morality in life essay

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

What Is Morality?

Societal underpinnings of "right" and "wrong"

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

How Morals Are Established

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is the Basis of Morality?

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

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

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

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

7 Universal Morals

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

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

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

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

People might adhere to these principles by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think About It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics and Morality

Morality, Ethics, Evil, Greed

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Michael Cohen is apologizing and atoning for his mistakes in the New York Supreme Court case against Donald J. Trump.

A Personal Perspective: When we choose which ideas should be given the right of freedom of expression and which shouldn't, democracy suffers for all of us.

However well-intended, our empathy and support can have a paradoxical effect. We can fail to take others seriously or appreciate their suffering as a response to moral demands.

Personal Perspective: Life can be more than continually grabbing as much as we can for ourselves. Let's fight back with courtesy and respect the needs of others.

As a father of an autistic child and a researcher on neurodiversity, I propose we model political interactions after productive relationships with neurodivergent family members.

Debt is incredibly common, yet we often do not discuss its impact. Moralizing debt can create isolation and shameful feelings.

Recognizing our shared humanity can counter injustice and harm and help bring peace to our hearts.

A client is getting on your nerves. You feel it’s not good for your mental health to continue to work with them. How can you terminate work without incurring a malpractice lawsuit?

Accountability is the virtue of answerability. It involves trust, but not blind trust. It claims both successes and failures. In sports, it makes us hard to beat.

Let's say you don’t think it’s good for your mental health to continue working with a particular client. How can you terminate work without being sued for malpractice?

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

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

A Moral Life Essay

How would I come to lead a fully moral life? Is there even such a thing? In reflecting on both my twenty years and the ten stories we read during this course, I attest that leading a fully moral life is nearly impossible; every individual will at one point, make a mistake or an immoral decision, and thus, is not “fully” moral. However, even the umbrella of a “moral life” sparks contentious questions. Is there a universal moral code or is morality subjective and relative? Are there conditions for moral decisions? Can you act immorally and still be a moral person? Do intentions matter? How much should you inconvenience yourself to act morally? Both my own experiences and the gripping tales of these ten novellas demonstrate that there is no “absolute” when tackling the topic of morality; however, in order to lead a moral life, one has react thoughtfully to difficult choices and strive to be selfless and compassionate.

The first, and most obvious step to leading a moral life is to define for yourself

what constitutes right versus wrong and act accordingly. While I believe there are a few absolute principles of morality (try to help others, do not commit rape or incest), I believe in moral relativism. Thus, I am a product of America (freedom, hard work), Judaism (altruism, family values), San Francisco (liberalism) and the Tandler family. However, my moral code is no more “right” than another's because morality is subjective. I came to realize this position during my time volunteering in the recovery room at Planned Parenthood. Every Saturday morning, as I walked into the clinic, I was greeted with peaceful picketers begging me to “make the moral choice,” and that “God would make a place for me and my baby.” While I do not consider an abortion murder, and am adamantly pro choice, I can respect that others consider the act immoral. However, I cannot accept others who strive to implement their own values on all women through the law. While one person's moral code may not reflect another's, recognizing moral relativism and opposing viewpoints is part of leading a moral life.

Thus, to lead a moral life, one has to reflect on his or her values and ethics, and react to daily life choices accordingly. The characters in the novels we analyzed, however, are faced with more than daily decisions, but life altering moral decisions. Their stories address the issue of how to confront drastic situations and make moral choices that may seem immoral out of context. John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men grapples with this very issue. While murder is most often associated with malice and unlawfulness, George's final decision to take his best friend's life is not immoral. Despite Lenny's benign intentions, he proves himself to be a danger to society by accidentally killing Curly's wife and frightening the young girl from the previous farm. After Curly promises to “kill the son-of-a-bitch myself” (Steinbeck, 94), George is faced with few options: let Curly kill his friend, imprison his friend at an early 20th century mental institute, try to run away (an unlikely option), or take Lenny's life himself. George's decision to shoot Lenny is inspired by love and is theoretically, in his friend's best interest. Hoping to protect his friend from a worse fate, George sacrifices a friendship dear to him. Because his intentions are pure and selfless, George's bold decision is moral.

In Bharati Mukherjee's novel, Jasmine's encounter with murder, however, is more ambiguous. Jasmine is brutally raped her first night in America. After her rapist falls asleep, Jasmine showers, dresses, slices her rapist's throat, puts a sheet over him, and “stabs him wildly through the cloth” until “the human form beneath it grew smaller and stiller” (Mukherjee, 119). Does this circumstance warrant a murder? Was Jasmine's decision immoral? To answer these questions, one must examine her intentions. Either Jasmine feared for her life, and thus killed “Half Face” because he promised that the “second time's the sweetest,” (Mukherjee 117) or she simply wanted revenge. Ultimately, the morality of Jasmine's choice is difficult to discern, thus demonstrating the non-absolutist nature of moral choices. Additionally, Jasmine's situation reveals the intricacies of analyzing complex conditions, and to attempt to understand an individual's reactive decision, one must look to intentions, not just actions.

In my own experience, I have unfortunately had to make a stark decision that would be deemed immoral out of context. I was raised in a household that values unconditional familial love and respect. However, I have made the conscious decision to reject a member of my family. About 10 years ago, my grandmother, received devastating news that after 50 years of marriage, her husband was unfaithful. After my mother refused to entirely reject and denounce my grandfather, my grandmother lashed out against my mother and father with a lawsuit asserting that she wanted to “put our family out on the streets.” However, during the process of disowning my mother, my grandmother reached out to me, insisting that she loved me and hoped to remain in my life. She attended my Bat Mitzvah despite my resistance, and sent me birthday gifts for years, each of which I returned unopened. Central to Judaism is honoring your family, as stated in the Ten Commandments. However, I have entirely rejected my grandmother for attempting to destroy our family, and partially rejected my grandfather for being the immoral catalyst. Ten years into a preposterous and spiteful lawsuit, I know I made the moral choice. My grandmother's actions are unquestionably wrong, and thus, spurning her reflects my moral code and condemnation for her actions. Additionally, having any relationship with her would devastate my mother, and so my moral choice reflects my own principles as well as consideration for my mother. While my own life choice is dissimilar to George and Jasmine's, all three decisions involve thinking deeply about the implications of your actions for yourself as well as others. Leading a moral life means being reflective and thoughtful in the face of difficult circumstances, and reacting in a manner that considers the parties involved and your overall intent and principles.

Both Steinbeck's, Mukherjee's, and my own personal story are tales of reactive moral decisions. George reacted to the context of Lenny killing Curly's wife, Jasmine reacted to being raped, and I reacted to the perfidy of my maternal grandparents. While morality is most commonly discussed in the face of grave choices, what about daily activity? When not faced with the extreme, how do you lead a moral life? Through the story of a life mislead, Leo Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich answers this question.

Ivan Ilyich's greatest flaw is his selfishness. He lives his life only for his career and his outward appearance, not caring for his wife or daughter. Ivan Ilyich's conceit is apparent in all aspects of his life, as “the pleasures Ivan Ilyich derived from his work were those of pride; the pleasures he derived from society those of vanity” (Tolstoy, 61). Concerned with only his own wellbeing, Ivan Ilyich pursues a life with little morality. However, upon his deathbed, Ivan Ilyich recognizes that “he had not lived the kind of life he should have,” as his life events amounted to “insubstantiality” (Tolstoy, 108). To demonstrate what Ivan Ilyich lacked, Tolstoy contrasts the main character with the humble and altruistic peasant boy, Gerasim, who tells Ivan Ilyich, “We all have to die someday, so why shouldn't I help you?” (Tolstoy 87). Gerasim possesses the compassion and empathy missing in Ivan Ilyich's meaningless life. His character explicitly exemplifies the road to a moral life - having kindness towards others.

Tolstoy's moral tale reflects how inactivity, despite making “right choices,” can prevent you from leading a moral life. As a Jew, I learned at a young age about the importance of helping others, having to complete 13 good deeds (mitzvahs) in order to become a Bat Mitzvah. A moral life cannot just consist of reacting to tough situations, but actively helping improve the world, the Jewish concept of tikkun olam. However, how much can we and should we give back? Nadine Gordimer's novel illustrates the difficulties of altruism, asking the question: how much should we self sacrifice to help others? Can there be a sort of “moral pyramid” to prioritize moral decisions?

Gordimer's novel, The Late Bourgeois World, tells the story of a privileged white woman living in South Africa during a time of repression and injustice, the apartheid. Despite her comfortable life, Liz cannot help but think about the deeply rooted discrimination of the South African way of life. However, to lead a “moral life” and fight the inequities surrounding her with political activism, would put her own life and her 11-year-old son's, at risk. When asked by Luke Kokase, a black activist, to use her bank account for overseas money, Liz initially responds, “You're not thinking of me!” (Gordimer, 86). Liz is concerned that her act of altruism will have negative consequences on her life, but she ultimately decides to lend her grandmother's account to the cause, thinking, “why on earth should I do such a thing? It seems to me that the answer is simply the bank account” (Gordimer, 94). Liz puts herself at a slight risk because “there is a bank account” (Gordimer, 94), and lending it to the cause is the right choice. However, if her grandmother did not conveniently have a bank account, would she have taken political action? If she had refused to help Luke out of fear for her own life and concern for her son, would she be considered immoral? Gordimer's novel demonstrates the challenges in actively pursing a moral life. Liz cares for the cause, but understands the sacrifices she would have to make to fight for it. When is selfishness warranted?

Liz's story resonates all too closely with my own conscience. Growing up in an upper-middle class, San Francisco, white family, I have had only privilege. But I am still all too aware of the injustices in our world, and do not know how to allocate my time between helping myself and helping others. From an economic perspective, every life choice involves a trade-off: if I buy only sweatshop free clothing, I have to spend more money; if I devote all my time to stopping genocide, I will not get a complete college education; if I move to Israel to fight in the IDF, I am risking my life; if I do not give back, I feel tremendous guilt. I want to lead a moral life by working for a cause I believe in, but I also desire to enter the working world and make a successful career for myself. How much should we tend to our own lives, without becoming Ivan Ilyich?

Leading a moral life does not require complete selflessness and a perfect decision record. Individuals can make mistakes and still be deemed “moral,” as long as they understand the fault in their choice and learn from it. Siddhartha spent years gambling, drinking and only enjoying the physical pleasures of the material world, but because he later renounced this path, he remains moral. Humans cannot only give back, and cannot always make the right choice. But to be moral, we should strive for tikkun olam and learn from mistakes so as not to repeat them.

The question of a moral life will never denote one answer. Some insist that a belief in God is necessary to realize a universal moral law, while others insist morals are entirely subjective. Leading a moral life means realizing your own principles and simply responding to life choices in the manner you see “right.” However, situations where the “right moral choice” is unclear require thoughtful analysis and honorable intentions. Morality is relative and subjective, not a pure absolute standard. In addition to responding to pivotal choices, a moral existence requires selfless activity and altruism. Ultimately, a moral life means finding a balance between helping yourselves and others, and devoting part of your time to improving the world. To be moral, one has to react with thoughtfulness and pure intentions and act with compassion.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Moral Theory

There is much disagreement about what, exactly, constitutes a moral theory. Some of that disagreement centers on the issue of demarcating the moral from other areas of practical normativity, such as the ethical and the aesthetic. Some disagreement centers on the issue of what a moral theory’s aims and functions are. In this entry, both questions will be addressed. However, this entry is about moral theories as theories , and is not a survey of specific theories, though specific theories will be used as examples.

1.1 Common-sense Morality

1.2 contrasts between morality and other normative domains, 2.1 the tasks of moral theory, 2.2 theory construction, 3. criteria, 4. decision procedures and practical deliberation, other internet resources, related entries, 1. morality.

When philosophers engage in moral theorizing, what is it that they are doing? Very broadly, they are attempting to provide a systematic account of morality. Thus, the object of moral theorizing is morality, and, further, morality as a normative system.

At the most minimal, morality is a set of norms and principles that govern our actions with respect to each other and which are taken to have a special kind of weight or authority (Strawson 1961). More fundamentally, we can also think of morality as consisting of moral reasons, either grounded in some more basic value, or, the other way around, grounding value (Raz 1999).

It is common, also, to hold that moral norms are universal in the sense that they apply to and bind everyone in similar circumstances. The principles expressing these norms are also thought to be general , rather than specific, in that they are formulable “without the use of what would be intuitively recognized as proper names, or rigged definite descriptions” (Rawls 1979, 131). They are also commonly held to be impartial , in holding everyone to count equally.

… Common-sense is… an exercise of the judgment unaided by any Art or system of rules : such an exercise as we must necessarily employ in numberless cases of daily occurrence ; in which, having no established principles to guide us … we must needs act on the best extemporaneous conjectures we can form. He who is eminently skillful in doing this, is said to possess a superior degree of Common-Sense. (Richard Whatley, Elements of Logic , 1851, xi–xii)

“Common-Sense Morality”, as the term is used here, refers to our pre-theoretic set of moral judgments or intuitions or principles. [ 1 ] When we engage in theory construction (see below) it is these common-sense intuitions that provide a touchstone to theory evaluation. Henry Sidgwick believed that the principles of Common-Sense Morality were important in helping us understand the “first” principle or principles of morality. [ 2 ] Indeed, some theory construction explicitly appeals to puzzles in common-sense morality that need resolution – and hence, need to be addressed theoretically.

Features of commons sense morality are determined by our normal reactions to cases which in turn suggest certain normative principles or insights. For example, one feature of common-sense morality that is often remarked upon is the self/other asymmetry in morality, which manifests itself in a variety of ways in our intuitive reactions. For example, many intuitively differentiate morality from prudence in holding that morality concerns our interactions with others, whereas prudence is concerned with the well-being of the individual, from that individual’s point of view.

Also, according to our common-sense intuitions we are allowed to pursue our own important projects even if such pursuit is not “optimific” from the impartial point of view (Slote 1985). It is also considered permissible, and even admirable, for an agent to sacrifice her own good for the sake of another even though that is not optimific. However, it is impermissible, and outrageous, for an agent to similarly sacrifice the well-being of another under the same circumstances. Samuel Scheffler argued for a view in which consequentialism is altered to include agent-centered prerogatives, that is, prerogatives to not act so as to maximize the good (Scheffler 1982).

Our reactions to certain cases also seem to indicate a common-sense commitment to the moral significance of the distinction between intention and foresight, doing versus allowing, as well as the view that distance between agent and patient is morally relevant (Kamm 2007).

Philosophers writing in empirical moral psychology have been working to identify other features of common-sense morality, such as how prior moral evaluations influence how we attribute moral responsibility for actions (Alicke et. al. 2011; Knobe 2003).

What many ethicists agree upon is that common-sense is a bit of a mess. It is fairly easy to set up inconsistencies and tensions between common-sense commitments. The famous Trolley Problem thought experiments illustrate how situations which are structurally similar can elicit very different intuitions about what the morally right course of action would be (Foot 1975). We intuitively believe that it is worse to kill someone than to simply let the person die. And, indeed, we believe it is wrong to kill one person to save five others in the following scenario:

David is a great transplant surgeon. Five of his patients need new parts—one needs a heart, the others need, respectively, liver, stomach, spleen, and spinal cord—but all are of the same, relatively rare, blood-type. By chance, David learns of a healthy specimen with that very blood-type. David can take the healthy specimen's parts, killing him, and install them in his patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen's parts, letting his patients die. (Thomson 1976, 206)

And yet, in the following scenario we intuitively view it entirely permissible, and possibly even obligatory, to kill one to save five:

Edward is the driver of a trolley, whose brakes have just failed. On the track ahead of him are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. The track has a spur leading off to the right, and Edward can turn the trolley onto it. Unfortunately there is one person on the right-hand track. Edward can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, killing the five. (Thomson 1976, 206).

Theorizing is supposed to help resolve those tensions in a principled way. Theory construction attempts to provide guidance in how to resolve such tensions and how to understand them.

1.2.1 Morality and Ethics

Ethics is generally understood to be the study of “living well as a human being”. This is the topic of works such as Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics , in which the aim of human beings is to exemplify human excellence of character. The sense in which we understand it here is that ethics is broader than morality, and includes considerations of personal development of oneself and loved ones. This personal development is important to a life well lived, intuitively, since our very identities are centered on projects that we find important. Bernard Williams and others refer to these projects as “ground projects”. These are the sources of many of our reasons for acting. For Williams, if an agent seeks to adopt moral considerations, or be guided by them, then important ethical considerations are neglected, such as personal integrity and authenticity (Williams 1977; Wolf 1982). However, Williams has a very narrow view of what he famously termed “the morality system” (Williams 1985).

Williams lists a variety of objectionable features of the morality system, including the inescapability of moral obligations, the overridingness of moral obligation, impartiality , and the fact that in the morality system there is a push towards generalization .

There has been considerable discussion of each of these features of the morality system, and since Williams, a great deal of work on the part of standard moral theorists on how each theory addresses the considerations he raised. Williams’ critique of the morality system was part of a general criticism of moral theory in the 1980s on the grounds of its uselessness, harmfulness, and even its impossibility (Clarke 1987). This anti-theory trend was prompted by the same dissatisfaction with consequentialism and deontology that led to the resurgence of Virtue Ethics.

