What do you personally associate with the word “morality”? With unspoken norms of behavior in society? With Christian morals and ethics? With someone's irritated “stop reading morals”? With Krylov’s fable containing the line “the moral of this fable is this”? Or maybe you have been retired for a long time and still remember the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism”? You are right in all cases!
One way or another, some kind of morality always exists in any actions and communications, even if no one uses this term directly. Today we will talk about this in detail, but for now we will say that you can learn how to build effective communication by mastering our special programs “Best Communication Techniques” and “Building Relationships.” One and a half to two months spent on each of the programs will significantly improve your communication skills, and our article today will provide guidelines and understanding of many not entirely obvious nuances in communication.
Historical excursion
To understand what morality or moral standards are, we need a short historical excursion. The concept of morality as such was proposed by the ancient Roman politician and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43). The term comes from the Latin moralitas, which translates as “morality”. By the way, this word is to some extent consonant with the Latin mores, which means “behavior.” Thus, already in the terminology itself there is a relationship between human behavior and morality.
Of course, this does not mean that before Cicero no one asked questions of morality, did not try to understand what it is and whether there are any rules of morality that are common to all people. In this regard, the observations of the ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho (360-275) are very interesting. Let us immediately make a reservation that Pyrrho personally did not write philosophical treatises and did not record his observations in any way. Therefore, we can judge his views only from the notes of his contemporaries and the works of later authors who became interested in his legacy.
It is believed that it was Pyrrho who came up with the idea that there is no reason to consider some norms of behavior more correct for everyone, and some less correct. What is considered immoral here and now may be the norm for another time and society with other traditions and ways of life. This idea is referred to by the author of the scientific work What did Pyrrho Think about the Nature of the Divine and the Good? (“What did Pyrrho think about the nature of the Divine and the Good?”) [R. Bett, 1994].
In principle, this is so, and if modern animal defenders could see the ancient hunt for mammoths alive, they would certainly brand such an activity with shame, leaving our distant ancestors with only the tops and roots of various plants for food.
These views, which question the very existence of reasons to consider something right or wrong, eventually became the basis of the principle of moral relativism, which proclaims that absolute good and evil do not exist, just as there is no single objective criterion of morality. The concept of “moral relativism” has roots in Latin and comes from the Latin relativus, which translates as “relative.” You can read more about the principle of moral relativism in the article “Moral relativism” [A. Kruglov, 2011].
Moral nihilism is ideologically close to moral relativism. The only difference is the greater radicalism of the postulates. Thus, moral nihilism does not recognize not only the absolute interpretation of good or evil, but even the possibility of subjective assessment of something as bad or good. From the point of view of moral nihilism, morality is only a set of conditional rules, following which you can adapt to society, achieve some success and get some material benefits. In principle, we cannot talk about any logical justification for the principles of morality.
There is, of course, some truth in this, but everything is good in moderation. Moral relativism and moral nihilism in extreme forms lead to a philosophy of permissiveness, devalue morality as such and can lead to legal problems. This topic is touched upon in the work La bureaucratie rationelle et la crise de la culture (“Rational bureaucracy and the cultural crisis”) [V. Porus, 2013].
In turn, moral relativism is opposed by moral absolutism, according to which certain absolute moral norms exist; all that remains is to find them and strictly follow them. This is not always possible, as is clearly shown in the article Moral Absolutism and the Problem of Hard Cases [T. McConnell, 1981]. In addition, you can read about the vicissitudes of the scientific search for a solution to the problem in the work “Moral absolutism: general characteristics and modern approaches” [G. Mehed, 2015].
In a sense, the principle of moral universalism or moral objectivism echoes moral absolutism. The key idea is that the creation of a system of moral values that is universal and independent of country, nation, religion, gender, race is not only possible, but also necessary. In a sense, the principle of moral universalism is embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 [UN, 1948]. At a minimum, this document takes into account the basic principles of the rights and freedoms of citizens.
So, we have understood in the most general form the basic approaches to the issue of morality and found out that morality and human behavior are closely interrelated. We are now ready to try to obtain a general understanding of morality.
Personal values and moral principles of society
What values you have, and how they align with the moral values of your community and your own actions, directly influence your sense of belonging and, more broadly, life satisfaction.
Personal values are principles you believe in and have invested in. Values are the goals you strive for; they largely determine the essence of personality. But more importantly, they are a source of motivation for self-improvement. People's values determine what they want personally, while morals determine what the society around those people wants for them.
Humanistic psychologists suggest that people have an innate sense of values and personal preferences that tend to be hidden beneath layers of social demands and expectations (social morality). Part of the human journey involves the gradual rediscovery of those innate and highly personal desires that are unconsciously hidden when they are found to conflict with the demands of society. However, if one takes an inventory of values, most well-socialized people will find that there is a high degree of correspondence between what they want and what society wants.
