a close enough relation that material on religion and legality is suitable for a section on religion and morality. Especially if we're talking about something like violent crimes, which are almost universally considered both illegal and immoral, and not some more abstract, newer, or contentious kind of law. A correlation (positive or negative) between religion and copyright violation? Not so relevant to religion and morality, as the (im)morality of copyright violation is hotly debated. A correlation between religion and murder? Pretty relevant, as few if any would consider murder, by definition illegal, to be moral either. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you should delete the entire paragraph as most of it is only copied from the main article and of poor quality. Particular if you take references out of references.

The whole section has become too biased. This in not at all enzyclopedic any more but biased personal opinions particularly if you take out the bits explaining the misinterpretaion of anti religious polemics. I have no objections about them being in there as they represent the belief of some people but one has to also show the complete picture Gerne1 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) with some personal comments removed and thanks for the reminder of the talkpage guidelines. Forgot that wkipedians are not to be mixed up with utubians :-)Gerne1 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Gerne1, you seem to be new here, so we try not to bite the newcomer, but your personal insinuations are starting to get a bit tiresome. They are not the best way to get results here at Wikipedia. And they are against Wikipedia's policies.

If you're going to continue to contribute at Wikipedia, I recommend you review the talk page guidelines as well as Wikipedia's core policies, especially the one on civility. Assume good faith is another relevant policy. If you have specific questions about contributing, ask an administrator or you can ask me at my talk page.

Don't let this deter you from contributing here or on other talk pages. Your participation is appreciated. But, as I said, there are better ways to get results here and following the above policies and guidelines will help you achieve them. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, you have a fair point, but the section for the most part simply discusses "crime" and doesn't focus on violent crime. So, copyright violations are probably included. Are you proposing we remove or move the material that doesn't deal in violent crime?

But it's still problematic. Murder is illegal most everywhere (although not in the case of state-sanctioned capital punishment). But it's considered always immoral only in the doctrine of most monotheistic traditions (with some exceptions for polytheism and other faith groups). Hindus, for example, would look at the situation to determine if it's moral. If clearly much more good would come from killing someone, a Hindu might decide it was moral. This includes other crimes as well. They might be "illegal" but their moral value is determined by the situation. Clearly, all these actions still bear on the idea of "morality", but when we start talking about correlations and relationships between morality and crime, I suggest that it's too simplistic a discussion to have here. I see a few possibilities:

• 1. We remove the paragraph entirely or find another article to place it in.
• 2. We address only violent crime and add a note discussing what I mentioned in the above paragraph.
• 3. We leave the material in and try to address its focus on the United States by balancing it with material from the rest of the world. Since it is long already, that would mean paring down the section (perhaps moving some material to a note) or maybe even splitting the section into its own article.

I support the first for reasons I listed. But I'll adhere to the consensus. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I kind of got off on a thought without looking at the material to see how applicable it was there, sorry. I'm not strongly opposed to the removal of the paragraph on religion and crime. If left in, I would suggest both 2 and 3 be done. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

considering that scriptures are in the end man made to give their community legal guidance in the context of their worldview it is a bit odd to look at them as being "immoral" as they tended to define the morally right or wrong in their time which is why things get odd if people look at them out of context. If you want to look at the correlation of crime statistics with religion you have to take care to take out the socioeconomic bias so I would be careful not to include any material that does not consider that. This is why I got so worried about the interpretation of the divorce statistics. you can easily mislead any person with statistics. The embarrasing thing is the amateurish analysis of the data even in their own press release