A major criticism of this view is that it has a very narrow view of what counts as a moral theory. Thus, some of these approaches simply rejected some features of William’s characterization of the morality system, such as impartiality. Others, however, Williams’ included, attacked the very project of moral theory. This is the ‘anti-theory’ attack on moral theorizing. For example, Annette Baier argued that morality cannot be captured in a system of rules, and this was a very popular theme amongst early virtue ethicists. On this view, moral theory which systematizes and states the moral principles that ought to guide actions is simply impossible: “Norms in the form of virtues may be essentially imprecise in some crucial ways, may be mutually referential, but not hierarchically orderable, may be essentially self-referential” (Baier 220).

Robert Louden even argued that the best construal of virtue ethics is not as an ethical theory, but as anti-theory that should not be evaluated as attempting to theorize morality at all. (Louden 1990). According to Louden, moral theories are formulated to a variety of reasons, including to provide solutions to problems, formulas for action, universal principles, etc. Louden notes that this characterization is very narrow and many would object to it, but he views anti-theory not so much as a position against any kind of moral theorizing, but simply the kind that he viewed as predominant prior to the advent of Virtue Ethics. This is a much less severe version of anti-theory as it, for example, doesn’t seem to regard weightiness or importance of moral reasons as a problem.

Some of the problems that Williams and other anti-theorists have posed for morality, based on the above characteristics, are:

Morality is too demanding and pervasive: that is, the view that moral reasons are weighty indicates that we should be giving them priority over other sorts of reasons. Further, they leach into all aspects of our lives, leaving very little morally neutral.

Morality is alienating. There are a variety of ways in which morality can be alienating. As Adrian Piper notes, morality might alienate the agent from herself or might alienate the agent from others – impartiality and universality might lead to this, for example (Piper 1987; Stocker 1976). Another way we can understand alienation is that the agent is alienated from the true justifications of her own actions – this is one way to hold that theories which opt for indirection can lead to alienation (see section 4 below).

Morality, because it is impartial, makes no room for special obligations. That is, if the right action is the one that is impartial between persons, then it does not favor the near and dear. On this picture it is difficult to account for the moral requirements that parents have towards their own children, and friends have towards each other. These requirements are, by their nature, not impartial.

Morality is committed to providing guides for action that can be captured in a set of rules or general principles. That is, morality is codifiable and the rules of morality are general.

Morality requires too much. The basic worry is that the morality system is voracious and is creeping into all aspects of our lives, to the detriment of other important values. The worry expressed by 4 takes a variety of forms. For example, some take issue with a presupposition of 4, arguing that there are no moral principles at all if we think of these principles as guiding action . Some argue that there are no moral principles that are complete, because morality is not something that is codifiable . And, even if morality was codifiable, the ‘principles’ would be extremely specific , and not qualify as principles at all.

Since Williams’ work, philosophers have tried to respond to the alienation worry by, for example, providing accounts of the ways in which a person’s reasons can guide without forming an explicit part of practical deliberation. Peter Railton, for example, argues in favor of a form of objective consequentialism, Sophisticated Consequentialism , in which the rightness of an action is a function of its actual consequences (Railton 1984). On Railton’s view, one can be a good consequentialist without being alienated from loved ones. Though not attempting to defend moral theory per se , other writers have also provided accounts of how agents can act on the basis of reasons – and thus perform morally worthy actions, even though these reasons are not explicitly articulated in their practical deliberations (Arpaly 2002; Markovits 2014). Deontologists have argued that autonomous action needn’t involve explicit invocation of, for example, the Categorical Imperative (Herman 1985). Generally, what characterizes these moves is the idea that the justifying reasons are present in some form in the agent’s psychology – they are recoverable from the agent’s psychology – but need not be explicitly articulated or invoked by the agent in acting rightly.

One way to elaborate on this strategy is to argue that the morally good agent is one who responds to the right sorts of reasons, even though the agent can’t articulate the nature of the response (Arpaly 2002). This strategy makes no appeal to codifiable principles, and is compatible with a wide variety of approaches to developing a moral theory. It relies heavily on the concept, of course, of “reason” and “moral reason,” which many writers on moral issues take to be fundamental or basic in any case.

There has also been debate concerning the proper scope of morality, and how moral theories can address problems relating to impartiality. Kant and the classical utilitarians believed that moral reasons are impartial, what others have termed agent-neutral. Indeed, this is one point of criticism that virtue ethics has made of these two theories. One might argue that moral reasons are impartial, but that there are other reasons that successfully compete with them – reasons relating to the near and dear, for example, or one’s own ground projects. Or, one could hold that morality includes special reasons, arising from special obligations, that also morally justify our actions.

The first strategy has been pursued by Bernard Williams and other “anti-theorists”. Again, Williams argues that morality is a special system that we would be better off without (Williams 1985). In the morality system we see a special sense of “obligation” – moral obligation – which possesses certain features. For example, moral obligation is inescapable according to the morality system. A theory such as Kant’s, for example, holds that we must act in accordance with the Categorical Imperative. It is not optional. This is because morality is represented as having authority over us in ways that even demand sacrifice of our personal projects, of the very things that make our lives go well for us. This seems especially clear for Utilitarianism, which holds that we must maximize the good, and falling short of maximization is wrong . A Kantian will try to avoid this problem by appealing to obligations that are less demanding, the imperfect ones. But, as Williams points out, these are still obligations , and as such can only be overridden by other obligations. Thus, the theories also tend to present morality as pervasive in that morality creeps into every aspect of our lives, making no room for neutral decisions. For example, even decisions about what shoes to wear to work becomes a moral one:

Once the journey into more general obligations has started, we may begin to get into trouble – not just philosophical trouble, but the conscience trouble – with finding room for morally indifferent actions. I have already mentioned the possible moral conclusion that one may take some particular course of action. That means that there is nothing else I am obliged to do. But if we have accepted general and indeterminate obligations to further various moral objectives…they will be waiting to provide work for idle hands… (Williams 1985, 181)

He goes on to write that in order to get out of this problem, “…I shall need one of those fraudulent items, a duty to myself” (Williams 1985, 182). Kantian Ethics does supply this. Many find this counterintuitive, since the self/other asymmetry seems to capture the prudence/morality distinction, but Kantians such as Tom Hill, jr. have made strong cases for at least some moral duties to the self. In any case, for writers such as Williams, so much the worse for morality .

Other writers, also concerned about the problems that Williams has raised argue, instead, that morality does make room for our partial concerns and projects, such as the norms governing our relationships, and our meaningful projects. Virtue ethicists, for example, are often comfortable pointing out that morality is not thoroughly impartial because there are virtues of partiality. Being a good mother involves having a preference for the well-being of one’s own children. The mother who really is impartial would be a very bad mother, lacking in the appropriate virtues.

Another option is to hold that there are partial norms, but those partial norms are themselves justified on impartial grounds. This can be spelled out in a variety of different ways. Consider Marcia Baron’s defense of impartiality, where she notes that critics of impartiality are mistaken because they confuse levels of justification: “Critics suppose that impartialists insisting on impartiality at the level of rules or principles are committed to insisting on impartiality at the level of deciding what to do in one’s day-to-day activities” (Baron 1991). This is a mistake because impartialists can justify partial norms by appealing to impartial rules or principles. She is correct about this. Even Jeremy Bentham believed, for example, that the principle of utility ought not be applied in every case, though he mainly appealed to efficiency costs of using the principle all the time. But one can appeal to other considerations. Frank Jackson uses an analogy with predators to argue that partial norms are strategies for maximizing the good, they offer the best chance of actually doing so given our limitations (Jackson 1991). Similarly, a Kantian such as Tom Hill, jr., as Baron notes, can argue that impartiality is part of an ideal, and ought not govern our day-to-day lives (Hill 1987). Does this alienate people from others? The typical mother shows the right amount of preference for her child, let’s say, but doesn’t herself think that this is justified on the basis of promoting the good, for example. A friend visits another in the hospital and also does not view the partiality as justified by any further principles. But this is no more alienating than someone being able to make good arguments and criticize bad ones without a knowledge of inference rules. Maybe it is better to have an awareness of the underlying justification, but for some theories even that is debatable. For an objective theorist (see below) it may be that knowing the underlying justification can interfere with doing the right thing, in which case it is better not to know. For some theorists, however, such as neo-Aristotelian virtue ethicists, a person is not truly virtuous without such knowledge and understanding, though Rosalind Hursthouse (1999) does not make this a requirement of right action.

Recently consequentialists have been approaching this issue through the theory of value itself, arguing that there are agent-relative forms of value. This approach is able to explain the intuitions that support partial moral norms while retaining the general structure of consequentialism (Sen 2000). Douglas Portmore, for example, argues for a form of consequentialism that he terms “commonsense consequentialism” as it is able to accommodate many of our everyday moral intuitions (Portmore 2011). He does so by arguing that (1) the deontic status of an act, whether it is right or wrong, is determined by what reasons the agent has for performing it – if an agent has a decisive reason to perform the act in question, then it is morally required. Combined with (2) a teleological view of practical reasons in which our reasons for performing an action are a function of what we have reason to prefer or desire we are led to a form of act-consequentialism but one which is open to accepting that we have reason to prefer or desire the well-being of the near and dear over others.

Though much of this is controversial, there is general agreement that moral reasons are weighty , are not egoistic – that is, to be contrasted with prudential reasons, and are concerned with issues of value [duty, fittingness].

1.2.2. Morality and Aesthetics

Moral modes of evaluation are distinct from the aesthetic in terms of their content, but also in terms of their authority. So, for example, works of art are evaluated as “beautiful” or “ugly”, and those evaluations are not generally considered as universal or as objective as moral evaluations. These distinctions between moral evaluation and aesthetic evaluation have been challenged, and are the subject of some interesting debates in metaethics on the nature of both moral and aesthetic norms and the truth-conditions of moral and aesthetic claims. But, considered intuitively, aesthetics seems at least less objective than morality.

A number of writers have noted that we need to be cognizant of the distinction between moral norms and the norms specific to other normative areas in order to avoid fallacies of evaluation, and much discussion has centered on a problem in aesthetics termed the “Moralistic Fallacy” (D’Arms and Jacobson 2000).

One challenge that the anti-theorists have raised for morality was to note that in a person’s life there will be certain norm clashes – including clashes between types of norms such as the moral and the aesthetic. It is giving too much prominence to the moral that judges a person’s life as going well relative to the fulfillment or respect of those norms. Can’t a human life go well, even when that life sacrifices morality for aesthetics?

This sort of debate has a long history in moral theory. For example, it arose as a form of criticism of G. E. Moore’s Ideal Utilitarianism, which treated beauty as an intrinsic good, and rendering trade-offs between behaving well towards others and creating beauty at least in principle justified morally (Moore 1903). But the anti-theorists do not pursue this method of accommodating the aesthetic, instead arguing that it is a separate normative realm which has its own weight and significance in human flourishing.

2. Theory and Theoretical Virtues

There is agreement that theories play some kind of systematizing role, and that one function is to examine important concepts relevant to morality and moral practice and the connections, if any, between them. For example, one very common view in the middle of the 20 th century, attributed to John Rawls, was to view moral theory as primarily interested in understanding the ‘right’ and the ‘good’ and connections between the two (Rawls). Priority claims are often a central feature in the systematizing role of moral theory. Related to this is the issue of explanatory, or theoretical, depth . That is, the deeper the explanation goes, the better.

Theories also strive for simplicity , coherence , and accuracy . The fewer epicycles the theory has to postulate the better, the parts of the theory should fit well together. For example, the theory should not contain inconsistent principles, or have inconsistent implications. The theory should cover the phenomena in question. In the case of moral theories, the phenomena in question are thought to be our considered moral intuitions or judgements. Another coherence condition involves the theory cohering with a person’s set of considered judgments, as well.

One last feature that needs stressing, particularly for moral theories, is applicability . One criticism of some normative ethical theories is that they are not applicable. For example, Virtue Ethics has been criticized for not providing an account of what our moral obligations are – appealing to what the virtuous person would do in the circumstances would seem to set a very high bar or doesn’t answer the relevant question about how we should structure laws guiding people on what their social obligations are. Similarly, objective consequentialists, who understand “right action” in terms of actual consequences have been criticized for rendering what counts as a right action in a given circumstance unknowable, and thus useless as a guide to action. Both approaches provide responses to this worry, but this supports the claim that a desideratum of a moral theory is that it be applicable.

One task (though this is somewhat controversial) of a moral theory is to give an account of right actions. Often, this will involve an explication of what counts as good – some theories then get spelled out in terms of how they approach the good, by maximizing it, producing enough of it, honoring it, etc. In addition, some theories explicate the right in terms of acting in accordance with one’s duties, or acting as a virtuous person would act. In these cases the notions of ‘duty’ and ‘virtue’ become important to the overall analysis, and one function of moral theory is to explore the systematic connections between duty or virtue and the right and the good.

Moral theories also have both substantive and formal aims. Moral theories try to provide criteria for judging actions. It might be that the criterion is simple, such as right actions maximize the good, or it may be complex, such as the right action is the one that gives adequate weight to each competing duty. Sometimes, in recognition that there is not always “the” right action, the theory simply provides an account of wrongness, or permissibility and impermissibility, which allows that a range of actions might count as “right”.

In addition to simply providing criteria for right or virtuous action, or for being a virtuous person, a given moral theory, for example, will attempt to explain why something, like an action or character trait, has a particular moral quality, such as rightness or virtuousness. Some theories view rightness as grounded in or explained by value . Some view rightness as a matter of reasons that are prior to value. In each case, to provide an explanation of the property of ‘rightness’ or ‘virtuousness’ will be to provide an account of what the grounding value is, or an account of reasons for action.

In addition, moral theories may also provide decision-procedures to employ in determining how to act rightly or virtuously, conditions on being good or virtuous, or conditions on morally appropriate practical deliberation. Thus, the theory provides substance to evaluation and reasons. However, moral theories, in virtue of providing an explanatory framework, help us see connections between criteria and decision-procedures, as well as provide other forms of systemization. Thus, moral theories will be themselves evaluated according to their theoretical virtues: simplicity, explanatory power, elegance, etc. To evaluate moral theories as theories , each needs to be evaluated in terms of how well it succeeds in achieving these theoretical goals.

There are many more specialized elements to moral theories as well. For example, a moral theory often concerns itself with features of moral psychology relevant to action and character, such as motives, intentions, emotions, and reasons responsiveness. A moral theory that incorporates consideration of consequences into the determination of moral quality, will also be concerned with issues surrounding the proper aggregation of those consequences, and the scope of the consequences to be considered.

There’s been a long history of comparing moral theories to other sorts of theories, such as scientific ones. For example, in meta-ethics one issue has to do with the nature of moral “evidence” on analogy with scientific evidence. On what Ronald Dworkin terms the “natural model” the truths of morality are discovered, just as the truths of science are (Dworkin 1977, 160). It is our considered intuitions that provide the clues to discover these moral truths, just as what is observable to us provides the evidence to discover scientific truths. He compared this model with the “constructive model” in which the intuitions themselves are features of the theory being constructed and are not analogous to observations of the external world.

Yet, even if we decide that morality lacks the same type of phenomena to be accounted for as science, morality clearly figures into our normative judgments and reactions. One might view these – our intuitions about moral cases, for example – to provide the basic data that needs to be accounted for by a theory on either model.

One way to “account for” our considered intuitions would be to debunk them. There is a long tradition of this in moral philosophy as well. When scholars provided genealogies of morality that explained our considered intuitions in terms of social or evolutionary forces that are not sensitive the truth, for example, they were debunking morality by undercutting the authority of our intuitions to provide insight into it (Nietzsche 1887 [1998], Joyce 2001, Street 2006). In this entry, however, we consider the ways in which moral theorists have constructed their accounts by taking the intuitions seriously as something to be systematized, explained, and as something that can be applied to generate the correct moral decisions or outcomes.

Along these lines, one method used in theory construction would involve the use of reflective equilibrium and inference to the best explanation. For example, one might notice an apparent inconsistency in moral judgements regarding two structurally similar cases and then try to figure out what principle or set of principles would achieve consistency between them. In this case, the theorist is trying to figure out what best explains both of those intuitions. But one also might, after thinking about principles one already accepts, or finds plausible, reject one of those intuitions on the basis of it not cohering with the rest of one’s considered views. But full theory construction will go beyond this because of the fully theoretical virtues discussed earlier. We want a systematic account that coheres well not only with itself, but with other things that we believe on the basis of good evidence.

Consider the following:

Malory has promised to take Chris grocery shopping. Unfortunately, as Malory is leaving the apartment, Sam calls with an urgent request: please come over to my house right now, my pipes have broken and I need help! Torn, Malory decides to help Sam, and thus breaks a promise to Chris.

Has Malory done the right thing? The virtuous thing? Malory has broken a promise, which is pro tanto wrong, but Sam is in an emergency and needs help right away. Even if it is clear that what Malory did was right in the circumstances, it is an interesting question as to why it is right. What can we appeal to in making these sorts of judgments? This brings to light the issue of how one morally justifies one’s actions. This is the task of understanding what the justifying reasons are for our actions. What makes an action the thing to do in the circumstances? This is the criterion of rightness (or wrongness). We will focus on the criterion of rightness, though the criterion issue comes up with other modes of moral evaluation, such as judging an action to be virtuous, or judging it to be good in some respect, even if not right. Indeed, some writers have argued that ‘morally right’ should be jettisoned from modern secular ethics, as it presupposes a conceptual framework left over from religiously based accounts which assume there is a God (Anscombe 1958). We will leave these worries aside for now, however, and focus on standard accounts of criteria.