Yes, certain behaviors are considered desirable and others are not, but for the most part, as we have seen, morality is not set in stone and often reflects local cultural characteristics and historical aspects that tend to change.
What is morality?
Morality is a set of socially accepted ideas about good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral. In accordance with these ideas, moral norms presuppose a certain set of rules of behavior in society. This interpretation and definition is precisely the source of disagreement and controversy regarding what morality should be in society and what rules can be considered correct.
Firstly, any society is heterogeneous, at least in terms of its age and social composition. What may be acceptable among people with little education and hard physical labor is unacceptable among the elite. What is the norm among teenagers will be perceived with misunderstanding among adults. Moreover, typical correspondences and connections, formed due to cultural patterns in the mass consciousness, often make it possible to identify a particular situation.
An example is a curious case at the Lincolnshire Zoo (UK), where five parrots during quarantine not only mastered the profanity used by the staff, but also learned to imitate the human laughter that they heard after every obscene word. In this case, it is not the situation itself that is of interest, but the comment of the zoo director, who compared what is happening to “a club for older workers, where everyone laughs and swears” [MK.ru, 2020]. As we understand, if he had called it all a club of young scientists, no one would have understood him.
Secondly, some kind of universal social morality for all times is impossible due to the fact that society is constantly developing and changing, and the moral norms accepted in society are also changing. What was unacceptable in the 19th century does not raise questions in the 21st century, and in a variety of areas. And we’re not even talking about the fact that in the 19th century a girl from a noble family could not “go out” without a corset, but in the 21st century you can easily wear miniskirts, including to school and to work. In the 19th century, the very fact of girls attending a higher educational institution raised many questions.
Let us give as an example the biography of the famous Italian doctor, teacher and psychologist Maria Montessori (1870-1952). She was denied admission to a technical school because only young men could study there, and they did not immediately agree to admit her to the medical faculty, because in Italy in the 19th century the profession of a doctor was purely male [ANO “Montessori System”, 2020]. Today this seems wild, because now among doctors there have long been more women than men, and among engineers of various specializations there are also quite a lot of women.
And finally, for different types of society, moral standards differ markedly depending on traditions and the dominant religion. It seems that there is no need to explain for a long time here and now how the traditional clothing of an Eastern woman differs from the everyday style of a European one, how much easier access to education is in developed countries than in the countries of the “third world”, and what are the boundaries of what is permitted “with us” and “with them” " Moreover, the question may arise of violating not only moral norms, but also legal norms, because law and morality “among them” are connected in the most direct way.
As an example, let us cite the sensational news from the United Arab Emirates in April 2021, where 12 girls were arrested for taking photographs without clothes from the back [BBC, 2021]. Even in a country quite open to European tourists like the UAE, this is sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution, despite the fact that the photography took place without witnesses. In any other European state, this would only outrage pensioners and religiously minded citizens. For the rest, it is completely enough that such photo sessions do not take place on a public beach and in the presence of minors.
We see that morality can be represented as a set of ideas accepted in society about good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral. However, these ideas and the rules of behavior that follow from them cannot be established once and for all, because society and the people living in it change over time.
Moreover, these rules cannot be the same for everyone, even within the confines of today and the current moment, because different traditions and ideas about moral standards have developed in different states. And even within the same country, in different social strata, ideas about the boundaries of what is acceptable may vary. Let us repeat once again the main reasons why uniform moral standards for everyone and forever are impossible:
- Differences in traditions for different peoples and states.
- Heterogeneity of society within one country and nation.
- Dynamic development of society in time and historical perspective.
We have already mentioned above that in the 19th century a girl from a noble family could not “go out into society” without a corset, but this rule did not apply to girls from ordinary families engaged in manual labor, because the corset hindered movement and interfered with work.
One can also recall the phrases that have become stable, such as “bourgeois morality”, “Christian morality”. Intuitively, we all understand that the behavioral attitudes of a businessman differ from what is considered correct by a grandmother who attends church every Sunday, celebrates all church holidays and fasts, sometimes for the completely banal reason of lack of money for food. Actually, society does not hide this - that for some there are “10 commandments”, while for others the main thing is profit and, at best, elements of social responsibility of business.
Nevertheless, despite all the differences in times, peoples, religions and traditions, attempts to formulate a set of universal moral principles have been made constantly throughout history, including in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 [UN, 1948 ]. For what? And is this really necessary? To answer this question, we need to understand why we need morality in principle.
What types of education, on the contrary, do not work?
- Moral teachings contrary to personal example. If parents persistently tell their child how bad it is to lie, swear and drink alcohol, and they themselves regularly lie, argue and get drunk, such upbringing will not give a positive result. All methods of education must be integrated and not contradict each other.