Do not know who put divorce as a moral imperative in monothistic religions but even that statement is incorrect as the Muslim and Jewish religion have not such absolute claims and even the catholic church annuls marriages under certain circumstances. This is why the higher percentage of divorces in non christian faith groups that you deleted was actually well relevant to the information. Gerne1 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Just saw your response Pfhorrest. If there are no further objections, I'll go through the paragraph in the next week to try to identify the geographic limits of the studies and clarify that in the text. I'll also highlight violent crime from the studies and move non-violent crime information to a note or remove. I'll err on moving to a note in case someone wants to start an article on Religion and crime. I'll also add the explanatory note about some crimes being "moral" depending on the situation in some religious traditions. I suspect that will shave about 1/3 from the paragraph. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. I moved passages on crime in general to the notes, and drew info on violent crime from the one I could access. The passages comprise material on both sides of the fence, so to speak, so I don't think this will be viewed as a move to favor one narrative over another. I also broke the section into two subsections: positions and empirics. The material in "positions" on the Barna group divorce study then seemed out of place, so I moved that to a note as well. I think the result is a more manageable section that will handle further editing and improvements reasonably well. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

All looks pretty good to me. Thank you for your efforts! --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Major edit=

Forgive me for wading in and attempting a major edit but the article is only at start class and i hope you feel my changes are improvements.richard holt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard holt (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede tag

Although the article still needs a lot of work, the most glaring issue to me is that the lede does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. That's especially unfortunate for such a heavily-trafficked article. For an article of this size, three to four paragraphs are fine. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede

I replaced the tag noting that the lede is insufficient as measured against the criterions identified in WP:LEDE.

1. WP:LEDE states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The lede does not stand alone. It fails to fully establish context, apparently relies on the subject of the topic alone to "explain" why it is notable, and does not summarize the most important points of the article, including controversies.

2. The article is currently just over 38,000 characters. WP:LEDE offers as a guideline that an article of this size would have an appropriate length of three or four paragraphs to accomplish the above. A paragraph or two is probably needed simply to summarize the many sections of this article.

I have not had time to address the lede in this article. The article itself needs more attention, in reality. But the tag may inspire someone else to address the lede's shortcomings. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Divorce rates

I don't feel divorce rates and morality are related. - i would suggest removing the references to this example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.wordsworth.holt (talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is an unstated (WP:SYN) assumption that divorce is related to morality. The rest of that section is poorly organized and the bit about redistribution is also synthesis and WP:OR. I support cutting most of it out and keeping only what is explicitly supported by sources that relate wealth and morality. Jojalozzo 18:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

i'd go further and say that it's all drivel - nonsense, covert racism and selective arithmetic, both the section and probably any sources. i'm going to move the whole bit here for shnicks into posterity.

Morality and wealth

Socioeconomic factors can have a significant impact on moral issues. For example, a study conducted in the US in 2008 measured the correlation between wealth and divorce rates, and found that people with an income above $75.000 and a college education only have 22% divorce rate compared to 39% in the group with income below $20.000 per annum. Further benefits of wealth can be derived from crime statistics indicating that crime rates are inversely correlated with GDP albeit others find a positive correlation. More comprehensive analysis shows that the crime rates increase with inequality of wealth distribution. Comparing List of countries by income equality and List of countries by intentional homicide rate gives a visual indication of the importance of wealth distribution. Because of this correlation, some advocate the Redistribution of wealth, possibly to be achieved via taxation. However, the justification of wealth distribution is a matter of debate between philopsophers, social scientists and politicians Aritstotle in his Nicomachean Ethics talks about generosity as a virtue and claims that is better to be wasteful than stingy with regards to dealing with money.

there's some other sections with sketchy references but this is obviously reprehensible. more comprehensive analysis shows that this is taken from a spiel at barna.org, which is a not so much a christianity site as the site of a seemingly not very racist christian guy trying to sell his probably very racist book to christians. 203.213.90.41 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to the subject of the original post, many authors writing about ethics and morals in general would agree that something like divorce does not bear on morals since religious value systems (among other things like politics, laws, etc.) are independent of morals since we do not have similar views on these topics across the planet. But, authors of works on religion do connect divorce and morality. In this light, the data on divorce is not a violation of WP:SYNTH.