The following are some toy examples that exhibit differing structural features for moral theories and set out different criteria:

Consequentialism . The right action is the action that produces good amongst the options open to the agent at the time of action (Singer). The most well-known version of this theory is Classical Utilitarianism, which holds that the right action promotes pleasure (Mill). Kantian Deontology . The morally worthy action is in accordance with the Categorical Imperative, which requires an agent refrain from acting in a way that fails to respect the rational nature of other persons (Kant). Rossian Deontology . The right action is the action that best accords with the fulfillment and/or non-violation of one’s prima facie duties (Ross). Contractualism . An action is morally wrong if it is an act that would be forbidden by principles that rational persons could not reasonably reject (Scanlon). Virtue Ethics . The right action is the action that a virtuous person would characteristically perform in the circumstances (Hursthouse 1999).

These principles set out the criterion or standard for evaluation of actions. They do not necessarily tell us how to perform right actions, and are not, in themselves, decision-procedures, though they can easily be turned into decision procedures, such as: you ought to try to perform the action that maximizes the good amongst the options available to you at the time of action. This might not be, and in ordinary circumstance probably isn’t, a very good decision-procedure, and would itself need to be evaluated according to the criterion set out by the theory.

These theories can be divided, roughly, into the deontological, consequentialist, and virtue ethical categories. There has been a lively debate about how, exactly, to delineate these categories. Some have held that deontological theories were just those theories that were not consequentialist. A popular conception of consequentialist theories is that they are reductionist in a particular way – that is, in virtue of reducing deontic features of actions (e.g. rightness, obligatoriness) to facts about an agent’s options and the consequences of those options (Smith 2009). If that is the case, then it seems that deontological approaches are just the ones that are not reductive in this manner. However, this fails to capture the distinctive features of many forms of virtue ethics, which are neither consequentialist nor necessarily concerned with what we ought to do , our duties as opposed to what sorts of persons we should be.

One way to distinguish consequentialist from deontological theories is in terms of how each approaches value. Philip Pettit has suggested that while consequentialist theories required promotion of value, deontological theories recommend that value be honored or respected. On each of these views, value is an important component of the theory, and theories will be partially delineated according to their theory of value. A utilitarian such as Jeremey Bentham believes that hedonism is the correct theory of value, whereas someone such as G. E. Moore, a utilitarian but a pluralist regarding value, believes that hedonism is much too narrow an account. A Kantian, on the other hand, views value as grounded in rational nature, in a will conforming to the Categorical Imperative.

Because of the systematizing function of moral theory discussed earlier, the simplest account is to be preferred and thus there is a move away from endorsing value pluralism. Of course, as intuitive pressure is put on each of the simpler alternatives, a pluralistic account of criteria for rightness and wrongness has the advantage of according best with moral intuitions.

Reasons-first philosophers will delineate the theories somewhat differently. For example, one might understand goodness as a matter of what we have reason to desire, in which case what we have reason to desire is prior to goodness rather than the other way around. Value is still an important component of the theories, it is simply that the value is grounded in reasons.

Another distinction between normative theories is that between subjective and objective versions of a type of theory. This distinction cuts across other categories. For example, there are subjective forms of all the major moral theories, and objective versions of many. An objective standard of right holds that the agent must actually meet the standard – and meeting the standard is something ‘objective’, not dependent on the agent’s psychological states – in order to count as right or virtuous. Subjective standards come in two broad forms:

• Psychology sensitive : are the justifying reasons part of the agent’s deliberative processes? Or, more weakly, are they “recoverable” from the agent’s psychology [perhaps, for example, the agent has a commitment to the values that provide the reasons].
• Evidence sensitive : the right action isn’t the one that actually meets the standard, but instead, is the action that the agent could foresee would meet that standard. [there are many different ways to spell this out, depending on the degree of evidence that is relevant: in terms of what the agent actually foresees, what is foreseeable by the agent given what the agent knows, is foreseeable by someone in possession of a reasonable amount of evidence, etc.]

Of course, these two can overlap. For theorists who are evaluational internalists , evidence-sensitivity doesn’t seem like a plausible way of spelling out the standard, except, perhaps, indirectly. The distinction frequently comes up in Consequentialism, where the Objective standard is taken to be something like: the right action is the action that actually promotes the good and the Subjective standard is something like: the right action is the action that promotes the good by the agent’s own lights (psychology sensitive) or the right action is the action that promotes the foreseeable good, given evidence available at the time of action (evidence sensitive standard). It is certainly possible for other moral standards to be objective. For example, the right action is the action that the virtuous person would perform, even though the agent does not realize it is what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstances, and even if the person with the best available evidence couldn’t realize it is what the virtuous person would do in the circumstances.

We certainly utter locutions that support both subjective and objective uses of what we ‘ought’ to do, or what is ‘right’. Frank Jackson notes this when he writes:

…we have no alternative but to recognize a whole range of oughts – what she ought to do by the light of her beliefs at the time of action, …what she ought to do by the lights of one or another onlooker who has different information on the subject, and, what is more, what she ought to do by God’s lights…that is, by the lights of one who knows what will and would happen for each and every course of action. (Jackson 1991, 471).

For Jackson, the primary ought, the primary sense of ‘rightness’ for an action, is the one that is “most immediately relevant to action” since, otherwise, we have a problem of understanding how the action is the agent’s. Thus, the subjective ‘ought’ is primary in the sense that this is the one that ethical theory should be concerned with (Jackson 1991). Each type of theorist makes use of our ordinary language intuitions to make their case. But one desideratum of a theory is that it not simply reflect those intuitions, but also provides the tools to critically analyze them. Given that our language allows for both sorts of ‘ought,’ the interesting issue becomes which, if either, has primacy in terms of actually providing the standard by which other things are evaluated? Moral theory needn’t only be concerned with what the right action is from the agent’s point of view.

There are three possibilities:

• neither has primacy
• the subjective has primacy
• the objective has primacy

First off we need to understand what we mean by “primacy”. Again, for Frank Jackson, the primary sense of ‘right’ or ‘ought’ is subjective, since what we care about is the ‘right’ that refers to an inward story, the story of our agency, so to speak. On this view, the objective and subjective senses may have no relationship to each other at all, and which counts as primary simply depends upon our interests. However, the issue that concerns us here is whether or not one sense can be accounted for in terms of the other. Option 1 holds that there is no explanatory connection. That is not as theoretically satisfying. Option 2 holds either there really is no meaningful objective sense, just the subjective sense, or the objective sense is understood in terms of the subjective.

Let’s look at the objective locution again “He did the right thing, but he didn’t know it at the time (or he had no way of knowing it at the time)”. Perhaps all this means is “He did what someone with all the facts and correct set of values would have judged right by their own lights” – this would be extensionally the same as “He performed the action with the best actual consequences”. This is certainly a possible account of what objective right means which makes use of a subjective standard. But it violates the spirit of the subjective standard, since it ties rightness neither to the psychology of the agent, or the evidence that is actually available to the agent. For that reason, it seems more natural to opt for 3. An advantage of this option is that gives us a nice, unified account regarding the connection between the objective and the subjective. Subjective standards, then, are standards of praise and blame, which are themselves evaluable according to the objective standard. Over time, people are in a position to tell whether or not a standard actually works in a given type of context. Or, perhaps it turns out that there are several standards of blame that differ in terms of severity. For example, if someone acts negligently a sensible case can be made that the person is blameworthy but not as blameworthy as if they had acted intentionally.

As to the worry that the objective standard doesn’t provide action guidance, the objective theorist can hold that action guidance is provided by the subjective standards of praise/blameworthiness. Further, the standard itself can provide what we need for action guidance through normative review (Driver 2012). Normative review is a retrospective look at what does in fact meet the standard, and under what circumstances.

Now, consider a virtue ethical example. The right action is the action that is the actual action that a virtuous person would perform characteristically, in the circumstances, rather than the action that the agent believes is the one the virtuous person would perform. Then we evaluate an agent’s “v-rules” in terms of how close they meet the virtuous ideal.

Another function of moral theory is to provide a decision procedure for people to follow so as to best insure they perform right actions. Indeed, some writers, such as R. M. Hare hold action guidance to be the function of the moral principles of the theory (Hare 1965). This raises the question of what considerations are relevant to the content of such principles – for example, should the principles be formulated taking into account the epistemic limitations of most human beings? The requirement that moral principles be action guiding is what Holly Smith terms the “Useability Demand”: “…an acceptable moral principle must be useable for guiding moral decisions…” (Smith 2020, 11). Smith enumerates different forms satisfaction of this demand can take, and notes that how one spells out a principle in order to meet the demand will depend upon how the moral theorist views moral success. For example, whether or not success is achieved in virtue of simply making the right decision or if, in addition to making the right decision, the agent must also have successful follow-through on that decision.

There has been enormous debate on the issue of what is involved in following a rule or principle, and some skepticism that this is in fact what we are doing when we take ourselves to be following a rule. (Kripke 1982) Some virtue theorists believe that it is moral perception that actually does the guiding, and that a virtuous person is able to perceive what is morally relevant and act accordingly (McDowell 1979).

As discussed earlier in the section on criteria, however, this is also controversial in that some theorists believe that decision procedures themselves are not of fundamental significance. Again, objective consequentialist who believes that the fundamental task of theory is to establish a criterion for right argues that decision procedures will themselves be established and evaluated on the basis of how well they get us to actually achieving the right. Thus, the decision-procedures are derivative. Others, such as subjective consequentialists, will argue that the decision-procedures specify the criterion in the sense that following the decision-procedure itself is sufficient for meeting the criterion. For example, an objective consequentialist will hold that the right action maximizes the good, whereas the subjective consequentialist might hold that the right action is to try to maximize the good, whether or not one actually achieves it (Mason 2003 and 2019). Following the decision-procedure itself, then, is the criterion.

The distinction between criterion and decision-procedure has been acknowledged and discussed at least since Sidgwick, though it was also mentioned by earlier ethicists. This distinction allows ethical theories to avoid wildly implausible implications. For example, if the standard that the theory recommends is ‘promote the good’ it would be a mistake to think that ‘promote the good’ needs to be part of the agent’s deliberation. The consequentialist might say that, instead, it is an empirical issue as to what the theory is going to recommend as a decision-procedure, and that recommendation could vary from context to context. There will surely be circumstances in which it would be best to think in terms of meeting the standard itself, but again that is an empirical issue. Likewise, it is open to a Virtue Ethicist to hold that the right action is the one the virtuous agent would perform in the circumstances, but also hold that the agent’s deliberative processes need not make reference to the standard. Pretty much all theories will want to make some space between the standard and the decision-procedure in order to avoid a requirement that agent’s must think in terms of the correct standard, in order to act rightly, or even act with moral worth. There is a distinction to be made between doing the right thing, and doing the right thing for the right reasons . Doing the right thing for the right reasons makes the action a morally worthy one, as it exhibits a good quality of the will. It is possible for a theory to hold that the ‘good will’ is one that understands the underlying justification of an action, but that seems overly demanding. If consequentialism is the correct theory, then demanding that people must explicitly act intentionally to maximize the good would result in fewer morally worthy actions than seems plausible. The ‘for the right reasons’ must be understood as allowing for no explicit invocation of the true justifying standard.

This has led to the development of theories that advocate indirection. First, we need to distinguish two ways that indirection figures into moral philosophy.

• Indirection in evaluation of right action.
• Indirection in that the theory does not necessarily advocate the necessity of aiming for the right action.

To use Utilitarianism as an example again, Rule Utilitarianism is an example of the first sort of indirection (Hooker 2000), Sophisticated Consequentialism is an example of the second sort of indirection (Railton 1984). One might hold that some versions of Aristotelian Virtue ethics, such as Rosalind Hursthouse’s version, also are of the first type, since right action is understood in terms of virtue. One could imagine an indirect consequentialist view with a similar structure: the right action is the action that the virtuous person would perform, where virtue is understood as a trait conducive to the good, instead of by appeal to an Aristotelian notion of human flourishing.

The second sort relies on the standard/decision-procedure distinction. Railton argues that personal relationships are good for people, and explicitly trying to maximize the good is not a part of our relationship norms, so it is likely good that we develop dispositions to focus on and pay special attention to our loved ones. The account is open to the possibility that people who don’t believe in consequentialism have another way of deciding how to act that is correlated with promotion of the good. If the criteria a theory sets out need not be fulfilled by the agent guiding herself with the reasons set out by the criteria, then it is termed self-effacing . When a theory is self-effacing, it has the problem of alienating a person from the justification of her own actions. A middle ground, which is closer to Railton’s view, holds that the correct justification is a kind of “touchstone” to the morally good person – consulted periodically for self-regulation, but not taken explicitly into consideration in our ordinary, day-to-day lives. In this way, the theory would not be utterly self-effacing and the agent would still understand the moral basis for her own actions.

• Alicke, Mark, David Rose and Dori Bloom, 2011, “Causation, Norm Violation, and Culpable Control,” Journal of Philosophy , 108(12): 670–696.
• Annas, Julia, 2011, Intelligent Virtue , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Arpaly, Nomy, 2002, Unprincipled Virtue , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Baier, Annette, 1985, Postures of the Mind , Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Baron, Marcia, 1991, “Impartiality and Friendship,” Ethics , 101(4): 836–857.
• –––, 1995, Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Clarke, Stanley G, 1987, “Anti-Theory in Ethics,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 24(3): 237–244.
• D’Arms, Justin and Daniel Jacobson, 2000 , “The Moralistic Fallacy: On the ‘Appropriateness’ of Emotions,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 61(1): 65–90.
• Darwall, Stephen, 2006, The Second-Person Standpoint , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Dreier, Jamie, 1993, “Structures of Normative Theories,” The Monist , 76(1): 22–40.
• Driver, Julia, 2012, “What the Objective Standard is Good For,” in Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press, 28–44.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1977, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Foot, Philippa, 1967, “Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect,” Oxford Review , 5: 5–15.
• Graham, Peter, 2010, “In Defense of Objectivism About Moral Obligation,” Ethics , 121(1): 88–115.
• Hare, R. M., 1965, Freedom and Reason , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Herman, Barbara, 1985, “The Practice of Moral Judgment,” Journal of Philosophy , 82(8): 414–436.
• Hill, jr., Thomas E., 1987, “The Importance of Autonomy,” in Eva Kittay and Diana Meyers (ed.) Women and Moral Theory , Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 129–138.
• Hooker, Brad, 2000, Ideal Code, Real World , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hurka, Thomas, 2001, Virtue, Vice, and Value , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hursthouse, Rosalind, 1999, On Virtue Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, Frank, 1991, “Decision-theoretic Consequentialism and the Nearest and Dearest Objection,” Ethics , 101(3): 461–482.
• Jeske, Diane, 2008, Rationality and Moral Theory: How Intimacy Generates Reasons , New York: Routledge.
• Joyce, Richard, 2001, The Myth of Morality , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Keas, Michael, 2018, “Systematizing the Theoretical Virtues,” Synthese , 195: 2761–2793.
• Kagan, Shelley, 1989, The Limits of Morality , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kamm, Frances, 2007, Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kant, Immanuel, 1785 [2012], Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals , tr. by Mary Gregor and Jens Timmerman, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• Knobe, Joshua, 2003, “Intentional Action in Folk Psychology: An Experimental Investigation,” Philosophical Psychology , 16(2): 309–325.
• Kripke, Saul, 1982, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Languages , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Louden, Robert, 1990, “Virtue Ethics and Anti-Theory,” Philosophia , 20(1–2): 93–114.
• Markovits, Julia, 2014, Moral Reason , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mason, Elinor, 2003, “Consequentialism and the ‘Ought Implies Can’ Principle,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 40(4): 319–331.
• –––, 2019, Ways to Be Blameworthy: Rightness, Wrongness, and Responsibility , New York: Oxford University Press.
• McDowell, John, 1979, “Virtue and Reason,” The Monist , 62(3): 331–350.
• Moody-Adams, Michelle, 2002, Fieldwork in Familiar Places: Morality, Culture, and Philosophy , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Moore, G. E., 1903 [1993], Principia Ethica , ed. Thomas Baldwin, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• Nagel, Thomas, 1979, “The Fragmentation of Value,” in Mortal Questions , New York: Cambridge University Press, 128–141.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1887 [1998], On the Genealogy of Morality , Maudemarie Clark and Alan J. Swensen (trans.), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
• Norcross, Alastair, 2020, Morality By Degrees , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Olson, Jonas, 2004, “Buck-Passing and the Wrong Kind of Reasons,” Philosophical Quarterly , 54(215): 295–300.
• Parfit, Derek, 1984, Reasons and Persons , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Pettit, Phillip, 1997, “The Consequentialist Perspective,” in The Three Methods of Ethics , by Marcia Baron, Phillip Pettit, and Michael Slote, Oxford: Blackwell, 92–174.
• Pettit, Phillip, and Michael Smith, 2000, “Global Consequentialism,” in Brad Hooker, et al. (eds.), Morality, Rules, and Consequences , Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 121–133.
• Phillips, David, 2019, Rossian Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Piper, Adrian, 1987, “Moral Theory and Moral Alienation,” Journal of Philosophy , 82(2): 102–118.
• Portmore, Douglas, 2011, Commonsense Consequentialism , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Rabinowicz, Wlodek and Toni Ronnow-Rasmussen, 2004, “The Strike of the Demon: on Fitting Pro-Attitudes and Value,” Ethics , 114(3): 391–423.
• Railton, Peter, 1984, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 13(2): 134–171.
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• Scanlon, T. M., 1998, What We Owe to Each Other , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• –––, 2008, Moral Dimensions , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Scheffler, Samuel, 1982, The Rejection of Consequentialism , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Schneewind, J. B., 1963, “First Principles and Common-sense Morality in Sidgwick’s Ethics,” Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie , 45(2): 137–156.
• –––, 1990, “The Misfortunes of Virtue,” Ethics , 101(1): 42–63.
• Schofield, Paul, 2021, Duty to Self: Moral, Political, and Legal Self-Relation , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sen, Amartya, 2000, “Consequential Evaluation and Practical Reason,” The Journal of Philosophy , 47(9): 477–502.
• Sidgwick, Henry, 1874 [1907], The Methods of Ethics , London: Macmillan. [The seventh edition was published in 1907.]
• Singer, Marcus, 1986, “Ethics and Common Sense,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie , 40(158): 221–258.
• Slote, Michael, 1985, Common-Sense Morality and Consequentialism , New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• –––, 2007, The Ethics of Care and Empathy , New York: Routledge.
• Smith, Holly, 2018, Making Morality Work , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Smith, Michael, 2009, “Two Kinds of Consequentialism,” Philosophical Issues , 19(1): 257–272.
• Stark, Cynthia, 1997, “Decision Procedures, Standards of Rightness and Impartiality,” Noûs , 31(4): 478–495.
• Stocker, Michael, 1976, “The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories,” Journal of Philosophy , 73(14): 453–466.
• Strawson, Peter, 1961, “Social Morality and Individual Ideal,” Philosophy , 36(136): 1–17.
• Street, Sharon, 2006, “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value,” Philosophical Studies , 127(1): 109–166.
• Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 1976, “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” The Monist , 59(2): 204–217.
• Wiland, Eric J, “The Incoherence Objection in Moral Theory,” Acta Analytica , 25(3): 279–284.
• Williams, Bernard, 1985, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Wolf, Susan, 1982, “Moral Saints,” Journal of Philosophy , 79(8): 419–439.
• –––, 2014, “Loving Attention: Lessons in Love from The Philadelphia Story ,” in Susan Wolf and Christopher Grau (eds.), Understanding Love: Philosophy, Film, and Fiction , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 369–386.
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkhaus, 2017, Exemplarist Moral Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.