- Imposing norms through constant punishments and scandals. The child will strive not so much to observe moral principles because they are correct and good, but rather to strive to avoid punishment. To do this, he will lie and hide his bad deeds.
- Art without analysis. Just showing your child a cartoon about good and evil or reading a book is not enough - he can understand the work in his own way. It is worth talking to him about the meaning of what he saw or heard, to make sure that he understood everything correctly.
Why is morality needed?
As we discussed earlier, morality is closely related to human behavior. Moral norms act as a regulator of everyday relationships between people; deviations from generally accepted norms in society or any segment of society are categorically condemned and, in severe cases, can cause social isolation of such a “violator.” In particularly difficult cases, when the norms of morality and law in the state are almost identical, failure to comply with moral norms may result in criminal prosecution.
Then the question arises: why does society need such a regulator and “unifier” of relations? The fact is that, one way or another, people in society are forced to interact. And not only within one’s own social stratum, but also with representatives of other social groups. So, a business needs hired workers, a factory owner needs workers who can do hard physical work. A professor cannot always fix an electrical outlet or a water faucet himself, and then he will have to communicate with a person who knows how to do this, but who is not necessarily as well read and educated.
The situation is even more complicated when you have to interact with foreign guests and partners or go to another country on a business visit. As we have repeatedly mentioned, different countries have developed different cultural traditions and have different moral rules. Violating them will be frowned upon in any case, even if there is an understanding that the foreigner may not know something. That is why business etiquette requires you to familiarize yourself with the customs and traditions of the country before you board a plane flying to distant lands.
In order for representatives of all social groups and citizens of different countries to coexist peacefully and interact productively, we need uniform regulators of behavior or generally accepted norms that are understood and observed by all people, regardless of their social status and material wealth. Moral norms act as such a regulator.
Relatively speaking, in my circle of workers I can use foul language as much as I want, but when communicating with customers of services, they must be polite. Young beautiful girls can wear the shortest skirt in the world to a nightclub or for a walk, but in the offices of large companies and the banking sector it is necessary to maintain a business style so as not to offend the perception of people who may have a less liberated mindset, but noticeably more money, and make investment decisions, including based on their subjective impression of the company.
In the same way, any person can walk in any form and be photographed in any clothes or without it at home, but he cannot walk or be photographed as he wants in a foreign country if the laws of that country are not completely tolerant of the manifestations of individual freedom that we are accustomed to. In a foreign country, one should respect the norms and rules of morality adopted by the territory, both those prescribed by law and those existing behind the scenes.
This understanding of morality makes it possible to use this term as a synonym for the word “ethics”. Actually, when it comes to business ethics, medical ethics, journalistic ethics, what is meant is a set of rules of conduct for a particular professional group. What will happen if these norms, even if they are conditional and not always fixed somewhere, are completely abandoned?
It is easy to assume that it will become impossible to conduct an honest business, the concept of social responsibility of business will disappear into oblivion, keeping purely private information about one’s health secret will become much more difficult, and the press will begin to broadcast and print whatever they want. There are, of course, courts and administrative measures, but in an environment of complete lawlessness this will not be physically enough to protect the rights of citizens to privacy and basic respect for their own personality.
Nevertheless, attempts to “disown” generally accepted moral norms as regulators of human behavior are systematically made. We have already mentioned above the principles of moral relativism and moral nihilism. To a large extent, moral skepticism or the theory of moral errors (in English moral error theory) has something in common with them. The author of the theory is the Australian philosopher John Mackie, and he outlined his views in the work Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong [J. Mackie, 1977].
In a nutshell, according to this theory, morality as such does not exist at all, and what people call morality is nothing more than their invention. This is its difference from any of the sciences, where an objective law exists independently of consciousness. John Mackey gives an example that the atom has always existed, and the question of its search and discovery was purely technical, and was decided when scientific and technological progress reached such a level that the discovery of the atom became possible. In this regard, the search for universal or absolute norms of morality is impossible, because morality does not exist, and it is impossible to find norms for something that does not exist [J. Mackie, 1977].
In principle, moral error theory is useful in a number of cases. For example, when dictators need to justify repression or aggressors undertake to explain to their people that killing in the name of a better future is good. However, a complete rejection of morality, as suggested by the authors of the moral error theory, will lead to anarchy, because legal institutions alone are not enough to regulate relations in society.
Even if we admit that moral norms are very conditional, at the same time we will have to admit that they are still necessary. Therefore, even among supporters of the theory of moral errors, many believe that morality is omnipresent and multifaceted. Thus, its influence is felt even in solving such a seemingly purely scientific problem as combating climate change, as stated by the Austrian philosopher Thomas Pelzler in his work The Effects of Morality on Acting against Climate Change. [T. Pölzler, 2018]. Therefore, shouting about the uselessness of morality is a thankless task, and moral error theory itself should be applied based on the context of the situation.