I don't think this is a controversial connection, but if there is some concern that it is, there are plenty of authors who provide this link. For example, Peggy Morgan and Clive A. Lawton edit a volume called Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions published by the Edinburgh University Press. Divorce is treated in each religious tradition. As another example, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics says this under divorce: "It seems clear that Jesus taught that divorce and remarriage are against God's will." For most Christians, a movement against God's will would be an immoral act. Certainly there is much discussion about this within religious traditions, but divorce is treated as a moral issue within those frameworks by at least some, if not most adherents. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral POV

This article "resolves" quite a few deep philosophical and scientific questions with a mere sweep of the pen. Specialists are divided on these issues and their various points of view deserve neutral presentation.

A couple of examples:

Example 1: "The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of different peoples of humanity": what about the species evolutionary explanation? What about Kant? What about Hume? What about natural law? What about the psychological explanation?

Example 2: In "Empirical Analyses" section, results of studies supporting one point of view have been relegated to footnotes, while those supporting another point of view are in the body of the text.

And there are many others, e.g. Blackburn's position which gets much more space than the response made to it.

In addition to the flagrant violations of NPOV, there are also quite a few less noticeable ones in the form of sentence phrasing.

Example: "Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon": The paragraph this sentence is taken from correctly qualifies the position as dependant on a point of view with the preface "On this understanding,". However the sentence itself is misphrased, presenting a point of view as a fact.

Michaelmke (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as redirect. There was no content to merge. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Looks like there was a merge request that was initiated back in November 2012 to merge Decency into Morality. Support or oppose? Steel1943 (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Decency does not have enough information to be a standalone article; it should be merged. Steel1943 (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Even if Decency were expanded, it seems that it would only re-state ideas already included here; the two terms are synonymous. Ethraen (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very serious NPOV issues here.

This article reads like it has been written by a devout Christian that was trying to propound their viewpoint without getting it all removed, the type of person that still believes in burning blasphemers. It propounds morality as fact and has no section (which there needs to be for the sake of objectivity) devoted to people that have a differing opinion to the one predominantly expressed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.166.121 (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

realism and anti-realism

I made a few changes to this section but they were reverted:

• Emotivism is a form of non-cognitivism, not moral relativism.
• Subjectivism is a form of relativism that holds morality is relative to individuals, not to societies; that's cultural relativism.
• Given the first change, describing error theory as a form of moral nihilism akin to emotivism being a form of non-cognitivism is a bit misleading, since non-cognitivism is itself a form of moral nihilism.

Moreover, I'm not sure about the last sentence. My understanding is that moral universalism means "applying to all individuals" and moral realism means "there are objective moral facts existing in reality". The difference is that the former case need not involve objective facts, but merely a universal consistency among subjective ones. The article is right that universal presciptivism is undoubtedly anti-realist as well as universalist. Both divine command theory and ideal observer theory, however, seem clearly realist to me as they postulate objective facts separate from subjective human experience. Indeed, the definition of ideal observer theory (the decisions of a perfectly rational being) is basically the definition of all forms of realist optimism.

Does anyone object to these changes?101.114.115.125 (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary when reverting you, what you changed it to is still correct, but less relevant. The three things it is listing are the three things which go against the "robust" sense of moral realism used consistently across Wikipedia: that moral sentences express (1) true (2) propositions about (3) objective facts of the world.

* Ethical subjectivism is used consistently across Wikipedia in the sense of all theories whereby moral sentences express true propositions, but those propositions are not about objective facts of the world but rather the attitudes of someone or other; this includes cultural relativism alongside individualist subjectivism, as well as divine command theory and ideal observer theory as those refer to the attitudes of God or a hypothetical ideal observer, but the latter two are "realist" in a broader sense synonymous with "universalist" and so are mentioned later with that qualification.