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

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

consequentialism | ethics: deontological | ethics: virtue | morality, definition of | value theory

Copyright © 2022 by Julia Driver < julia . driver @ austin . utexas . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Values of Life — How to Live an Ethical Life: Navigating Moral Choices

How to Live an Ethical Life: Navigating Moral Choices

• Categories: Morality Values of Life

About this sample

Words: 649 |

Published: Aug 31, 2023

Words: 649 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The foundations of ethical decision-making, cultivating self-awareness, empathy and consideration for others, practicing integrity and honesty, respecting diversity and inclusion, balancing self-care and altruism, conclusion: navigating the path of ethical living.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Psychology Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 888 words

1 pages / 610 words

3 pages / 1224 words

3 pages / 1296 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Values of Life

Adonis, J. (1995). A history of The Boys' Brigade. The Boys' Brigade Asia.Boys' Brigade Australia. (2018). History of The Boys' Brigade. Routledge

NST. (2018, October). Nurturing noble values: Addressing changes in lifestyle major challenges. Retrieved from [...]

Core values are fundamental beliefs that guide and influence a person's behavior and attitudes. They serve as the foundation for decision making, relationships, and overall life satisfaction. Understanding and embracing core [...]

Ethics and values are foundational principles that guide human behavior and shape the moral fabric of society. They define what is right and wrong, influence decision-making, and determine the standards by which individuals and [...]

Many of the values and beliefs I possess, I actually developed at very early age. And as I have grown, my values have also changed or gone through numerous tests. And though I have held onto most of my values and beliefs, I [...]

The "This I Believe" essay series has provided a platform for individuals to share their deeply held beliefs, values, and reflections on life. These essays offer a glimpse into the diverse perspectives and convictions that shape [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

What Does It Mean to Live the Good Life?

Golf & Spa

• Philosophical Theories & Ideas
• Major Philosophers
• Ph.D., Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin
• M.A., Philosophy, McGill University
• B.A., Philosophy, University of Sheffield

What is “the good life”? This is one of the oldest philosophical questions . It has been posed in different ways—How should one live? What does it mean to “live well”?—but these are really just the same question. After all, everyone wants to live well, and no one wants “the bad life.”

But the question isn’t as simple as it sounds. Philosophers specialize in unpacking hidden complexities, and the concept of the good life is one of those that needs quite a bit of unpacking.

The Moral Life

One basic way we use the word “good” is to express moral approval. So when we say someone is living well or that they have lived a good life, we may simply mean that they are a good person, someone who is courageous, honest, trustworthy, kind, selfless, generous, helpful, loyal, principled, and so on.

They possess and practice many of the most important virtues. And they don’t spend all their time merely pursuing their own pleasure; they devote a certain amount of time to activities that benefit others, perhaps through their engagement with family and friends, or through their work, or through various voluntary activities.

This moral conception of the good life has had plenty of champions. Socrates and Plato both gave absolute priority to being a virtuous person over all other supposedly good things such as pleasure, wealth, or power.

In Plato’s dialogue Gorgias , Socrates takes this position to an extreme. He argues that it is much better to suffer wrong than to do it; that a good man who has his eyes gouged out and is tortured to death is more fortunate than a corrupt person who has used wealth and power dishonorably.

In his masterpiece, the Republic , Plato develops this argument in greater detail. The morally good person, he claims, enjoys a sort of inner harmony, whereas the wicked person, no matter how rich and powerful he may be or how many pleasure he enjoys, is disharmonious, fundamentally at odds with himself and the world.

It is worth noting, though, that in both the Gorgias and the Republic , Plato bolsters his argument with a speculative account of an afterlife in which virtuous people are rewarded and wicked people are punished.

Many religions also conceive of the good life in moral terms as a life lived according to God’s laws. A person who lives this way—obeying the commandments and performing the proper rituals—is pious . And in most religions, such piety will be rewarded. Obviously, many people do not receive their reward in this life.

But devout believers are confident that their piety will not be in vain. Christian martyrs went singing to their deaths confident that they would soon be in heaven. Hindus expect that the law of karma will ensure that their good deeds and intentions will be rewarded, while evil actions and desires will be punished, either in this life or in future lives.

The Life of Pleasure

The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was one of the first to declare, bluntly, that what makes life worth living is that we can experience pleasure. Pleasure is enjoyable, it’s fun, it’s...well...pleasant! The view that pleasure is the good, or, to put I another way, that pleasure is what makes life worth living, is known as hedonism .

The word “hedonist,” when applied to a person, has slightly negative connotations. It suggests that they are devoted to what some have called the “lower” pleasures such as sex, food, drink, and sensual indulgence in general.

Epicurus was thought by some of his contemporaries to be advocating and practicing this sort of lifestyle, and even today an “epicure” is someone who is especially appreciative of food and drink. But this is a misrepresentation of Epicureanism. Epicurus certainly praised all kinds of pleasures. But he didn’t advocate that we lose ourselves in sensual debauchery for various reasons:

• Doing so will probably reduce our pleasures in the long run since over-indulgence tends to cause health problems and limit the range of pleasure we enjoy.
• The so-called “higher” pleasures such as friendship and study are at least as important as “pleasures of the flesh."
• The good life has to be virtuous. Although Epicurus disagreed with Plato about the value of pleasure, he fully agreed with him on this point.

Today, this hedonistic conception of the good life is arguably dominant in Western culture. Even in everyday speech, if we say someone is “living the good life,” we probably mean that they enjoying lots of recreational pleasures: good food, good wine, skiing, scuba diving, lounging by the pool in the sun with a cocktail and a beautiful partner.

What is key to this hedonistic conception of the good life is that it emphasizes subjective experiences . On this view, to describe a person as “happy” means that they “feel good,” and a happy life is one that contains many “feel good” experiences.

The Fulfilled Life

If Socrates emphasizes virtue and Epicurus emphasizes pleasure, another great Greek thinker, Aristotle , views the good life in a more comprehensive way. According to Aristotle, we all want to be happy.

We value many things because they are a means to other things. For instance, we value money because it enables us to buy things we want; we value leisure because it gives us time to pursue our interests. But happiness is something we value not as a means to some other end but for its own sake. It has intrinsic value rather than instrumental value.

So for Aristotle , the good life is a happy life. But what does that mean? Today, many people automatically think of happiness in subjectivist terms: To them, a person is happy if they are enjoying a positive state of mind, and their life is happy if this is true for them most of the time.

There is a problem with this way of thinking about happiness in this way, though. Imagine a powerful sadist who spends much of his time gratifying cruel desires. Or imagine a pot-smoking, beer-guzzling couch potato who does nothing but sit around all day watching old TV shows and playing video games. These people may have plenty of pleasurable subjective experiences. But should we really describe them as “living well”?

Aristotle would certainly say no. He agrees with Socrates that to live the good life one must be a morally good person. And he agrees with Epicurus that a happy life will involve many and varied pleasurable experiences. We can’t really say someone is living the good life if they are often miserable or constantly suffering.

But Aristotle’s idea of what it means to live well is objectivist rather than subjectivist. It isn’t just a matter of how a person feels inside, although that does matter. It’s also important that certain objective conditions be satisfied.

For instance:

• Virtue: They must be morally virtuous.
• Health: They should enjoy good health and reasonably long life.
• Prosperity: They should be comfortably off (for Aristotle this meant affluent enough so that they don’t need to work for a living doing something that they would not freely choose to do.)
• Friendship: They must have good friends. According to Aristotle human beings are innately social; so the good life can’t be that of a hermit , a recluse, or a misanthrope.
• Respect: They should enjoy the respect of others. Aristotle doesn’t think that fame or glory is necessary; in fact, a craving for fame can lead people astray, just as the desire for excessive wealth can. But ideally, a person’s qualities and achievements will be recognized by others.
• Luck: They need good luck. This is an example of Aristotle’s common sense. Any life can be rendered unhappy by tragic loss or misfortune.
• Engagement: They must exercise their uniquely human abilities and capacities. This is why the couch potato is not living well, even if they report that they are content. Aristotle argues that what separates human beings from the other animals is the human reason. So the good life is one in which a person cultivates and exercises their rational faculties by, for instance, engaging in scientific inquiry, philosophical discussion, artistic creation, or legislation. Were he alive today he might well include some forms of technological innovation.

If at the end of your life you can check all these boxes then you could reasonably claim to have lived well, to have achieved the good life. Of course, the great majority of people today do not belong to the leisure class as Aristotle did. They have to work for a living.

But it’s still true that we think the ideal circumstance is to be doing for a living what you would choose to do anyway. So people who are able to pursue their calling are generally regarded as extremely fortunate.

The Meaningful Life

Recent research shows that people who have children are not necessarily happier than people who don’t have children. Indeed, during the child-raising years, and especially when children have turned into teenagers, parents typically have lower levels of happiness and higher levels of stress. But even though having children may not make people happier, it does seem to give them the sense that their lives are more meaningful.

For many people, the well-being of their family, especially their children and grandchildren, is the main source of meaning in life. This outlook goes back a very long way. In ancient times, the definition of good fortune was to have lots of children who do well for themselves.

But obviously, there can be other sources of meaning in a person’s life. They may, for instance, pursue a particular kind of work with great dedication: e.g. scientific research, artistic creation, or scholarship. They may devote themselves to a cause: e.g. fighting against racism or protecting the environment. Or they may be thoroughly immersed in and engaged with some particular community: e.g. a church, a soccer team, or a school.

The Finished Life

The Greeks had a saying: Call no man happy until he’s dead. There is wisdom in this. In fact, one might want to amend it to: Call no man happy until he’s long dead. For sometimes a person can appear to live a fine life, and be able to check all the boxes—virtue, prosperity, friendship, respect, meaning, etc.—yet eventually be revealed as something other than what we thought they were.

A good example of this Jimmy Saville, the British TV personality who was much admired in his lifetime but who, after he died, was exposed as a serial sexual predator.

Cases like this bring out the great advantage of an objectivist rather than a subjectivist notion of what it means to live well. Jimmy Saville may have enjoyed his life. But surely, we would not want to say that he lived the good life. A truly good life is one that is both enviable and admirable in all or most of the ways outlined above.

• Epicurus and His Philosophy of Pleasure
• An Introduction to Virtue Ethics
• 30 Quotes by Aristotle
• Three Basic Principles of Utilitarianism, Briefly Explained
• The 5 Great Schools of Ancient Greek Philosophy
• How Can I Be Happy? An Epicurean and Stoic Perspective
• Summary and Analysis of Meno by Plato
• Moral Philosophy According to Immanuel Kant
• Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Value
• 3 Stoic Strategies for Becoming Happier
• Analysis of Plato's 'Crito'
• Stoics and Moral Philosophy - The 8 Principles of Stoicism
• How Do Philosophers Think About Beauty?
• Plato's 'Apology'
• Top 10 Beatles Songs With Philosophical Themes

Why Is Morality Important? (17 Reasons)

Morality permeates the very essence of our interactions, shaping judgments and directing our hand as we pen the story of our existence. These are the unwritten rules that govern our collective behavior, a silent agreement to do no harm and to consider the welfare of others.

But as we journey through this article, consider the idea that morality is not just about adherence to a set of rules—it’s about the pursuit of a good life. Let’s explore together the profound influence of morality and why, at its core, it remains the guiding star for our shared human experience.

Table of Contents

Morality Fosters a Sense of Right and Wrong

Morality acts as an internal compass that guides individuals in decision-making processes throughout their daily lives. From childhood, people learn moral values that help distinguish beneficial actions, such as sharing and kindness, from harmful ones, like stealing or lying.

These moral judgments are not just personal preferences but are shaped by the collective conscience of a society, which instills in us what is considered acceptable or unacceptable behavior.

This internalized understanding of right and wrong helps create a cohesive community where trust can flourish. When individuals share a common set of moral values, there is a mutual expectation of right behavior, leading to societal stability.

Morality Underpins Legal Systems

The legal system of any society is a codification of moral values into rules and regulations that govern behavior. These laws are designed not only to maintain order but to protect citizens from harm and ensure a balance of interests amongst various community members.

Foundational concepts inherent in law, such as justice, equity, and the protection of rights , are derived from the broader moral values collectively held by society.

Key elements of legal systems influenced by morality include:

• Criminal law: Distinguishes between ethical and unethical behaviors, setting consequences for actions deemed harmful.
• Civil law: Reflects moral expectations in agreements and personal conduct; it governs interactions between individuals and organizations.

While laws can be seen as practical tools for achieving a moral order, they need the undercurrent of public moral sentiment for legitimacy and efficacy. At times, the law may even serve as an agent of moral change, shaping the collective conscience by formally prohibiting practices once deemed acceptable.

Morality Supports Fairness and Justice

The concepts of fairness and justice are deeply interwoven with morality. They are about ensuring that individuals receive equitable treatment and that resolution mechanisms are in place to address grievances in accordance with moral standards. Through these principles, morality upholds human dignity and fosters conditions where every individual can thrive.

Fairness and justice pertain to:

• Distributive justice: Ensuring resources are allocated in society equally or according to need.
• Procedural justice: Ensuring processes and procedures are transparent and applied consistently.
• Retributive justice: Involving fair punishment proportionate to wrongdoing, deterring harm, and promoting moral behavior.

For example, a court trial that is perceived as fair and untainted by bias can uphold public trust in the judicial system, contributing to a greater sense of social stability and order.

Moreover, when justice serves not purely to punish but also to rehabilitate and educate, it reflects a more profound understanding of morality that values human potential for change and growth.

However, it’s essential to recognize that the pursuit of fairness and justice is an ongoing process, reflective of a society’s moral maturity. Challenges arise when societal moral standards are unevenly applied or when systemic issues undermine equitable treatment.

Therefore, remaining vigilant in the promotion of fairness and justice is an active, dynamic endeavor that requires constant moral reflection and action. By striving to minimize disparities and correct injustices, morality propels society toward a more harmonious and inclusive future.

Morality Promotes Social Harmony

When people adhere to a shared moral code, it reduces conflicts and allows for more cohesive and supportive communities. This shared understanding ensures that actions are predictable and members are accountable, building a peaceful environment where everyone can coexist.

Social harmony is facilitated through:

• Cooperative efforts, such as community volunteering, are inspired by moral drives toward generosity.
• Dialogue and reconciliation processes that are founded on mutual respect and the desire for peace.

A society without an underlying moral foundation often finds itself in turmoil, with individuals pursuing their interests at the expense of others, leading to discord and fragmentation.

In contrast, social harmony, derived from shared moral values, will enable different groups to overcome their variations in opinion and background, focusing instead on the common good. This collective effort towards amicable living can even extend beyond local communities to international relationships, highlighting the global impact of morality.

Morality Guides Societal Behavior

As individuals, the need to conform to societal standards often directs our actions. These standards are dictated by the moral codes prevalent within a community.