So, we have found a lot of reasons why morality is needed by society. In the end, from a certain age people stop believing in Santa Claus and other fairy tales, but this is not at all a reason to abandon fairy tales completely, to stop writing, publishing and reading fairy tales to children. Any certified psychologist will give you a whole list of reasons why fairy tales are useful for children: they develop thinking, imagination, creative perception, etc. So why not leave morality as a kind of “fairy tale for adults”?
By the way, this is precisely the approach advocated by representatives of moral fictionalism (from the word “fiction”). The exponent of the principles of moral fictionalism is considered to be the philosopher Richard Joyce, known for his work in the field of moral psychology. He outlined his vision of the problem in the book Moral Fictionalism. How to have your cake and eat it too [R. Joyce, 2019]. Will people in this case follow morality if we take as a basis the statement that these are all fairy tales? Most likely, yes, because fairy tales also have educational value, and with the help of fairy tales it is possible to instill in children that friends should be helped, elders should be respected, and evil and injustice should be resisted.
In addition, such metaphors as morality, good, evil, love, hate are familiar to us, and with their help we can convey the necessary information and communicate successfully. To communicate even more successfully, we recommend taking our “Best Communication Techniques” and “Building Relationships” programs, but only after you finish reading this article. Continuing the topic, let's say that as soon as society realizes the redundancy of any restrictive moral norms, a gradual process of abandoning them begins.
Thus, if in past centuries it was considered the norm for the Inquisition to burn scientists and healers at the stake because their views contradicted church dogmas, over time the state and church moved to more civilized forms of discussion. It will apparently take a very long time to get rid of the prohibitions of the church, and how can one not recall the practice of separation of church and state adopted in the USSR. Countries where such steps have never been taken before are forced to fight the dominance of religious dogmas, as they say, “in a targeted manner.”
For example, in Italy, only in April 2021, censorship of films on moral and religious grounds, which had been in effect for more than a hundred years since 1914, was abolished [The Guardian, 2021]. Let us remember that the year of birth of cinema is considered to be 1895 and, thus, Italian cinema lived without church censorship only for the first two decades of its life.
It is estimated that in the post-war years, 274 Italian-produced films, 130 American-produced films, and another 321 films produced in other countries were censored in Italy. Among the “victims” were the works of the great Federico Fellini and Bernardo Bertolucci’s Oscar-nominated film “Last Tango in Paris,” which contained erotic scenes quite acceptable for an 18+ audience.
In the context of all of the above, one question remains: is it still possible for the existence of some moral norms that are universal for atheists and believers, businessmen and employees, pensioners and teenagers, and other various social groups in different countries on different continents?
Perhaps the answer can be the so-called “golden rule of morality”: do not do to others what you would not want done to you. It is possible, in accordance with the trends of the times, to remove the preposition “not” from the formulation and say differently: act towards others as you would like them to act towards you. There are actually a lot of formulations, but the essence is the same: “golden morality” advises weighing each of your actions against how a person would perceive a similar act towards himself.
The maximum number of formulations and references to the golden rule of morality from Antiquity to the present day is collected in the article by Doctor of Philosophy Abdusalam Huseynov “The Golden Rule of Morality” [A. Guseinov, 2003]. In subsequent years, Abdusalam Huseynov developed his observations in the work “The Golden Rule of Morality according to Confucius” [A. Guseinov, 2018]. Among other things, the scientist notes that this rule teaches people not to do what they condemn in the behavior of other people.
You will learn even more from the article “Morality: the diversity of concepts and meanings,” where the author collected the opinions of many scientists regarding the issue under consideration [O. Zubets, 2012]. We have already examined the main aspects and gradations of opinions, but if you are interested in more subtle details and deeper historical excursions, it is worth reading.
I think, in general, we have figured out what morality is and why we need it. We wish that moral standards work exclusively for your benefit and never burden you with redundancy...
And don't forget to share your opinion:
We also recommend reading:
- Storytelling
- Managing pessimism in a team
- Conscience: why doesn’t everyone have it and what to do if it doesn’t?
- Stages of development of ethics in organizations
- Lessons of Wisdom from Cicero
- Diagnostics of moral consciousness. Sociomoral reflection diagnostics - short form
- Norms and rules of morality
- Empiricism in modern philosophy in simple words
- Questions of existential significance
- Diagnostics of moral consciousness. Moral Interview Technique
- L. Kohlberg's theory of moral development
Key words: 1Cognitive science, 1Self-knowledge