* Non-cognitivism denies the second part of the robust realist thesis, but some forms of non-cognitivism are universalist and thus "realist" in broader sense than the one we use here, so get special mention later; whereas emotivism is the specifically non-universalist form of non-cognitivism, and so is unqualifiedly anti-realist. "Nihilist" is not synonymous with "anti-realist" here; it is contrasted more with universalism and relativism, as denoting the scope of whom norms legitimately apply to, not how they are grounded. Universal prescriptivism, while a form of non-cognitivism, is decidedly not a form of moral nihilism.

* And error theory, which denies the first part of the robust realist thesis, is without qualification always a form of nihilism.

So, getting to my point, the point of the parentheticals after the three forms of non-cognitivism are to set up where those positions fall of the spectrum of universalism-relativism-nihilism, in anticipation of the next sentence which says that in for a different sense of "realism", some forms of subjectivism (such as divine command theory and ideal observer theory) and non-cognitivism (such as universal prescriptivism) are "realist", in that they are universalist.

This confusion does make me thing that that paragraph could maybe be reworded to make this a little clearer. I will make an attempt at that now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

1.My main point was that emotivism is not a form of moral relativism, but you've fixed that now so that's fine.

2.How is wikipedia using "ethical subjectivism" in relation to "moral realtivism"? It seems from the articles that the former is referring to moral judgements whereas the latter is referring to moral facts. My understanding was that moral relativism as a broad term includes both, but if this distinction is being made it should be clearly explained in the article.

3.Regarding DCT (divine command theory) and IOT (ideal observer theory): it is not at all clear to me how DCT is anti-realist. Since DCT presupposes theism, it presumably presupposes one or more gods who created the world and command morality. Such commands, being as they are from transcendent gods, would certainly seem to constitute objective facts. To say that they don't because they are only the will of a god would seem equivalent to saying that, presupposing theism, gravity is not an objective fact as it is only the will of a god. It's also worth noting that Mackie, Ayer, and other opponents of realism strongly associated the realist's moral facts with the idea of gods. Thus it seems quite odd to maintain that DCT is anti-realist.

4.The is even more so with IOT. Saying "morality is what a perfectly rational being would do" is effectively equivalent to saying "morality is what it is perfectly rational to do" which makes reason itself the source of morality, and you can't get much more of an objective fact than reason itself.

5.Moral nihilism, again on my understanding, is the denial of any moral facts. All forms of non-cognitivism deny that moral judgements express propositions, and thus remove any motivation for the existence of moral facts.101.114.122.16 (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Too many templates

Har har at the recent addition of a {{too many templates}} template here (though that, strangely enough, seems to print a message that there are not yet enough templates), but I agree with the sentiment. The number of "such-and-such redirects here" hatnotes on this article is getting Too Damn High. Is there some way of condensing this down to something more reasonable? --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and a lot of that stuff shouldn't redirect here - they're dictionary type words that are ambiguous and don't necessarily mean morality. They either shouldn't be anything, or should be a disambiguation page. Richard001 (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree: It would be reasonable to change these redirect pages into disambiguation pages. Jarble (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

Why is this article marked as having a NPOV dispute? - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bernardwoodpecker: An editor discussed the issue here.

The section on Evolution seems to imply that natural selection favors a single kind of morality. Perhaps it would help to cite current scholarship indicating that it actually produced moral diversity (as it produced diversity of blood-type and sex). Such citations can be found in that article.165.189.37.11 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Moral codes"

I propose that the section on Moral codes be merged with Ethical codes. Including these here is going to make the associated terms very muddy. Of course, you can find sources who use the terms "morality", "ethics", and "values" interchangeably. But doing so on Wikipedia without any explanation is just going to confuse many people and contribute to making the terms meaningless. Sets of rules clearly fall into the realm of value systems and it's no problem sourcing them as such. Since "ethics" can both mean the branch of philosophy that covers moral philosophy as well as the connotation of a set of rules, these can also be placed in the Ethical codes article without problem. Yes, there will be people who argue that these are "moral codes" as well, but I suggest it is more useful to not call these rule sets three different things (four if you lump them into deontological ethics as well). Airborne84 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No objection here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)