Morality serves as the guiding light for behavior, indicating the paths that are more likely to be accepted and those that might be rejected by society. This guidance shapes every aspect of social life, from etiquette and politeness to laws and decrees.

Consider the following points where morality guides behavior:

• Personal interactions, where civility and kindness are valued
• Business conduct, steering companies toward corporate social responsibility
• Public service, directing leaders to act in the best interest of their community

Without such guidance, societal behavior would lack cohesion and could potentially become destructive. It offers a blueprint for living harmoniously with others and sets expectations for individual conduct that align with the public good. Such direction not only simplifies decision-making but also helps communities to flourish by fostering environments of care and mutual assistance.

Morality Is Intrinsic to Evaluating Character

Judgments about an individual’s character are often grounded in an assessment of their moral conduct. Indeed, moral virtues such as honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness are highly prized attributes in individuals, frequently shaping others’ perceptions and evaluations.

Here’s how morality interplays with character assessment:

• In personal relationships, traits like loyalty and empathy are highly valued, cementing bonds between friends and family members.
• Professional reputations are built not only on expertise but also on ethical behavior, with corrupt acts leading to a loss of respect and trust.
• Public figures are often scrutinized for their moral actions; a politician’s career can flourish or flounder based on their moral choices.

The link between morality and character is underscored by the importance we place on moral education. Parents and teachers strive to instill moral virtues in children, knowing that these traits are crucial for their future social interactions and relationships.

Morality as the lens through which we view character ensures that ethical behavior remains integral to social expectations and personal advancement.

Morality Is the Foundation for Trust

When individuals exhibit moral behavior—keeping promises, telling the truth, and acting with fairness—trust naturally develops among community members. Conversely, a lack of moral conduct can erode trust, leading to suspicion and conflict.

Expanding on the influence of morality on trust, consider the following:

• In Relationships:  Personal relationships rely on the integrity and honesty of those involved.
• In Commerce:  Business transactions hinge on the mutual trust that agreements will be honored.
• In Governance:  Citizens’ trust in their leaders depends on the moral actions of those in power.

This mutual reliance based on moral behavior is not only foundational but has quantifiable benefits. In economies, for instance, higher levels of trust correlate with increased trade and economic growth.

In the legal system, trust in the justice of the process is paramount for societal adherence to the rule of law. It is morality that fuels these aspects of trust binding societies together in mutually beneficial ways.

Morality Enhances Personal Responsibility

Personal responsibility is a fundamental moral virtue crucial to individual development and societal role fulfillment. It encompasses recognizing one’s duty to oneself and to others, honoring commitments, and taking ownership of one’s actions and their consequences.

Through morality, individuals come to understand their obligation to:

• Engage in self-reflection and self-improvement.
• Act with integrity and accountability.
• Contribute positively to the community.

An individual’s sense of personal responsibility can be seen in various aspects of life, such as environmental stewardship—recycling, conserving water, reducing carbon footprints—or in professional accountability, where employees fulfill their roles diligently and with ethical consideration.

Morality Aids in Conflict Resolution

Morality provides a framework through which disputes can be approached and settled in a fair and equitable manner. Whether between individuals, groups, or nations, moral guidelines aid in finding common ground and forging peaceful solutions.

In navigating conflict, parties rely on several key moral concepts:

• Justice : Ensuring that each party receives fair treatment.
• Forgiveness : Offering and accepting apologies to move beyond past grievances.
• Honesty : Communicating transparently to address the root causes of the conflict.

Through these principles, conflicting sides can engage in constructive dialogue and come to mutually acceptable agreements. The role of international laws in mediating conflicts between nations exemplifies the application of morality to larger-scale resolutions.

By adhering to moral norms, parties in conflict prioritize restorative over retributive solutions, paving the way for reconciliation and the maintenance of long-term relationships.

Morality Nurtures Compassion

Compassion is a powerful force generated by moral emotion, prompting individuals to empathize with others and take action to alleviate suffering. The role of morality in nurturing compassion is paramount—it’s through our sense of right and wrong that we feel compelled to help those in need.

Here’s how morality is intertwined with compassion:

• Individuals volunteer and provide support, guided by a moral duty to assist.
• Societies establish welfare systems to care for the less fortunate, reflecting a collective commitment to compassion.
• Global relief efforts in response to crises demonstrate the universal moral imperative to help regardless of borders.

Compassion, fueled by morality, not only benefits recipients but also enriches the lives of those who give. Acts of kindness and concern have been shown to improve individuals’ sense of well-being and can even bolster the health of communities. In this way, morality is a crucial element in the fostering of empathy and the active relief of pain and hardship.

Morality Motivates Altruism

Altruism—the selfless concern for the well-being of others—finds its roots in moral values. It drives people to act for the benefit of others, often at a personal cost or without expectation of reward. This moral behavior is essential for societal welfare, as it encapsulates the idea of giving without receiving.

The manifestations of altruism influenced by morality are evident in the following:

• Charitable giving and humanitarian work, where individuals and organizations provide resources and aid to those in need.
• Heroic actions, where everyday citizens risk their own safety to save others from harm.
• Organ and blood donation, where donors give a part of themselves to save or improve the lives of strangers.

These actions, grounded in moral conviction, contribute to the social good and are laudable examples of how individuals can make a significant impact. Altruism reflects the ideal of benevolence and generosity, showing that morality is not just about avoiding harm but actively doing good.

Morality Shapes Moral Development in Children

Moral development in children is a process during which they learn and internalize the values and behaviors considered acceptable within their culture. It’s a crucial aspect of their overall growth, preparing them for the roles and responsibilities they will assume as adults.

Morality’s presence in a child’s early years shapes their future interactions and the ethical decisions they will make throughout their lives.

• The stages of moral development, from understanding fairness to grasping societal rules, are fundamentally guided by the moral teachings they receive.
• Role models such as parents and teachers play a significant role in imparting moral values through their actions and words. Children learn by observing the behaviors that are praised or discouraged by these influential figures.
• Storytelling often serves as a medium to pass on moral lessons, with characters embodying virtues and vices, providing children with clear examples of moral and immoral conduct.

This development is not just about telling children what is right or wrong; it’s about creating an environment where moral reasoning can flourish. Children’s participation in discussions about fairness, justice, and compassion allows for a deeper understanding of moral concepts rather than superficial compliance.

Morality Drives Ethical Behavior in Business

Corporations and entrepreneurs alike are increasingly held to high moral standards by consumers, employees, and society at large. An ethical business approach creates a ripple effect of positive outcomes that extend beyond the company’s profit margins.

Consider the following business ethics pillars and their moral bases:

• Honesty : Customers expect truthful advertising and transparency about products or services.
• Integrity : Trust is gained when businesses act consistently and fairly, even when it may not be legally required.
• Social Responsibility : There is a growing demand for businesses to operate sustainably and consider the broader impact of their actions on the community and environment.

When morality drives business practices, there can be a symbiotic relationship between profitability and societal well-being. Ethical companies often see long-term success and loyalty among their customers and employees, proving that good ethics is good business.

Morality Influences Educational Curricula

The influence of morality on curricula is profound; it molds young minds to form a sense of societal duty and personal ethics. Educational systems around the world incorporate moral education to various degrees, promoting values that are deemed important by society.

Key Points:

• Curricula designed to foster critical thinking often encourage students to consider the ethical dimensions of various issues.
• Subjects like history and literature, replete with moral dilemmas and stories of ethical heroism, challenge students to form their own moral judgments.
• Schools promote moral behavior through codes of conduct, honor codes, and community service requirements.

An interactive approach towards embedding morality in education does not merely inform students about ethics but also engages them in activities that require moral decisions. Debates, ethical problem-solving tasks, and the analysis of moral questions prepare students to confront real-world issues with a developed moral compass.

Morality Refines Individual Conscience

The individual conscience is often viewed as the inner voice that guides a person’s moral decisions. It is through the continual process of self-reflection and moral reasoning that one’s conscience is refined. This personal moral compass is essential in daily decision-making, where one must navigate the complexities of right and wrong.

Consider how an individual’s morality shapes their conscience:

• Personal experiences and the internalization of societal values contribute to one’s moral judgments.
• Ethical dilemmas, when confronted, provide opportunities for individuals to reflect upon and strengthen their moral convictions.
• The ongoing development of conscience is influenced by dialogue with others, reading, and education, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of morality.

An individual with a well-developed conscience is more likely to make decisions that are consistent with ethical values, benefiting both themselves and society. The refinement of conscience is a lifelong pursuit, which is crucial for personal integrity and moral conduct.

Morality Informs Religious Teachings

Religious teachings often provide a detailed framework for understanding and practicing moral values. Although the specifics can vary greatly from one religion to another, many share common themes such as compassion, honesty, and the sanctity of life.

• Moral precepts present in religious texts influence behavior and decision-making.
• The practice of values like charity, non-violence, and humility is often promoted as pathways to spiritual growth.
• Rituals and ceremonies reinforce a community’s moral standards, acting as reminders and public affirmations of shared values.

Religious institutions and leaders play a pivotal role in interpreting moral concepts and guiding adherents in how these principles apply to contemporary issues and individual circumstances. Through religious teachings, morality gains a dimension of transcendence, linking ethical conduct with spiritual well-being.

Morality Governs Environmental Stewardship

The modern concept of environmental stewardship is steeped in moral responsibility towards the planet and its ecosystems. The choices individuals and societies make regarding the environment are deeply moral decisions, reflecting their respect for the interdependence of life and their duty to future generations.

• Sustainability practices and conservation efforts are expressions of the moral imperative to preserve natural resources.
• Policies addressing climate change and habitat protection are underpinned by an ethical understanding of humanity’s role in the biosphere.
• Ethical debates about animal rights, biodiversity loss, and ecological justice are fueled by moral considerations.

Activism and global agreements on environmental issues are further evidence of morality’s guiding influence on stewardship. Morality compels individuals, communities, and nations to look beyond immediate interests, envisioning a global ethic of care and respect for the shared home of all living beings.

Final Thoughts

Morality is the unseen yet deeply felt force that shapes how we interact with our neighbors, build our communities, and, ultimately, how we view ourselves. It’s an ongoing dialogue between our inner values and the outer world, a delicate balance between self and the collective good.

So as we move forward beyond these words, let us carry the essence of morality in our actions and thoughts. It’s our shared responsibility, our common thread in a diverse tapestry.

By honoring the principles of morality, we not only enrich our own lives but also contribute positively to the wider world.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

As you found this post useful...

Share it on social media!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Bea Mariel Saulo

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

Reason, Morality, and Beauty: Essays on the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

Bindu Puri and Heiko Sievers (eds.), Reason, Morality, and Beauty: Essays on the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant , Oxford University Press, 2007, 191pp., $35.00 (hbk), ISBN 0195683935.

Reviewed by Charles Goodman, Binghamton University

This volume, a commemoration of the 200th anniversary of Kant's death, is an ambitious attempt to explore the global significance of Kant's thought and investigate the historical influence and continuing relevance of his ideas in relation to both analytic and continental philosophical projects and both Western and non-Western philosophical traditions.   It contains contributions from authors representing many regions of the globe, including India, China, Germany, Turkey, Indonesia, and the United States.   Given the significance of the tasks which the volume undertakes, and the commendable broadness of its outlook, it is unfortunate that its level of quality is so uneven.   Although some of the essays are quite interesting, others have little to offer readers with even a basic familiarity with the literature on Kant.

The quality of editing on display in this book is not up to the usual high standards of Oxford University Press.   A number of the essays suffer from deficiencies in style and errors in grammar.   The chapter by Bindu Puri has particularly severe problems of this kind, including the unintentionally humorous misplacement of commas (p. 60), grammatical problems which lead to a lack of clarity (as at p. 63), and an incorrect reference to the title of a well-known work (p. 70).   Even those essays in the volume which are well-written could still benefit from a bit more proofreading.

By far the most impressive article in the volume is the contribution of Jonathan Dancy.   Dancy's other work can often be so technical and difficult as to be almost impenetrable, but this essay is commendably clear.   In it, he confronts one of the strongest objections against his particularist view of ethics, and does so in a careful, frank and stimulating way.   The objection starts from the observation that moral claims don't seem to be a posteriori , since they aren't confirmed in the same straightforwardly empirical way as scientific assertions or everyday reports about perceptible objects.   Since the division between a priori and a posteriori exhausts the domain of assertions, moral claims must be a priori .   This conclusion would make sense on a view where morality derives from one general principle such as Kant's Categorical Imperative.   But particularists such as Dancy deny that morality depends on principles in this way; they affirm that morality is a vast field of independent, specific truths that depend sensitively on the details of the contexts in which they apply.   So, as Dancy puts it, "the particularist is left in the uncomfortable position of holding that some contingent and particular truths can be known a priori " (p. 43).

Dancy's main response to the objection is to assert that certain judgments of similarity, such as the assertion that "Mozart's music is more like Haydn's than Beethoven's is like Bach's," are synthetic, a priori , particular, and contingent.   Thus, moral judgments are not the only ones that possess all four of these seemingly incompatible types of status (pp. 50-51).   The most difficult part of this case to make is that the judgments of similarity, while being known a priori , are also contingent.   For as Dancy points out, it seems that there are two different, closely related types of propositions involved in these judgments.   We might say that any music exactly like Haydn's, whoever happened to have written it, would be very similar to any music exactly like Mozart's; and this would be a necessary truth.   Or we might say that the music Haydn in fact happened to write was quite similar to the music Mozart in fact wrote, and this claim would clearly be contingent.   It seems that if one of these assertions is known a priori , it will be the first, not the second.

Dancy responds to this difficulty with another example:

I don't think this challenge is sound.   It is a necessary truth that Mark, given his actual height, is taller than Jonathan, given his actual height.   But the necessity of that truth is compatible with its being a stubbornly contingent truth that Mark is taller than Jonathan.   The necessary truth is a consequence of the contingent one, and, I would say, known only by knowing the contingent one.   (p. 51)

This example is an unfortunate one for Dancy's case, since there are principles that apply to heights: namely, the principles of arithmetic.   If Mark is six feet tall and Jonathan is five feet tall, then the relation between their heights is a consequence of the universal and necessary truth that anyone who is six feet tall is taller than anyone who is five feet tall.   In some cases, our knowledge of both the particular necessary truth and the particular contingent truth that Dancy cites in the quote could be dependent on our knowledge of this universal necessary truth.

The example of similarities between entire lifetimes of musical compositions is obviously vastly more complex.   But Kant, if we imagine him as Dancy's opponent, could certainly claim that we judge Mozart and Haydn to be similar by noting certain specific respects in which they are similar, and that we are therefore applying a complex body of universal a priori knowledge.   Dancy would reply that judgments about similarity are too inherently contextual to be reduced to any set of principles, no matter how complex.   But surely at least some of the claims we could make about the similarities between Mozart and Haydn are instances of true universal principles.   Perhaps whatever is objectively true about these similarities can be captured in such principles; whatever cannot be so captured may be traceable to the subjective tastes of each individual.   And if so, then Dancy cannot use the example of similarity to illuminate the moral case.   He will not have dispelled the sheer strangeness of imagining that a vast, messy, uncodifiable body of particular judgments could nevertheless be known a priori .

For these reasons, I am doubtful that Dancy's main argument succeeds.   Along with this important argument, however, he also presents a number of other highly interesting remarks.   For example, he deftly refutes the argument that since moral judgments must govern the behavior of all rational beings, they must therefore be universal in form.   He does this by pointing out that a conditional rule can apply over a large domain of quantification, even though only a small subset of the domain satisfies the antecedent of the conditional.   He also strikes at the heart of many recent reconstructions of Kant through his bold claim that "Kant was not trying to capture the idea of a moral reason" (p. 41).   Dancy's essay by itself is almost sufficient to justify the purchase of the entire book.

Reason, Morality, and Beauty contains several historical essays that do a good job of expounding the views of Kant and other thinkers, but make little original contribution.   This is true of the first chapter, by Sharad Deshpande, on the relation between Kant and the tradition of virtue ethics.   Deshpande does attempt a reconciliation between Kant and Aristotle, but recognizes that although the issues that concern them are often similar, they differ in their conceptions of the role of reason in the moral life.   The second chapter, by Goutam Biswas, is especially poorly written with little critical bite, juxtaposing Kant with various Continental figures, but without much of a philosophical payoff.   The essay by Xie Dikun is greatly superior in the quality of its writing style.   It expounds various neo-Kantian positions and discusses a large number of philosophers, but without doing much intellectual work with them or improving our understanding of Kant in any significant way.

Bindu Puri, one of the editors of the volume, contributes an article which seeks to criticize Kant's views about happiness and friendship from an Aristotelian perspective.   Although I sympathize with the general thrust of his remarks, I fear that the essay has significant defects both in organization and in argumentation.   On p. 59, Puri offers some expressions of disagreement with Kant's critique of pathological love that don't engage with the motivations behind that critique, as they are expounded by such recent interpreters as Allen Wood.   One particularly flawed argument appears on p. 56, where we read: "Also, if happiness has no role to play in making men good, it is difficult to say that friendship, which has certain complex but decisive influences on happiness, can be constitutive of that human good."   On p. 70, Puri makes a valuable point about the potential importance of moral correction that friends can offer us; but this point is intended as a criticism of Kant, and it is unclear whether Kant would have any reason to disagree with it.

Bijoy Boruah's essay, "Autonomy and the Virtue of Self-Legislation," is the best of the purely historical essays.   Boruah offers a thoughtful and well-written examination of the relation, in Kant's philosophy, between causality and freedom, and between sensual impulse and rational will.   The chapter sets out these extremely difficult issues in a clear and interesting way.

Several essays in the volume attempt to do comparative philosophy, bringing Kant into dialogue with non-Western traditions.   Goenawan Mohamad, in his essay on "The Difficulty of the Subject," discusses a wide variety of themes, including Kant's views on freedom and on the Enlightenment, Adorno's response to them, and the work of the Indonesian poet Chairil Anwar.   In the process, he makes an intriguing suggestion: "As I will argue in the later part of this essay, strangely the Muslim revivalist's challenge to the Enlightenment project, like the one proclaimed by Sayyed Qutb, ends up creating a problem just like the Kantian Enlightenment did" (p. 105).   But this bold promise is only partly kept, and these themes deserve a fuller development than they can receive in an essay that attempts so much.

Matthias Lutz-Bachmann's paper is entitled "'Religion and Public Reasoning': Enlightenment and Critical Deliberation on Religion in Western and Islamic Societies Today."   Lutz-Bachmann makes some suggestions about the proper role of religion in public life that are well worth discussing, and which are highly relevant to dialogue between Western and Islamic philosophers and to the dilemmas posed by Muslim minorities in secular European countries.   However, he says much less about Islam in particular than his title seems to promise.   Moreover, this article might have benefited from a discussion of the extensive reflections on the issue of public reason developed by Rawls and his followers.   But it is nevertheless a helpful contribution to an urgent issue of our times.

Hülya Yetisken presents some interesting remarks about the relation between certain of Kant's views about education and the actual system of education implemented by Ioanna Kuçuradi at the Hacettepe University.   Yetisken's essay succeeds in showing that the distinctive approach of this university can indeed be seen as a realization of certain Kantian ideas.   But she makes claims to uniqueness which are a bit too strong.   As Yetisken writes on p. 81, "So far as I know and I was able to inquire, Kuçuradi's view is the first, and perhaps the only one, which puts in connection philosophical knowledge related to ethical value problems with concrete examples of the same problems that we find in works of art."   However, the Confucian system of education in premodern China stressed the importance of poetic and historical texts in developing the character of students and providing them with examples for emulation.   The role of literary and historical examples in moral education is prominently on display, for instance, in the writings of Mencius.

The article by A. Raghuramaraju sets out to discuss the problem of the unknowability of the self in Kantian philosophy and to critique the approach to that problem offered by Krishnachandra Bhattacharyya.   Bhattacharyya had attempted to resolve Kant's difficulty by drawing on the tradition of Advaita Vedanta.   In view of the fact that the classical Indian philosophical tradition came to focus intensely on the questions of whether a self exists and how we can know about it, the topic Raghuramaraju chooses to discuss would seem to have a great deal of potential.   Unfortunately, this author ends up accomplishing little more than offering an example of how not to do comparative philosophy.

The problems that beset this article are considerably deeper than its defects of style.   They go beyond Raghuramaraju's references to "the somnolentness of modernity" (p. 141) and to Descartes' views about the "penal gland" (p. 135).   In particular, Raghuramaraju's explanation of Bhattacharyya's views is unclear, inelegant and poorly written.   At p. 143, moreover, he makes some sweeping claims about the role of the self in ancient thought.   Though his claims may be correct, the argument offered for them is very weak, as it depends on a nearly irrelevant quote from Aristotle and the bizarre assertion that, for Aristotle, "pair is prior to the individual."   Raghuramaraju also cites Aquinas' presentation of the cosmological argument, and puts great weight on an analogy between Aquinas' God, who is an unmoved mover, and Kant's self, which is an unknown knower.   But this analogy, as he articulates it, is both tenuous and forced.   Moreover, he entirely ignores Kant's critique of the cosmological argument.

On pages 146 and 147, Raghuramaraju quotes a large amount of material from primary and secondary sources about classical Indian philosophy.   Some of this material is interesting and could have been used to make a real contribution to the issue, while some is of quite dubious relevance.   But Raghuramaraju makes virtually no effort to discuss the implications of any of the quotations, or to develop any conclusions that might be of philosophical interest.   Comparative philosophy both can, and must, be done in a more professional and intellectually serious manner.

The volume concludes with two valuable chapters the starting points of which are Kant's aesthetics.   Martin Seel's essay does much to clarify and challenge some recent ideas in the philosophy of art, which he juxtaposes with Kant's views.   The essay tests these ideas in relation to several works of modern art which are quite clearly and vividly described.   Andrea Esser's chapter boldly argues for a much closer similarity than one would have expected between the aesthetic views of Kant and Marcel Duchamp.   She seeks to illuminate both the surprising relevance and the limitations of Kant's aesthetic theory as applied to the world of modern art.

• About Project
• Testimonials

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Moral Values

List of essays on moral values, essay on moral values – short essay for kids and children (essay 1 – 150 words), essay on moral values – written in english (essay 2 – 250 words), essay on moral values – for school students (class 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 standard) (essay 3 – 300 words), essay on moral values (essay 4 – 400 words), essay on moral values –  importance in society and challenges (essay 5 – 500 words), essay on moral values – how to cultivate and inculcate it in human beings (essay 6 – 600 words), essay on moral values (essay 7 – 750 words), essay on moral values – long essay (essay 8 – 1000 words).

Moral values are the key essence of life and it is these values that come along with us through the journey of life. Moral values are basically the principles that guide our life in the righteous path and do not allow us to do any harm to others.

Audience: The below given essays are especially written for kids, children and school students (Class 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Standard).

Moral values define the humankind. Moral values empower us to stand as the most unique creatures in the whole animal kingdom. These values are the basis to almost every religion. Thousands of years ago, Buddha described the essence of moral values in his sermons and spread it all over the world.

Since our childhood, we are taught about the good habits and their powers by the elders at home and school. Some of the most significant moral values are kindness, honesty, truthfulness, selflessness, compassion, and love.

The things we learn as a child mould us as an adult. That is why it is crucial to inculcate the pious values in the children. For the younger generation to be transformed into citizens with mighty characters, they must possess strong ethical and moral values. Only then, we can dream of making India great and emerge as an ethical leader in the world.

So, from where do we get these moral values?

Moral values are the first thing that every child learns from their homes . What is right and what is wrong is something that we see and learn from our parents as well as from our own experiences. Many religions preach moral values are part of their belief systems.

Importance of Moral Values

Moral values are very important to each and everyone because it is these values that transform us into better human beings.

i. Without knowing and learning moral values, we will not be able to differentiate between good and bad.

ii. Moral values define us and help us to be surrounded by good people.

iii. One who practices moral values will have courage to handle any situation in life.

Role of Parents

Parents of today think that providing all luxuries to their children is their only responsibility. But they miss to offer them the most important wealth – moral values. When parents deny this, they fail in their duty to give a good human being to the society.

Honesty, kindness, truthfulness, forgiveness, respect for others, helping others etc., are some of the moral values that every parent must teach their children.

“It is not what you do for your children , but what you have taught them to do for themselves, that will make them successful human beings” – Ann Landers.

Moral Values are the practices followed by human beings to be good and to live in a society. Moral values or ethics, are taught to us by our parents and teachers. These include being honest, kind, respecting others, helping those in need, being faithful and cooperating with others, to name a few, are good moral values.

What are Moral Values?

The norms of what is right or good and what is wrong or bad, define the moral values which are based on many factors like region, society, religious beliefs, culture etc. These defined norms tell the people how they must act or behave in different situations and expect similar behaviours form others.

Importance of Moral Values:

Moral values give an aim to life. Knowing difference between right and wrong is the foundation to imbibe moral values, which are taught from the birth, and bring out the best in individuals.

Moral Values in Workplace:

In every workplace, people look for individuals with good moral values. For a job interview, the interviewer looks for a candidate with good moral values. Every organization has a defined ethical code of conduct that the people in the organization are expected to follow, in addition to basic societal moral values. Organizations with people having good moral values runs more systematically and efficiently.

Moral Value in coming Generations:

People are not aware or conscious about moral values and have different outlook towards life. Parents and teachers are too busy to inculcate moral values in younger generations.

Conclusion:

Moral values are a type of law defined by the culture, society or other factors, to guide individuals on how to or not to behave in daily life. Sometimes, one may have different views and feel the moral guidelines too harsh or wrong. Such guidelines should be advocated for the good of the society.

Moral values are those characters or values seeded in a person’s mind and behavior towards oneself, others and on the whole. It can be the way a person consider other person’s life and space or the way they value each other’s feelings. The basic moral values like honesty, kindness, respect towards others, helpful mannerism, etc., will be the keys to be noted to judge a person’s character.

Moral values are the main characteristics that define the goodness in a person. These should be taught by the parents and teachers to the kids from their childhood. Moral values will help everyone in taking better decisions in life and attain the heights in an ethical way.

Instead of just thinking about our success and goals, moral values will give us the courage to take into account other’s happiness too. A person with better moral values is motivated and finds all possible ways to spread good vibes in and around them as well. Suppressing the people around you for attaining the goals you desire is the most dangerous violation of moral values.

Importance:

A person without moral values is considered to possess a bad character and the society will start to judge the person due to this behavior. This competitive world of ours has made every moral value in a person to die for their own development and growth. Such inhuman and unethical activities like dishonesty, telling lies for your own benefit, hurting others and even worst things, should be avoided.

Inculcating the importance of moral values in a kid from their growing age will help them in sticking to those values forever. It is a necessity of our society to bear such responsible youths and younger generations with good moral values so that they will help our nation to attain better heights.

This society of ours is filled with immoral people who find every scope to deceive others through their activities. The young ones learn more things by observing their elders and they mimic the way their elders behave. It is the responsibility of elders like parents, teachers, etc., to grow a future generation with more moral values seeded in them by improving their own behavior.

Moral values can be taught to students by making them listen and understand more moral stories and the rewards they will get if they show it to others as well. Such way of teaching will help them grab the importance easily rather than taking mere lectures on moral values.

Introduction:

The society helps individuals to grow in culture and learn through experiences of all aspects of life. Societies instill culture, religion, economy and politics in individual because as people grow up, they tend to pick something from dynamics of life and the societal opinions on certain aspects of life. Moral values are also instilled by a society. The values that a person grows up with are the values that will be displayed in his or her character. Society plays a big role in influencing moral values of individuals. Moral values are a set of principles that enable an individual to distinguish between the proper and improper things or right versus wrong. The moral values that are highly valued in the society are integrity, honesty, loyalty, respect and hard work.

Importance of Moral Values in the Society:

In a society, there is interactions among people and the possession of moral values is important in those interactions. Establishment of good relationships is reliant on good moral values. Values like honesty, trust, faithfulness and loyalty are essential in establishment and sustainability of good relationships. Lack of those values causes strained relationships and misunderstanding among members of the society.

Moral values are important in building the economy. Through determination and hard work, people are able to conduct activities that contribute largely to the economic growth of a society. Also through establishment of good relationships, trade is conducted smoothly and there is teamwork in trade and performance of business transactions. The growth of the economy is important in the life quality in the society.

Moral values also play a role in prevention of conflict and ease in conflict resolution. Good relationships seldom end in conflict and whenever conflict arises, it is minimum and can be resolved easily. In a society that peace thrives, there is growth and development which results in an improved quality of life.

Challenges:

The society is required to thrive in good moral values. Development of moral values is challenged by migration and interactions between different cultures and societies. The interactions dilute the morals of one society through adaption and assimilation of a different culture e.g., westernization in Africa.

Poverty is a challenge to the moral values because it creates vices like theft and deceit among members of the society. In poor economic status, everyone struggles to keep up with the hard times and moral values become a thing of the past due to strive for survival.

Education is both a challenge and promoter for development of moral values. Depending on the environment of education, students pick either good or bad morals. In modern education, students tend to pick immorality because of peer pressure.

Conclusion.

In conclusion, it is evident that moral value are an important consideration in the development of the society. Moral values go a long way in impacting the lives of an individual and the entire society. The development of moral values varies with the environmental exposure in societies. Each society should strive to uphold good moral values.

Moral values cultivated by human beings dignify the worth of human life. The morality existed from time immemorial and sustained among the communities. It amalgamated into the cultures which made the life of human beings secure and advanced. We can observe the ethical integrity in all the aspects of the individual as well as societal discourses. The moral values have been evolving with the inter-personal relationships between human beings as well as intra-personal relationships.

What are the moral values cultivated among us?

Religions have played a vital role in formulating and promoting moral values. The fundamental human values of love, respect, trust, tolerance, compassion, kindness are commonly practiced among people. Love and respect are significant in family relationships.

Love and respects are the cornerstones for the relationship between husband and wife, parents and children, elders and children. The sharing and caring qualities should be encouraged among children to make them compassionate personalities in the future.

The integrity and trust plays a prominent role in maintaining professional relationships. Similarly, kindness and empathy are the two powerful units to measure the gravity of human values. Patience and forgiveness are the right symbols of a human being’s dignity.

The Relevance of Moral Values:

Nowadays, humans tend to be more focused into self-centered life. Whatever happens outside the family roof is least mattered to the modern people. The social commitment of humans towards their community gets ignored for their personal conveniences.

The compassion, brotherhood, and love are hardly found. We do not have time to spend with our parents or even have time to look after our old and sick parents. Husbands leaving their wives and vice versa have become common these days. The increased number of divorces, old age homes, and orphanages clearly show where our compassion and love stay.

The social values like secularism, religious tolerance, and universal fraternity are the most threatened moral values these days. Religious fanatics have made the lives of ordinary people terrible in many places. The violence by the fanatics are the denial of the fundamental rights of people. People do not identify the fellow beings as brothers and sisters instead they seem to recognize others on racial, economic, gender, caste, and religious terms. It affects the balance of our social system.

The increasing terrorism, revolts, violence against children and gender inequalities are the instances of the denial of fundamental rights. The refugees who wander from nations to nations, the war for food and water, robbery, child labor are still prevalent in today’s civilized society. The civilization and culture acquired through education have made our lives more primitive considering the aspect of moral values.

How to inculcate the values among the children?

Although we acquired many information and knowledge, skills and technical knowledge through our education, our curriculum gives less importance to teach human values and moral values to our children. Nowadays, children become addicted to electronic gadgets, social media, and other entertainment modes.

It is our responsibility to teach our children and students human values within our family as well as through the education system. We should help grow moral values like sharing, helping, caring, and being considerate and tolerance in our children and encourage them to practice those at an early age.

Though various cultures have different perspectives towards moral values, the fundamental human values remain the same in every culture. It is relevant to project the human values and cultivate them in our daily lives.

Moral values demand to have conviction, integrity and rational sense to dissect between right and wrong. It is not just a technical understanding of right and wrong. It is more than that. In life, even if things happen against the morale of our best belief, we tend to manage the situation which may be the right decision of the occasion. We can say morally is wrong but it is morally right too, because a concession in the moral standard might have saved a situation here.

Moral values are relative. Standing firm to the moral values should be the motto in everyone’s life. It should satisfy your conscious even if it is disadvantageous. Moral values are subject to change, and it should continue to change upon the progression of society. It should reflect on what we are standing and the kind of impact it can create on others.

Moral values can be said to simply mean the values that are good that our teachers and parents taught us. Some very important moral values include being kind and honest, always trying to help those who are in need, show respect to other people, working with others when there is a need to and faithfulness to a partner or friend. When we imbibe moral values that are good, we are building ourselves to become very good humans. A very good character is synonymous to moral values that are good. Moral values can be basically defined as values that are defined by our society so that they can help in guiding people to live a life that is disciplined. Moral values that are basic like cooperative behaviour, kindness and honesty are most times constant, some other values can change or get modified over time. Other habits that portray good moral values include integrity, helpfulness, love respectfulness, compassion and hard work.

The importance of good moral values in our lives:

Life is full of many different challenges. Each day we live, morals are very necessary in helping us differentiate between things that are wrong and things that are right. Our morals and moral values affect both us and the society around us. Good moral values can help us improve our decision making in life.

Aspects of moral values:

Moral values cut across every area of our lives and even the society at large. For us to be able to have a good society and environment, it is important for each and every one of us to have solid and good moral values. It is important that we respect each other irrespective of the age or social status of the individual we are relating to. This can help in gaining good relations in every aspects and area of life whether it is in the workplace, family or the society. Good moral values can also help us in discovering our true purpose in life.

If it is true that moral values and habits are extremely important and beneficial to us humans, why then do we have a lot of people that do not have any of the moral values and do not follow the rules of morality in this world. Why do we have a lot of crimes happening all around us in the world today? Why is there so much disbelief and distrust among all of us?

The world we live in is an extremely tempting place and there are quick fixes for all of the problems facing us and this eventually turns our attention back to the main problem. Abiding to moral values in this life requires a lot of patience and also sacrifice but eventually, it helps one in analysing the difficulties and problems one faces and help in getting a solution to them.

Overall, someone who is ready and very determined to do their best in following a life that is meaningful in a patient way ends up following moral values without any fear of the person getting judged and such person ends up standing out from among the crowd.

Imbibing and inculcating good moral values:

The best time to imbibe good moral values into a person is when the person is still young and can still learn new characters and habits. Therefore, teachers and parents should endeavour to put in their best efforts into helping students and their children imbibe very solid moral values. Most children are very observant and they copy and learn habits and behaviours of their elder siblings, parents and teachers.

Children are bound to pay solid attention to the manner of action and behaviour of people older than them and they simply do the things they do. Children tend to speak only the truth if they have noticed that the elders around them are always truthful no matter the situation.

Likewise, it is important as elders to not be engaged in any form of bad behaviour as the children tend to assume they can also do these things and that they are not wrong because the elders around them are doing it. We should try to always demonstrate good and solid moral values to children around us. The best way to teach children good and solid moral values is through our own actions and habits.

It is very important for us as human beings to bear good and solid moral values like helping others, honesty , righteousness, decency, and even self-decency. People that have great moral values are very indispensable asset to others and even the society at large.

Moral values are the models of good and bad, which direct a person’s conduct and decisions. A person may adopt moral values from society and government, religion, or self. They are also inherited from the family as well.

In past ages, it was uncommon to see couples who lived respectively without the advantage of legal marriage rules. Of late, couples that set up a family without marriage are about as common as conventional wedded couples. There has been a shift in the moral values from time to time. For instance, in earlier times, the laws and ethics essentially originated from the cultures of a family and society as a whole. As society moved into the advanced time, these have largely disintegrated and people today tend to sue their own morals they want to follow.

Definition:

Moral values, as the name says, implies the significance of the moral qualities in the conduct of the kids, the youth and everyone one in life. Primarily the moral values are the qualities which one gains from life through the journey of life. They also depict the standards of what is right and what is wrong for us which we learn in the schools and in the workplace and from our surroundings as well. The beliefs which we gain from the family and the society that directs us how we lead our lives is what moral values are all about.

Moral Values in India:

India is a country which has been known for its values since the ancient times. We start to learn moral values from our family. In India, children are taught to respect their elders, greet them properly whenever they meet them. This a way of showing respect towards the elders. A child knows that he is supposed to obey whatever is asked by the elders. Such a moral value inculcates obedience in the mind of a child. Moral values are important for all of us in order to make us live a life of a good human being.

Important Moral Values in Life:

Although there are numerous moral values which one should follow in life, there are some of them which should be followed by almost everyone in the world. Firstly, always speaking the truth is one such moral value. We should never speak lies no matter what the circumstance is. Also, we should respect our elders. Our elders have seen and experienced the world better than us. It is always good for their blessings and advice in our important decisions. Loyalty towards our work and integrity are other such moral values which should be practised by one and all.

Examples from History:

There have been many examples from history which have depicted the importance and rightful following of moral values in life. One such example which we all are familiar with is from our epic Ramayana. Lord Ram was asked to go to fourteen years in exile just because his father King Dasaratha had granted a wish to the queen Kaikeyi. He could have refused it as well as it was not he who had granted the wish. But just to keep his father’s words he accepted the exile graciously and went into exile. Not only this, his wife Sita and his younger brother Laxman also followed his footsteps as they believed that it was their prime duty to follow him.

The Scenario Today:

Such was the moral value depicted during that period. But, now things are so different. People seem to have forgotten their moral values and are more focused on modern life. There are a number of instances every day where parents are left alone by their children to live a lonely old life. Many of them even die in isolation and there is no one to look after them during the last years. Apart from this, there are frequent quarrels between families over petty matters which could have been avoided if the people remembered the moral values our ancestors stood for.

Nowadays, people smoking and drinking and that too in front of their parents and children is a common sight. This is so against our moral values. We should not teach our children the evils ,such habits can do harm them in later years of their life.

The Remedy Available:

Since there has been a strong drift in the moral values of the people, the government has initiated to make the students learn about moral values in life and their importance to us. In order to execute this, schools of today teach moral values to the children in a greater sense. This is important as the students are the future of tomorrow. If the schools and the families alike teach the children such values from childhood, they shall turn into good human beings when they grow up.

Moral values depict our character to the outer world. They are of extreme importance in our lives. In earlier times, people were so determined to follow these values inherited from our ancestors. Such was their determination that once committed they never went back on their words. But with modernisation and urbanisation, we have seemed to have lost our moral values somewhere. Children disrespecting their parents are a common sight nowadays.

But, we should not blame the children for this. It is perhaps our own upbringing which has led to such immoral practices all over. It is we who should inculcate the moral values in our life first. Children will follow what they observe around them. If they shall see people living in joint families together and respecting each other, even they shall do so when they grow up. If we speak lies to our children even they shall do so. For the children imbibe the habits they see in their parents, teachers, peers at school and others around them.

So, it is we who have to take the first step forward. The children shall surely follow us. Moral values give us character and strength. If each one us practice some moral values in life, there would be peace and harmony all around. Moreover, we shall have a bright future for our next generations as well.

Moral Science , Moral Values , Values

Get FREE Work-at-Home Job Leads Delivered Weekly!

Join more than 50,000 subscribers receiving regular updates! Plus, get a FREE copy of How to Make Money Blogging!

Message from Sophia!

Like this post? Don’t forget to share it!

Here are a few recommended articles for you to read next:

• Essay on Discipline
• Which is More Important in Life: Love or Money | Essay
• Essay on My School
• Essay on Solar Energy

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Billionaires

• Donald Trump
• Warren Buffett
• Email Address
• Free Stock Photos
• Keyword Research Tools
• URL Shortener Tools
• WordPress Theme

Book Summaries

• How To Win Friends
• Rich Dad Poor Dad
• The Code of the Extraordinary Mind
• The Luck Factor
• The Millionaire Fastlane
• The ONE Thing
• Think and Grow Rich
• 100 Million Dollar Business
• Business Ideas

Digital Marketing

• Mobile Addiction
• Social Media Addiction
• Computer Addiction
• Drug Addiction
• Internet Addiction
• TV Addiction
• Healthy Habits
• Morning Rituals
• Wake up Early
• Cholesterol
• Reducing Cholesterol
• Fat Loss Diet Plan
• Reducing Hair Fall
• Sleep Apnea
• Weight Loss

Internet Marketing

• Email Marketing

Law of Attraction

• Subconscious Mind
• Vision Board
• Visualization

Law of Vibration

• Professional Life

Motivational Speakers

• Bob Proctor
• Robert Kiyosaki
• Vivek Bindra
• Inner Peace

Productivity

• Not To-do List
• Project Management Software
• Negative Energies

Relationship

• Getting Back Your Ex

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Self-improvement.

• Body Language
• Complainers
• Emotional Intelligence
• Personality

Social Media

• Project Management
• Anik Singal
• Baba Ramdev
• Dwayne Johnson
• Jackie Chan
• Leonardo DiCaprio
• Narendra Modi
• Nikola Tesla
• Sachin Tendulkar
• Sandeep Maheshwari
• Shaqir Hussyin

Website Development

Wisdom post, worlds most.

• Expensive Cars

Our Portals: Gulf Canada USA Italy Gulf UK

Privacy Overview

Ethical Values in Everyday Life Essay

Values in life are crucial elements in learning and the working environment; therefore, the development of a human character depends on moral values and ethics. As human beings, following moral aspects is essential since they are association and relationship tools. These tools build life principles through honesty, respect, responsibility, and compassion. Though many, dignity lifts the essence of ethics to a particular level by allowing someone to have self-discipline. This helps determine the good and wrong and guides people in daily activities. Personal qualities that portray principle standards build a character that markets an individual and is used in places like receptions. Morally, people are expected to show respect to the elderly though important to respect everybody. In most cases, school life and daily activities present tough situations, but when we apply ethics, we become moral.

Sometimes people offer tokens requesting favors which creates ethical dilemmas. In other cases, we are tempted o receive credit on behalf of others. This action is immoral and unethical, but the dilemma means the options are possible, though wrong. This hits the decision-making aspects that control how right or right a person seems in society. Interacting with a business exposes many people to ethical and moral dilemmas. These situations may present straightforward solutions though some people find it had to apply. This situation requires critical thinking to employ the best solutions that are morally upright. The challenges need a sensitive person who considers humanity in daily activities. The first step is to analyze the problem at hand in a logically refuted way. Considering the best ethical way possible is vital, leaving out the evil to remold new problem-solving ideas. Alternative means may be formulated to reunite the broken bonds between co-workers and business partners.

Time aspect inflicts change in everything regarding values, ethics, and morals. In the past times, moral values revolved around physical activities. The elderly and youth had existing backgrounds regarding communication and greetings in cultural setups. In the present, technology has brought people together regardless of age and culture. These interactions create work-based ethics in their interactions and apply work and business principles. All skills applied in the current work environment are acquired from a learning perspective. Core values result from different codes of life that present moral uprightness. Based on events and places, moral values fit the particular situation. For instance, greeting in Africa is a custom that youth must follow whenever they meet the elderly, especially in village life. In other situations, it is considered ethical when people treat each other equally. Traveling and interacting with different cultures changes some ethical aspects making some values inapplicable.

The current generation is insensitive to moral values, and most aspects are under technical masks. Most people think you only talk when talked to, and they do not consider answering a must. Sometimes if you are in a problem and need some advice and approach someone rude, it creates a barrier to your assistance towards the same in the future. These aspects make it hard to apply ethics in every situation because most people deny their mistakes which can be solved ethically. Individual encounters with immoral people influence the person, meaning the person may fail to express all the moral values. Moral judgments are dissimilar and applied in various ways, and fitting in every ethical aspect is challenging.

Through a hard situation, Being ethical is a personal decision trying to close eyes to all immoral behaviors. Humanity aspect is a key to all ethical rules that improve personal character. It is recommendable to treat all people just the way you would like them to treat you. Sometimes it is good to forget culture since it may be against others ethically. A civil person is respectful to everyone and can fit in every situation; it is advisable to consider being civil in ethics. Through ethics, people enhance the lives around them, and they add value to each other. Mistakes are common, but it is good to take responsibility when committed. Change is evitable through personal reflection, and one’s behavior can be improved. All ethical considerations enhance individual well-being and interpersonal interactions.

Based on ethics, a learning tool is better portrayed to society so that people will gain ideas from you. Life is short and should be enjoyed positively with all the shortcomings and immorality. Though some things are challenging, your approach may train people to relate with their friends and family. This interaction becomes mutual when respecting each other and considering life’s positive side. When someone makes a mistake and another is furious, it will be great if they are correcdted through great ideas you ever used to solve your problems. Calm Handling every situation is a divine idea that makes one a gem in a community. The family prides on ina good and civil person since they trust his life approaches. The positivity left behind improves principle standards which build a great society. Learning through a person provides reviews and new ideas on the sacredness of life.

• Embodiment and Everyday Relationship with the Body
• Everyday Sexism in Relation to Everyday Disablism
• Sociology of Everyday Life
• Utilitarianism and Deontology Application
• Ethical Concerns in the Stanford Prison Experiment
• Ethical Analysis of Conflict of Interest in Prison
• Bioethics: The Work of the Surrogate Woman
• Ethical Idealism in Science: A Look at Einstein's Legacy
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, May 26). Ethical Values in Everyday Life. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-values-in-everyday-life/

"Ethical Values in Everyday Life." IvyPanda , 26 May 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-values-in-everyday-life/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Ethical Values in Everyday Life'. 26 May.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Ethical Values in Everyday Life." May 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-values-in-everyday-life/.

1. IvyPanda . "Ethical Values in Everyday Life." May 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-values-in-everyday-life/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Ethical Values in Everyday Life." May 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-values-in-everyday-life/.

Essay on Moral Values in 100, 150, 200, 300, 350, & 400 Words

Table of Contents

Essay on Moral Values in 100 Words

Moral values serve as guiding principles that shape our behavior, decisions, and interactions with others. They provide a moral compass and help individuals lead a meaningful and ethical life. In this essay, we will explore the significance and relevance of moral values in our society.

Moral values promote empathy, honesty, respect, and fairness, fostering a harmonious coexistence among individuals. They enhance our character, shaping us into responsible and compassionate human beings. Emphasizing moral values cultivates a sense of integrity and accountability, ensuring that our actions align with our beliefs. Moreover, they provide a foundation for building strong relationships and fostering mutual trust.

Essay on Moral Values in 150 Words

Moral values play a significant role in shaping our lives and society. They serve as guides to help us distinguish between right and wrong, shaping our behavior and decision-making processes. These values act as a compass that directs us towards uprightness, justice, empathy, and respect.

Moral values encompass several aspects, such as honesty, integrity, compassion, and fairness. Honesty cultivates trust and credibility, forming the foundation of healthy relationships. Integrity encourages us to act in accordance with our ethical principles, even when no one is watching. Compassion moves us to understand and help others, promoting harmony and unity. Fairness demands equal treatment and consideration for all, ensuring justice prevails.

By adhering to moral values, we create a society that thrives on righteousness and respect. Our actions become reflections of our character, contributing to a positive and ethical world.

Essay on Moral Values in 200 Words

Moral values play a crucial role in shaping the fabric of society. They are the principles that guide individuals in making ethical decisions and treating others with respect and compassion. In a world filled with diversity and differing belief systems, moral values act as the universal language that transcends cultural boundaries.

At their core, moral values encompass honesty, integrity, empathy, fairness, and kindness. These values serve as the building blocks of strong relationships, fostering trust and understanding among individuals. By adhering to moral values, one can lead a life that is not only morally upright but also contributes positively to the greater good.

Moreover, moral values provide individuals with a sense of direction and purpose. They act as a moral compass, guiding our actions and decisions. In times of confusion and moral dilemmas, these values serve as a reference point to help us differentiate right from wrong.

Moral values are also essential for personal growth and development. They shape our character and define who we are as individuals. Living by these values helps cultivate virtues such as patience, forgiveness, and perseverance, leading to personal fulfillment and happiness.

In conclusion, moral values form the foundation of a just and harmonious society. They foster a sense of unity and shared responsibility among individuals. As we navigate through life, it is crucial to uphold and promote moral values, ensuring a world where compassion, fairness, and integrity prevail.

Essay on Moral Values in 300 Words

Moral values are the foundation of a just and harmonious society. They guide our thoughts, actions, and decisions, shaping our character and defining who we are as individuals. In a world that can often feel chaotic and confusing, developing and upholding strong moral values is crucial for maintaining peace and stability.

At their core, moral values encompass principles such as honesty, integrity, compassion, and respect for others. They teach us to differentiate between right and wrong and to make choices that align with our inner sense of rightness. Moral values provide us with a moral compass, allowing us to navigate through life’s challenges and dilemmas.

One of the key aspects of moral values is the importance placed on empathy and kindness. These values encourage us to understand and share the feelings of others, fostering a sense of unity and compassion among individuals. They remind us to treat others with dignity and respect, regardless of their backgrounds or beliefs.

Another fundamental aspect of moral values is the significance of honesty and integrity. These values promote sincerity, transparency, and accountability in our words and actions. They require us to be truthful and trustworthy, even in the face of adversity or temptation.

Moral values play a vital role in our personal and professional lives. They guide our behavior in relationships, be it with family, friends, colleagues, or strangers. They shape our decision-making process, helping us to make ethical choices that consider the well-being of others.

In conclusion, moral values form the bedrock of a well-functioning society. They provide us with a compass to navigate the complexities of life and guide us toward making ethical choices. By upholding these values, we contribute to the creation of a more equitable, empathetic, and harmonious world. It is essential that we cultivate and foster these values in ourselves and in future generations, ensuring their continued importance in an ever-changing world.

Essay on Moral Values in 350 Words

Moral values: a guiding light in life.

Moral values serve as the compass that guides individuals through their journey in life. These principles act as a moral code that shapes one’s character, behavior, and interactions with others. In today’s fast-paced and interconnected world, the significance of moral values cannot be undermined.

Firstly, moral values play a crucial role in shaping one’s personal character. These values instill qualities such as honesty, integrity, compassion, and empathy. They teach individuals to distinguish between right and wrong and encourage them to make ethical choices. When individuals incorporate moral values into their character, they become more dependable, trustworthy, and responsible.

Secondly, moral values enhance interpersonal relationships. Respect, trust, and kindness towards others are fundamental moral values that foster harmonious connections. When individuals exhibit these values, they create an environment of understanding, love, and acceptance. This promotes healthy communication, cooperation, and collaboration, which in turn leads to better relationships in both the personal and professional spheres.

Moreover, moral values guide individuals in difficult situations and dilemmas. When faced with choices that can impact their integrity or dignity, moral values serve as a beacon of guidance. These values help individuals make decisions that align with their conscience and core beliefs, even if it means facing hardships or sacrifices.

Furthermore, moral values contribute to the betterment of society as a whole. When individuals uphold values such as justice, equality, and tolerance, they contribute to creating a just and inclusive society. These values enable individuals to recognize the importance of social responsibility and motivate them to work towards the welfare of others. A society built on strong moral values is likely to be more peaceful, humane, and progressive.

In conclusion, moral values are the foundation upon which individuals build their character, relationships, and society. They provide a sense of direction and purpose, helping individuals navigate the complexities of life. Embracing moral values not only enriches one’s own life but also establishes a strong ethical framework for the betterment of society as a whole. It is necessary for individuals to reflect upon and strive to incorporate moral values in their daily lives, for they truly serve as a guiding light in the modern world.

Essay on Moral Values in 400 Words

Moral values are guiding principles that dictate the behavior and actions of individuals, communities, and societies as a whole. They serve as a moral compass, helping us distinguish right from wrong and guiding us in making ethically responsible decisions. These values are deeply rooted in our beliefs, upbringing, and cultural traditions, shaping our character and defining who we are as human beings.

One of the most important moral values is honesty. Honesty is the foundation of trust and integrity. Being honest means being truthful, sincere, and genuine in our words and actions. It is about having the courage to always tell the truth, even when it may be difficult or unfavorable. Honesty builds strong relationships and promotes a sense of trust between individuals, which is vital for a harmonious society.

Another key moral value is kindness. Kindness involves showing compassion, empathy, and consideration towards others. It is about being supportive, understanding, and respectful. Kindness can be expressed through small acts of kindness, such as helping someone in need or offering a listening ear to a friend. It promotes a sense of community and fosters a culture of compassion and caring.

Respect is also an essential moral value. Respect involves treating others with dignity, honor, and fairness. It is about valuing the opinions, beliefs, and rights of others, regardless of our differences. Respect allows for open and constructive dialogue, leading to better understanding and cooperation among individuals and communities.

Integrity is another moral value that is crucial for personal and societal growth. Integrity involves having strong moral principles and consistently adhering to them, even when faced with challenging situations. It requires individuals to be honest, trustworthy, and accountable for their actions. Integrity is the backbone of a just and ethical society, promoting fairness, responsibility, and accountability.

Finally, a moral value that cannot be overlooked is empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. It involves putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes and showing compassion and understanding towards their experiences and struggles. Empathy encourages a sense of connection and unity among individuals, fostering a more inclusive and supportive society.

In conclusion, moral values play a crucial role in shaping our character, guiding our behavior, and creating a harmonious society. Honesty, kindness, respect, integrity, and empathy are just a few examples of important moral values that should be cultivated and practiced by individuals. By embracing and promoting these values, we can contribute to a more just, compassionate, and ethical world.

A Farewell Party Essay in 100, 200, 250, 300, 350 & 400 Words

Essay About Summer in 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350 & 400 Words

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Made in the Image of God

The most basic principle of the Christian moral life is the awareness that every person bears the dignity of being made in the image of God. He has given us an immortal soul and through the gifts of intelligence and reason enables us to understand the order of things established in his creation. God has also given us a free will to seek and love what is true, good, and beautiful. Sadly, because of the Fall, we also suffer the impact of Original Sin, which darkens our minds, weakens our wills, and inclines us to sin. Baptism delivers us from Original Sin but not from its effects—especially the inclination to sin, concupiscence. Within us, then, is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin.

But we should always remember that Christ's dying and rising offers us new life in the Spirit, whose saving grace delivers us from sin and heals sin's damage within us. Thus we speak of the value, dignity, and goal of human life, even with its imperfections and struggles. Human life, as a profound unity of physical and spiritual dimensions, is sacred. It is distinct from all other forms of life, since it alone is imprinted with the very image of its Creator.

The Responsible Practice of Freedom

The second element of life in Christ is the responsible practice of freedom. Without freedom, we cannot speak meaningfully about morality or moral responsibility. Human freedom is more than a capacity to choose between this and that. It is the God-given power to become who he created us to be and so to share eternal union with him. This happens when we consistently choose ways that are in harmony with God's plan. Christian morality and God's law are not arbitrary, but specifically given to us for our happiness. God gave us intelligence and the capacity to act freely. Ultimately, human freedom lies in our free decision to say "yes" to God. In contrast, many people today understand human freedom merely as the ability to make a choice, with no objective norm or good as the goal.

The Understanding of Moral Acts

Another important foundation of Christian morality is the understanding of moral acts. Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act (where, when, how, with whom, the consequences, etc.).

For an individual act to be morally good, the object, or what we are doing, must be objectively good. Some acts, apart from the intention or reason for doing them, are always wrong because they go against a fundamental or basic human good that ought never to be compromised. Direct killing of the innocent, torture, and rape are examples of acts that are always wrong. Such acts are referred to as intrinsically evil acts, meaning that they are wrong in themselves, apart from the reason they are done or the circumstances surrounding them.

The goal, end, or intention is the part of the moral act that lies within the person. For this reason, we say that the intention is the subjective element of the moral act. For an act to be morally good, one's intention must be good. If we are motivated to do something by a bad intention—even something that is objectively good—our action is morally evil. It must also be recognized that a good intention cannot make a bad action (something intrinsically evil) good. We can never do something wrong or evil in order to bring about a good. This is the meaning of the saying, "the end does not justify the means" ( Catechism of the Catholic Church , nos. 1749-1761).

The Reality of Sin and Trust in God's Mercy

We cannot speak about life in Christ or the moral life without acknowledging the reality of sin, our own sinfulness, and our need for God's mercy. When the existence of sin is denied it can result in spiritual and psychological damage because it is ultimately a denial of the truth about ourselves. Admitting the reality of sin helps us to be truthful and opens us to the healing that comes from Christ's redemptive act.

The Formation of Conscience

The formation of a good conscience is another fundamental element of Christian moral teaching. “Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act” ( Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.1796). “Man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary (GS, no. 16).

Conscience represents both the more general ability we have as human beings to know what is good and right and the concrete judgments we make in particular situations concerning what we should do or about what we have already done. Moral choices confront us with the decision to follow or depart from reason and the divine law. A good conscience makes judgments that conform to reason and the good that is willed by the Wisdom of God. A good conscience requires lifelong formation. Each baptized follower of Christ is obliged to form his or her conscience according to objective moral standards. The Word of God is a principal tool in the formation of conscience when it is assimilated by study, prayer, and practice. The prudent advice and good example of others support and enlighten our conscience. The authoritative teaching of the Church is an essential element in our conscience formation. Finally, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, combined with regular examination of our conscience, will help us develop a morally sensitive conscience.

The Excellence of Virtues     

The Christian moral life is one that seeks to cultivate and practice virtue. “A virtue is an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1803). An effective moral life demands the practice of both human and theological virtues.

Human virtues form the soul with the habits of mind and will that support moral behavior, control passions, and avoid sin. Virtues guide our conduct according to the dictates of faith and reason, leading us toward freedom based on self-control and toward joy in living a good moral life. Compassion, responsibility, a sense of duty, self-discipline and restraint, honesty, loyalty, friendship, courage, and persistence are examples of desirable virtues for sustaining a moral life. Historically, we group the human virtues around what are called the Cardinal Virtues. This term comes from the Latin word cardo meaning “hinge.” All the virtues are related to or hinged to one of the Cardinal Virtues. The four Cardinal Virtues are prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.

There are a number of ways in which we acquire human virtues. They are acquired by frequent repetition of virtuous acts that establish a pattern of virtuous behavior. There is a reciprocal relationship between virtue and acts because virtue, as an internal reality, disposes us to act externally in morally good ways. Yet it is through doing good acts in the concrete that the virtue within us is strengthened and grows.

The human virtues are also acquired through seeing them in the good example of others and through education in their value and methods to acquire them. Stories that inspire us to want such virtues help contribute to their growth within us. They are gained by a strong will to achieve such ideals. In addition, God’s grace is offered to us to purify and strengthen our human virtues, for our growth in virtue can be hampered by the reality of sin. Especially through prayer and the Sacraments, we open ourselves to the gifts of the Holy Spirit and God’s grace as another way in which we grow in virtue.

The Theological Virtues of faith, hope, and charity (love) are those virtues that relate directly to God. These are not acquired through human effort but, beginning with Baptism, they are infused within us as gifts from God. They dispose us to live in relationship with the Holy Trinity. Faith, hope, and charity influence human virtues by increasing their stability and strength for our lives.

Each of the Ten Commandments forbids certain sins, but each also points to virtues that will help us avoid such sins. Virtues such as generosity, poverty of spirit, gentleness, purity of heart, temperance, and fortitude assist us in overcoming and avoiding what are called the seven deadly or Capital Sins—pride, avarice or greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth or laziness—which are those sins that engender other sins and vices.

Love, Rules and Grace

Our culture frequently exalts individual autonomy against community and tradition. This can lead to a suspicion of rules and norms that come from a tradition. This can also be a cause of a healthy criticism of a legalism that can arise from concentrating on rules and norms.

Advocates of Christian morality can sometimes lapse into a legalism that leads to an unproductive moralizing. There is no doubt that love has to be the essential foundation of the moral life. But just as essential in this earthly realm are rules and laws that show how love may be applied in real life. In heaven, love alone will suffice. In this world, we need moral guidance from the Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the Precepts of the Church and other rules to see how love works.

Love alone, set adrift from moral direction, can easily descend into sentimentality that puts us at the mercy of our feelings. Popular entertainment romanticizes love and tends to omit the difficult demands of the moral order.

In our permissive culture, love is sometimes so romanticized that it is separated from sacrifice. Because of this, tough moral choices cannot be faced. The absence of sacrificial love dooms the possibility of an authentic moral life.

Scripturally and theologically, the Christian moral life begins with a loving relationship with God, a covenant love made possible by the sacrifice of Christ. The Commandments and other moral rules are given to us as ways of protecting the values that foster love of God and others. They provide us with ways to express love, sometimes by forbidding whatever contradicts love.

The moral life requires grace. The Catechism speaks of this in terms of life in Christ and the inner presence of the Holy Spirit, actively enlightening our moral compass and supplying the spiritual strength to do the right thing. The grace that comes to us from Christ in the Spirit is as essential as love and rules and, in fact, makes love and keeping the rules possible.

---excerpted from the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

Watch our Memorial Day tribute to the military who sacrificed all to serve their country

Memorial Day is the unofficial start of summer. It's a time to gather with friends and family for a grill out, a picnic, or maybe a trip to the beach to soak up the sun. But while it may well feel like a day of celebration, what sometimes gets forgotten is that it was conceived as a day of commemoration for the brave military members who died serving their country.  

A University of Phoenix survey found that less than half of Americans polled knew the exact purpose of Memorial Day, while around a third were unsure of the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

To clarify, Veterans Day, which takes place in November, is a tribute to all those who served honorably in the military in wartime or peacetime, whether living or dead.

The confusion is compounded by Armed Forces Day, a military celebration held in May for those currently serving. However, while the reasons differ, the sentiment of each day is the same: all three are important opportunities to show gratitude.

So, when you chow down on that hot dog, barrel down that slip 'n slide, or whatever you do for fun this Memorial Day, spare a moment to acknowledge the people in uniform whose sacrifice made a difference.

On this Memorial Day, watch the video for a surprise reunion of battle buddies bonded by the loss of their leade r

Humankind is your go-to spot for good news! Click here to submit your uplifting, cute, or inspiring video moments for us to feature. Also, click here to subscribe to our newsletter , bringing our top stories of the week straight to your inbox.

Advertisement

Supported by

Why Are Divorce Memoirs Still Stuck in the 1960s?

Recent best sellers have reached for a familiar feminist credo, one that renounces domestic life for career success.

• Share full article

By Sarah Menkedick

Sarah Menkedick’s most recent book is “Ordinary Insanity: Fear and the Silent Crisis of Motherhood in America.”

“The only way for a woman, as for a man, to find herself, to know herself as a person, is by creative work of her own,” Betty Friedan wrote in “ The Feminine Mystique ,” in 1963. Taking a new role as a productive worker is “the way out of the trap,” she added. “There is no other way.”

On the final page of “ This American Ex-Wife ,” her 2024 memoir and study of divorce, Lyz Lenz writes: “I wanted to remove myself from the martyr’s pyre and instead sacrifice the roles I had been assigned at birth: mother, wife, daughter. I wanted to see what else I could be.”

More than 60 years after Friedan’s landmark text, there remains only one way for women to gain freedom and selfhood: rejecting the traditionally female realm, and achieving career and creative success.

Friedan’s once-provocative declaration resounds again in a popular subgenre of autobiography loosely referred to as the divorce memoir, several of which have hit best-seller lists in the past year or two. These writers’ candid, raw and moving exposés of their divorces are framed as a new frontier of women’s liberation, even as they reach for a familiar white feminist ideology that has prevailed since “The Problem That Has No Name,” through “Eat, Pray, Love” and “I’m With Her” and “Lean In”: a version of second-wave feminism that remains tightly shackled to American capitalism and its values.

Lenz, for example, spends much of her book detailing her struggle to “get free,” but never feels she needs to define freedom. It is taken as a given that freedom still means the law firm partner in heels, the self-made woman with an independent business, the best-selling author on book tour — the woman who has shed any residue of the domestic and has finally come to shine with capitalist achievement.

It is not the freedom for a woman to stay home with her child for a year, or five. The freedom to stop working after a lifetime toiling in low-wage jobs. The freedom for a Filipina nanny to watch her own children instead of those of her “liberated” American boss. The freedom to start a farm or a homestead or engage in the kind of unpaid work ignored by an economy that still values above all else the white-collar professional labor long dominated by men — and in fact mostly fails to recognize other labor as valuable at all.

One of the paradoxes the divorce memoir highlights is that women’s work is made invisible by a society that disparages it, and the only way it becomes visible is through the triumphant narrative of a woman’s escape from it — which only reinforces its undesirability and invisibility.

In Maggie Smith’s 2023 memoir “ You Could Make This Place Beautiful ,” Smith details the critical inflection point when her poem “ Good Bones ” goes viral, her career takes off and her marriage begins to implode. She tells a reporter from The Columbus Dispatch: “I feel like I go into a phone booth and I turn into a poet sometimes. Most of the other time, I’m just Maggie who pushes the stroller.”

Nothing threatening, nothing meaningful. Just a mom pushing the stroller in the meager labor of women — until she slips into the phone booth and transforms into an achieving superhero.

This is not to diminish Smith’s work, a unique and highly refined series of linked essays that build into an emotional symphony about marital breakdown. Her intention is not, like Lenz’s, to condemn the institution of marriage or to rejoice in her release from hers, which is complicated, excruciating and tender. Her depictions of divorce clearly resonate with readers and offer solace and insight into a common experience of heartbreak. But it’s worth asking what exactly is being celebrated in the huge cultural reception her memoir, and other popular divorce memoirs, have received.

Leslie Jamison’s book “ Splinters ,” published the same day as “This American Ex-Wife,” is an exquisite, textured and precise articulation of the collapse of her marriage, all nuance and interiority where Lenz’s writing is blunt and political. But here, too, we get a female narrator for whom freedom and acceptance ultimately signify professional success. Jamison is much more vexed about this formula, but in the end she settles for lightly querying rather than assailing it. She jokes about how her editor is stressed about book sales while she’s stressed about her baby sleeping on airplanes, and mocks this as a “humblebrag”: “ I don’t care about ambition! I only care about baby carriers! ” She rushes to clarify in the next sentence, “Of course I cared about book sales, too.”

Herein lies the ultimate paradigm, the space no woman wants to explore: What if the modern woman didn’t actually care about book sales? About making partner? About building a successful brand? That would be unthinkable. Embarrassing. Mealy, mushy, female.

But later in “Splinters,” Jamison skewers the cult of male, capitalist achievement: “My notion of divinity was gradually turning its gaze away from the appraising, tally-keeping, pseudo-father in the sky who would give me enough gold stars if I did enough good things, and toward the mother who’d been here all along,” she writes. I felt an electric optimism reading this. If feminism wants to tackle patriarchy, it needs to start with that pseudo-father and his metrics of a person’s worth.

Jamison struggles toward this in “Splinters.” She wants so badly to be remarkable. To banter about the Russian G.D.P. while she spoon-feeds her toddler, or to impress arrogant lovers who critique her conversation as only “85 percent as good as it could be.” At the same time, she yearns “to experience the sort of love that could liberate everyone involved from their hamster wheels of self-performance,” a love that will “involve all your tedious moments.”

Yes , I found myself saying, I want to read about this love . A mother love that is radical, creative, affirming, even and especially in its difficulty and tedium. Jamison almost gets there, but returns ultimately to the affirmation that it’s OK to want more: “quiet mornings at my laptop, tap-tap-tapping at my keyboard.”

It is certainly OK, and natural, to want more. But what I find most exhilarating in this beautiful book is the possibility that it’s also OK to let go of wanting. It’s OK to not write a best seller, to not hold a prestigious title, to not start your own brand. It’s OK, even, to not try to find yourself, that most American of quests.

Divorce, sure. Ditch the toxic men, strike out on your own. But there’s nothing new or radical there. The radical is in a feminism that examines care as profound, powerful work and centers rather than marginalizes mothering, as both a lived act and a metaphor. We must let go of this half-century-old notion that the self can be “found” only after the roles of “mother, wife, daughter” have been rejected.

With friends, Jamison recounts lively anecdotes from a trip to Oslo with her daughter in order to prove that her life had not “‘gotten small,’ a phrase I put in quotes in my mind, though I did not know whom I was quoting.” Yet in this phrase lies another way of living: letting things get small, in a world that sees and celebrates mostly superlatives, and getting down to the level of the local, the intimate, the granular, the home.

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

An assault led to Chanel Miller’s best seller, “Know My Name,” but she had wanted to write children’s books since the second grade. She’s done that now  with “Magnolia Wu Unfolds It All.”

When Reese Witherspoon is making selections for her book club , she wants books by women, with women at the center of the action who save themselves.

The Nobel Prize-winning author Alice Munro, who died on May 14 , specialized in exacting short stories that were novelistic in scope , spanning decades with intimacy and precision.

“The Light Eaters,” a new book by Zoë Schlanger, looks at how plants sense the world  and the agency they have in their own lives.

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .