Morality

Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

For the capacity of a group's members to maintain belief in the face of opposition or hardship, see Morale. For the novella, see Morality (novella).
"Morals" redirects here. For the film, see Morals (film).
"Immoralist" redirects here. For the novel, see The Immoralist.
Allegory with a portrait of a Venetian senator (Allegory of the morality of earthly things), attributed to Tintoretto, 1585

Moral philosophy includes meta-ethics, which studies abstract issues such as moral ontology and moral epistemology, and normative ethics, which studies more concrete systems of moral decision-making such as deontological ethics and consequentialism. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."[3][4]

Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards or principles.[5][6][7]

History
See also: Evolution of morality and History of ethics

Ethics
See also: Sittlichkeit, Confucius, Laozi, and Tao Te Ching

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[8] Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between ethics and morality.

Immanuel Kant introduced the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Philosopher Simon Blackburn writes that "Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Immanuel Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations."[9]

Descriptive and normative

In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores from a society that provides these codes of conduct in which it applies and is accepted by an individual. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.[10]

In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.[10]

Realism and anti-realism

Philosophical theories on the nature and origins of morality (that is, theories of meta-ethics) are broadly divided into two classes:

  • Moral realism is the class of theories which hold that there are true moral statements that report objective moral facts. For example, while they might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape individuals' "moral" decisions, they deny that those cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior. This may be the philosophical view propounded by ethical naturalists, but not all moral realists accept that position (e.g. ethical non-naturalists).[11]
  • Moral anti-realism, on the other hand, holds that moral statements either fail or do not even attempt to report objective moral facts. Instead, they hold that moral sentences are either categorically false claims of objective moral facts (error theory); claims about subjective attitudes rather than objective facts (ethical subjectivism); or else do not attempt to describe the world at all but rather something else, like an expression of an emotion or the issuance of a command (non-cognitivism).

Some forms of non-cognitivism and ethical subjectivism, while considered anti-realist in the robust sense used here, are considered realist in the sense synonymous with moral universalism. For example, universal prescriptivism is a universalist form of non-cognitivism which claims that morality is derived from reasoning about implied imperatives, and divine command theory and ideal observer theory are universalist forms of ethical subjectivism which claim that morality is derived from the edicts of a god or the hypothetical decrees of a perfectly rational being, respectively.

Anthropology

Morality with practical reasoning

Practical reason is necessary for the moral agency but it is not a sufficient condition for moral agency.[12] Real life issues that need solutions do need both rationality and emotion to be sufficiently moral. One uses rationality as a pathway to the ultimate decision, but the environment and emotions towards the environment at the moment must be a factor for the result to be truly moral, as morality is subject to culture. Something can only be morally acceptable if the culture as a whole has accepted this to be true. Both practical reason and relevant emotional factors are acknowledged as significant in determining the morality of a decision.[13]

Tribal and territorial

Celia Green made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.[14] She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person's territory, including his or her property and dependents, which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective on the individual. These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and 'flexible', whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are universal and absolute, such as Kant's 'categorical imperative' and Geisler's graded absolutism. Green relates the development of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy of contract over status.

In-group and out-group
Main article: In-group and out-group

Some observers hold that individuals apply distinct sets of moral rules to people depending on their membership of an "in-group" (the individual and those they believe to be of the same group) or an "out-group" (people not entitled to be treated according to the same rules). Some biologists, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists believe this in-group/out-group discrimination has evolved because it enhances group survival. This belief has been confirmed by simple computational models of evolution.[15] In simulations this discrimination can result in both unexpected cooperation towards the in-group and irrational hostility towards the out-group.[16] Gary R. Johnson and V.S. Falger have argued that nationalism and patriotism are forms of this in-group/out-group boundary. Jonathan Haidt has noted[17] that experimental observation indicating an in-group criterion provides one moral foundation substantially used by conservatives, but far less so by liberals.

In-group preference is also helpful at the individual level for the passing on of one's genes. For example, a mother who favors her own children more highly than the children of other people will give greater resources to her children than she will to strangers', thus heightening her children's chances of survival and her own gene's chances of being perpetuated. Due to this, within a population, there is substantial selection pressure exerted toward this kind of self-interest, such that eventually, all parents wind up favoring their own children (the in-group) over other children (the out-group).

Comparing cultures

Peterson and Seligman[18] approach the anthropological view looking across cultures, geo-cultural areas and across millennia. They conclude that certain virtues have prevailed in all cultures they examined. The major virtues they identified include wisdom / knowledge; courage; humanity; justice; temperance; and transcendence. Each of these includes several divisions. For instance humanity includes love, kindness, and social intelligence.

Still, others theorize that morality is not always absolute, contending that moral issues often differ along cultural lines. A 2014 PEW research study among several nations illuminates significant cultural differences among issues commonly related to morality, including divorce, extramarital affairs, homosexuality, gambling, abortion, alcohol use, contraceptive use, and premarital sex. Each of the 40 countries in this study has a range of percentages according to what percentage of each country believes the common moral issues are acceptable, unacceptable, or not moral issues at all. Each percentage regarding the significance of the moral issue varies greatly on the culture in which the moral issue is presented.[19]

Advocates of a theory known as moral relativism subscribe to the notion that moral virtues are right or wrong only within the context of a certain standpoint (e.g., cultural community). In other words, what is morally acceptable in one culture may be taboo in another. They further contend that no moral virtue can objectively be proven right or wrong [20] Critics of moral relativism point to historical atrocities such as infanticide, slavery, or genocide as counter arguments, noting the difficulty in accepting these actions simply through cultural lenses.

Fons Trompenaars, author of Did the Pedestrian Die?, tested members of different cultures with various moral dilemmas. One of these was whether the driver of a car would have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie in order to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that different cultures had quite different expectations, from none to definite.[21]

Anthropologists from Oxford's Institute of Cognitive & Evolutionary Anthropology (part of the School of Anthropology & Museum Ethnography) analysed ethnographic accounts of ethics from 60 societies, comprising over 600,000 words from over 600 sources and discovered what they believe to be seven universal moral rules: help your family, help your group, return favours, be brave, defer to superiors, divide resources fairly, and respect others' property.[22][23]

Evolution
See also: Altruism § Evolutionary explanations, Evolution of morality, and Evolutionary ethics

The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to sociocultural evolution. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (although to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.

On this understanding, moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and biologically driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, although sophisticated and complex relative to the moralities of other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals' fitness.[24]

On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness). Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behaviour such as inbreeding.

The phenomenon of reciprocity in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, some vampire bats fail to feed on prey some nights while others manage to consume a surplus. Bats that did eat will then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)

Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (2009) have argued that morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as "a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups." This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness.[25] In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.[26] They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social politics[27] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.

Christopher Boehm (1982)[28] has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities.

Psychology
Main article: Moral psychology
See also: Kohlberg's stages of moral development and Jean Piaget § Education and development of morality
Kohlberg's model of moral development

In modern moral psychology, morality is sometimes considered to change through personal development. Several psychologists have produced theories on the development of morals, usually going through stages of different morals. Lawrence Kohlberg, Jean Piaget, and Elliot Turiel have cognitive-developmental approaches to moral development; to these theorists morality forms in a series of constructive stages or domains. In the Ethics of care approach established by Carol Gilligan, moral development occurs in the context of caring, mutually responsive relationships which are based on interdependence, particularly in parenting but also in social relationships generally.[29] Social psychologists such as Martin Hoffman and Jonathan Haidt emphasize social and emotional development based on biology, such as empathy. Moral identity theorists, such as William Damon and Mordechai Nisan, see moral commitment as arising from the development of a self-identity that is defined by moral purposes: this moral self-identity leads to a sense of responsibility to pursue such purposes. Of historical interest in psychology are the theories of psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud, who believe that moral development is the product of aspects of the super-ego as guilt-shame avoidance. Theories of moral development therefore tend to regard it as positive moral development: the higher stages are morally higher, though this, naturally, involves a circular argument. The higher stages are better because they are higher, but the better higher because they are better.

As an alternative to viewing morality as an individual trait, some sociologists as well as social- and discursive psychologists have taken upon themselves to study the in-vivo aspects of morality by examining how persons conduct themselves in social interaction.[30][31][32][33]

A new study analyses the common perception of a decline in morality in societies worldwide and throughout history. Adam M. Mastroianni and Daniel T. Gilbert present a series of studies indicating that the perception of moral decline is an illusion and easily produced, with implications for misallocation of resources, underuse of social support, and social influence. To begin with, the authors demonstrate that people in no less than 60 nations hold the belief that morality is deteriorating continuously, and this conviction has been present for the last 70 years. Subsequently, they indicate that people ascribe this decay to the declining morality of individuals as they age and the succeeding generations. Thirdly, the authors demonstrate that people's evaluations of the morality of their peers have not decreased over time, indicating that the belief in moral decline is an illusion. Lastly, the authors explain a basic psychological mechanism that uses two well-established phenomena (distorted exposure to information and distorted memory of information) to cause the illusion of moral decline. The authors present studies that validate some of the predictions about the circumstances in which the perception of moral decline is attenuated, eliminated, or reversed (e.g., when participants are asked about the morality of people closest to them or people who lived before they were born).[34]

Moral cognition

Moral cognition refers to cognitive processes implicated in moral judgment and decision making, and moral action. It consists of several domain-general cognitive processes, ranging from perception of a morally salient stimulus to reasoning when faced with a moral dilemma. While it's important to mention that there is not a single cognitive faculty dedicated exclusively to moral cognition,[35][36] characterizing the contributions of domain-general processes to moral behavior is a critical scientific endeavor to understand how morality works and how it can be improved.[37]

Cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists investigate the inputs to these cognitive processes and their interactions, as well as how these contribute to moral behavior by running controlled experiments.[38] In these experiments putatively moral versus nonmoral stimuli are compared to each other, while controlling for other variables such as content or working memory load. Often, the differential neural response to specifically moral statements or scenes, are examined using functional neuroimaging experiments.

Critically, the specific cognitive processes that are involved depend on the prototypical situation that a person encounters.[39] For instance, while situations that require an active decision on a moral dilemma may require active reasoning, an immediate reaction to a shocking moral violation may involve quick, affect-laden processes. Nonetheless, certain cognitive skills such as being able to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, emotions to oneself, and others is a common feature of a broad range of prototypical situations. In line with this, a meta-analysis found overlapping activity between moral emotion and moral reasoning tasks, suggesting a shared neural network for both tasks.[40] The results of this meta-analysis, however, also demonstrated that the processing of moral input is affected by task demands.

Regarding the issues of morality in video games, some scholars believe that because players appear in video games as actors, they maintain a distance between their sense of self and the role of the game in terms of imagination. Therefore, the decision-making and moral behavior of players in the game are not representing player's Moral dogma.[41]

It has been recently found that moral judgment consists in concurrent evaluations of three different components that align with precepts from three dominant moral theories (virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism): the character of a person (Agent-component, A); their actions (Deed-component, D); and the consequences brought about in the situation (Consequences-component, C).[42] This, implies that various inputs of the situation a person encounters affect moral cognition.

Neuroscience

See also: Science of morality and Neuromorality

The brain areas that are consistently involved when humans reason about moral issues have been investigated by multiple quantitative large-scale meta-analyses of the brain activity changes reported in the moral neuroscience literature.[43][40][44][45] The neural network underlying moral decisions overlaps with the network pertaining to representing others' intentions (i.e., theory of mind) and the network pertaining to representing others' (vicariously experienced) emotional states (i.e., empathy). This supports the notion that moral reasoning is related to both seeing things from other persons' points of view and to grasping others' feelings. These results provide evidence that the neural network underlying moral decisions is probably domain-global (i.e., there might be no such things as a "moral module" in the human brain) and might be dissociable into cognitive and affective sub-systems.[43]

Cognitive neuroscientist Jean Decety thinks that the ability to recognize and vicariously experience what another individual is undergoing was a key step forward in the evolution of social behavior, and ultimately, morality.[46] The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy, and this would appear to lend support to Decety's view.[47][48]


Brain areas

An essential, shared component of moral judgment involves the capacity to detect morally salient content within a given social context. Recent research implicated the salience network in this initial detection of moral content.[49] The salience network responds to behaviorally salient events [50] and may be critical to modulate downstream default and frontal control network interactions in the service of complex moral reasoning and decision-making processes.

The explicit making of moral right and wrong judgments coincides with activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a region involved in valuation, while intuitive reactions to situations containing implicit moral issues activates the temporoparietal junction area, a region that plays a key role in understanding intentions and beliefs.[51][49]

Stimulation of the VMPC by transcranial magnetic stimulation, or neurological lesion, has been shown to inhibit the ability of human subjects to take into account intent when forming a moral judgment. According to such investigations, TMS did not disrupt participants' ability to make any moral judgment. On the contrary, moral judgments of intentional harms and non-harms were unaffected by TMS to either the RTPJ or the control site; presumably, however, people typically make moral judgments of intentional harms by considering not only the action's harmful outcome but the agent's intentions and beliefs. So why were moral judgments of intentional harms not affected by TMS to the RTPJ? One possibility is that moral judgments typically reflect a weighted function of any morally relevant information that is available at the time. Based on this view, when information concerning the agent's belief is unavailable or degraded, the resulting moral judgment simply reflects a higher weighting of other morally relevant factors (e.g., outcome). Alternatively, following TMS to the RTPJ, moral judgments might be made via an abnormal processing route that does not take belief into account. On either account, when belief information is degraded or unavailable, moral judgments are shifted toward other morally relevant factors (e.g., outcome). For intentional harms and non-harms, however, the outcome suggests the same moral judgment as to the intention. Thus, the researchers suggest that TMS to the RTPJ disrupted the processing of negative beliefs for both intentional harms and attempted harms, but the current design allowed the investigators to detect this effect only in the case of attempted harms, in which the neutral outcomes did not afford harsh moral judgments on their own.[52]

Similarly, individuals with a lesion of the VMPC judge an action purely on its outcome and are unable to take into account the intent of that action.[53]

Genetics

Moral intuitions may have genetic bases. A 2022 study conducted by scholars Michael Zakharin and Timothy C. Bates, and published by the European Journal of Personality, found that moral foundations have significant genetic bases.[54] Another study, conducted by Smith and Hatemi, similarly found significant evidence in support of moral heritability by looking at and comparing the answers of moral dilemmas between twins.[55]

Genetics play a role in influencing prosocial behaviors and moral decision-making. Genetics contribute to the development and expression of certain traits and behaviors, including those related to morality. However, it is important to note that while genetics play a role in shaping certain aspects of moral behavior, morality itself is a multifaceted concept that encompasses cultural, societal, and personal influences as well.

Politics

If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level, politics can be seen as addressing the same question at the social level, though the political sphere raises additional problems and challenges.[56] It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. Moral foundations theory, authored by Jonathan Haidt and colleagues,[57][58] has been used to study the differences between liberals and conservatives, in this regard.[17][59] Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tended to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans valued care and fairness less and the remaining three values more. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Haidt also hypothesizes that the origin of this division in the United States can be traced to geo-historical factors, with conservatism strongest in closely knit, ethnically homogeneous communities, in contrast to port-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism.

Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fiber", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labeled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one common morality, regardless of its content.

Political morality is also relevant to the behavior internationally of national governments, and to the support they receive from their host population. The Sentience Institute, co-founded by Jacy Reese Anthis, analyzes the trajectory of moral progress in society via the framework of an expanding moral circle.[60] Noam Chomsky states that

... if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, one of them, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.[61]

Religion
Main articles: Ethics in religion and Morality and religion
See also: Divine command theory, Divine law, Religious law, Secular ethics, and Secular morality

Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not depend upon religion although for some this is "an almost automatic assumption".[62] According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[63]

Positions

Within the wide range of moral traditions, religious value systems co-exist with contemporary secular frameworks such as consequentialism, freethought, humanism, utilitarianism, and others. There are many types of religious value systems. Modern monotheistic religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and to a certain degree others such as Sikhism and Zoroastrianism, define right and wrong by the laws and rules set forth by their respective scriptures and as interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith. Other religions spanning pantheistic to nontheistic tend to be less absolute. For example, within Buddhism, the intention of the individual and the circumstances should be accounted for in the form of Merit, to determine if an action is right or wrong termed.[64] A further disparity between the values of religious traditions is pointed out by Barbara Stoler Miller, who states that, in Hinduism, "practically, right and wrong are decided according to the categories of social rank, kinship, and stages of life. For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and egalitarianism, this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of Hinduism most difficult to understand".[65]

Religions provide different ways of dealing with moral dilemmas. For example, there is no absolute prohibition on killing in Hinduism, which recognizes that it "may be inevitable and indeed necessary" in certain circumstances.[66] In monotheistic traditions, certain acts are viewed in more absolute terms, such as abortion or divorce.[a] Religion is not always positively associated with morality. Philosopher David Hume stated that, "the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man's morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere."[67]

Religious value systems can also be used to justify acts that are contrary to contemporary morality, such as massacres, misogyny and slavery. For example, Simon Blackburn states that "apologists for Hinduism defend or explain away its involvement with the caste system, and apologists for Islam defend or explain away its harsh penal code or its attitude to women and infidels".[68] In regard to Christianity, he states that the "Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women",[69] and notes morally suspect themes in the Bible's New Testament as well.[70][e] Elizabeth Anderson likewise holds that "the Bible contains both good and evil teachings", and it is "morally inconsistent".[71] Christian apologists address Blackburn's viewpoints[72] and construe that Jewish laws in the Hebrew Bible showed the evolution of moral standards towards protecting the vulnerable, imposing a death penalty on those pursuing slavery and treating slaves as persons and not property.[73] Humanists like Paul Kurtz believe that we can identify moral values across cultures, even if we do not appeal to a supernatural or universalist understanding of principles – values including integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness. These values can be resources for finding common ground between believers and nonbelievers.[74]

Empirical analyses

Several studies have been conducted on the empirics of morality in various countries, and the overall relationship between faith and crime is unclear.[b] A 2001 review of studies on this topic found "The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently, no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime."[75] Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, Society without God, based on studies conducted during 14 months in Scandinavia in 2005–2006, notes that Denmark and Sweden, "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[76][c]

Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society stated that, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," and "In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows" with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and "theistic" Portugal.[77][d] In a response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[78] he concludes that a "complex relationship" exists between religiosity and homicide "with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it". In April 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects' pro-social sentiments were published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more motivated by their own compassion to perform pro-social behaviors. Religious people were found to be less motivated by compassion to be charitable than by an inner sense of moral obligation.[79][80]

See also

Notes
a.^ Studies on divorce in the United States done by the Barna Group suggested that atheists and agnostics have lower divorce rates than faith groups on average (though some faith groups had lower rates still).[81][82] The study notes that fewer atheists and agnostics enter into marriage relative to faith-based individuals.
b.^ Some studies appear to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior[83][84][85] Modern research in criminology also suggests an inverse relationship between religion and crime,[86] with some studies establishing this connection.[87] A meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior".[75]
c.^ Zuckerman identifies that Scandinavians have "relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary", but "their overall rates of violent crime—such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape—are among the lowest on earth" (Zuckerman 2008, pp. 5–6).
d.^ The authors also state that "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies,"[88] and "the least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards."[89] They argue for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[90] an analysis published later in the same journal argues that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions in the research.[91]
e.^ Blackburn provides examples such as the phrase in Exodus 22:18 that has "helped to burn alive tens or hundreds of thousands of women in Europe and America": "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and notes that the Old Testament God apparently has "no problems with a slave-owning society", considers birth control a crime punishable by death, and "is keen on child abuse".[92] Others interpret these passages differently, arguing for example that Jewish laws show the evolution of moral standards in society: that Jews actually threatened those who pursued forced slavery with the death penalty, held that slaves were persons instead of property, and protected them in several ways.[72][73][93]

References
  1. Long, A. A.; Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers: Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 366–67. ISBN 978-0521275569.
  2. Stanford University (2011). "The Definition of Morality". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
  3. Antony Flew, ed. (1979). "golden rule". A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan Books in association with The MacMillan Press. p. 134. ISBN 978-0333262047. The maxim 'Treat others how you wish to be treated'. Various expressions of this fundamental moral rule are to be found in tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages, testifying to its universal applicability.
  4. Walter Terence Stace argued that the Golden Rule is much more than simply an ethical code. He posits that it "express[es] the essence of a universal morality." The rationale for this distinction occupies much of his book The Concept of Morals (1937). Stace, Walter T. (1937). The Concept of Morals. New York: The MacMillan Company; reprinted by Peter Smith Publisher Inc, January 1990. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-8446-2990-2.
  5. Johnstone, Megan-Jane (2008). Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective. pp. 102–03. ISBN 978-0-7295-3873-2. PMID 2129925. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  6. Superson, Anita (2009). The Moral Skeptic. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–59. ISBN 978-0-19-537662-3.
  7. "Amorality". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 2010-06-18. "having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong"
  8. Deigh, John (2015). "ethics". In Audi, Robert (ed.). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 328. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139057509. ISBN 9781139057509.
  9. Blackburn, Simon (2008). "morality". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 241. doi:10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001. ISBN 9780199541430.
  10. Gert, Bernard; Gert, Joshua (2016). "The Definition of Morality". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  11. Chapouthier, Georges, "To what extent is moral judgment natural?", European Review (GB), 2004, 12(2): 179–83
  12. Ezedike, Edward Uzoma (2020-01-02). "Morality within the limits of practical reason: a critique of Kant's concept of moral virtue". International Journal of Ethics and Systems. 36 (2): 205–216. doi:10.1108/ijoes-11-2018-0171. ISSN 2514-9369. S2CID 214501283.
  13. Richardson, Henry S. (2018), "Moral Reasoning", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2022-05-04
  14. Green, Celia (2004). Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I–XX.
  15. T.R. Shultz, M. Hartshorn, and A. Kaznatcheev. Why is ethnocentrism more common than humanitarianism? Archived 2012-03-27 at the Wayback Machine Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society, 2009.
  16. Kaznatcheev, A. (2010, March). Robustness of ethnocentrism to changes in inter-personal interactions. In Complex Adaptive Systems – AAAI Fall Symposium. Butiz wintrades
  17. Haidt, Jonathan; Graham, Jesse (2007). "When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize" (PDF). Social Justice Research. 20: 98–116. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.385.3650. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z. S2CID 6824095. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-08-30. Retrieved 2014-09-26.
  18. Peterson, Christopher, and Martin E. P. Seligman. Character Strengths and Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
  19. "Global Views on Morality". PewResearch.org. 15 April 2014.
  20. (Westacott, https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2g).
  21. Trompenaars, Fons (2003). Did the Pedestrian Die: Insights from the World's Greatest Culture!. Wiley. ISBN 978-1841124360.
  22. Curry, Oliver Scott; Mullins, Daniel Austin; Whitehouse, Harvey (2019). "Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies". Current Anthropology. 60 (1): 47–69. doi:10.1086/701478.
  23. "Seven moral rules found all around the world | University of Oxford". www.ox.ac.uk. 11 February 2019.
  24. Shermer, Michael (2004). "Transcendent Morality". The Science of Good and Evil. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-8050-7520-5.
  25. Bekoff, Marc and Jessica Pierce Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press 2009)
  26. O'Connell, Sanjida (July 1995). "Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind?". Primates. 36 (3): 397–410. doi:10.1007/BF02382862. ISSN 0032-8332. S2CID 41356986.
  27. de Waal, Frans (1997). Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674356610.
  28. Boehm, Christopher (1982). "The evolutionary development of morality as an effect of dominance behaviour and conflict interference". Journal of Social and Biological Sciences. 5 (4): 413–22. doi:10.1016/s0140-1750(82)92069-3.
  29. Gilligan and Kohlberg: "Implications for Moral Theory" Author(s): Lawrence A. Blum Source: Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 3 (Apr., 1988), pp. 472–91
  30. Bergmann Jörg (1998). "Introduction:Morality in discourse". Research on Language and Social Interaction. 31 (3/4): 279–74. doi:10.1080/08351813.1998.9683594.
  31. Jörg Bergmann "Veiled morality: Notes on discretion in psychiatry." In Drew, Paul; Heritage, John, eds. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 137–62.
  32. Lena Jayyusi "Values and moral judgment: Communicative praxis as moral order." In Button, Graham, ed. (1991). Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–51.
  33. Cromdal Jakob; Michael Tholander (2014). "Morality in professional practice". Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice. 9 (2): 155–64. doi:10.1558/japl.v9i2.25734.
  34. Mastroianni, Adam M.; Gilbert, Daniel T. (2023). "The illusion of moral decline". Nature. 618 (7966): 782–789. Bibcode:2023Natur.618..782M. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06137-x. PMC 10284688. PMID 37286595.
  35. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter; Wheatley, Thalia (2012). "The Disunity of Morality and Why it Matters to Philosophy". Monist. 95 (3): 355–77. doi:10.5840/monist201295319.
  36. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter; Wheatley, Thalia (13 February 2013). "Are moral judgments unified?". Philosophical Psychology. 27 (4): 451–74. doi:10.1080/09515089.2012.736075. S2CID 143876741.
  37. Young, Liane; Dungan, James (January 2012). "Where in the brain is morality? Everywhere and maybe nowhere". Social Neuroscience. 7 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1080/17470919.2011.569146. PMID 21590587. S2CID 14074566.
  38. Yoder, Keith J.; Decety, Jean (12 December 2017). "The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making". Psychology, Crime & Law. 24 (3): 279–95. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2017.1414817. PMC 6372234. PMID 30766017.
  39. Monin, Benoît; Pizarro, David A.; Beer, Jennifer S. (2007). "Deciding versus reacting: Conceptions of moral judgment and the reason-affect debate". Review of General Psychology. 11 (2): 99–111. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.99. S2CID 144286153.
  40. Sevinc, Gunes; Spreng, R. Nathan (4 February 2014). "Contextual and Perceptual Brain Processes Underlying Moral Cognition: A Quantitative Meta-Analysis of Moral Reasoning and Moral Emotions". PLOS ONE. 9 (2): e87427. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...987427S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087427. PMC 3913597. PMID 24503959.
  41. Bartel, Christopher (2015). "Free will and moral responsibility in video games". Ethics and Information Technology. 17 (4): 285–293. doi:10.1007/s10676-015-9383-8. ISSN 1388-1957. S2CID 15800963.
  42. Dubljević, Veljko; Sattler, Sebastian; Racine, Eric (2018). "Deciphering moral intuition: How agents, deeds, and consequences influence moral judgment". PLOS ONE. 13 (10): e0204631. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1304631D. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204631. PMC 6166963. PMID 30273370.
  43. Bzdok, Danilo; Schilbach, Leonhard; Vogeley, Kai; Schneider, Karla; Laird, Angela R; Langner, Robert; Eickhoff, Simon B (2012-01-24). "Bzdok, D. et al. Parsing the neural correlates of moral cognition: ALE meta-analysis on morality, theory of mind, and empathy. Brain Struct Funct, 2011". Brain Structure and Function. 217 (4): 783–96. doi:10.1007/s00429-012-0380-y. PMC 3445793. PMID 22270812.
  44. Boccia, M.; Dacquino, C.; Piccardi, L.; Cordellieri, P.; Guariglia, C.; Ferlazzo, F.; Ferracuti, S.; Giannini, A. M. (25 January 2016). "Neural foundation of human moral reasoning: an ALE meta-analysis about the role of personal perspective". Brain Imaging and Behavior. 11 (1): 278–92. doi:10.1007/s11682-016-9505-x. PMID 26809288. S2CID 3984661. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 September 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
  45. Eres, Robert; Louis, Winnifred R.; Molenberghs, Pascal (27 July 2017). "Common and distinct neural networks involved in fMRI studies investigating morality: an ALE meta-analysis". Social Neuroscience. 13 (4): 384–98. doi:10.1080/17470919.2017.1357657. PMID 28724332. S2CID 31749926.
  46. Vedantam, Shankar. "If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
  47. de Wied M, Goudena PP, Matthys W (2005). "Empathy in boys with disruptive behavior disorders". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 46 (8): 867–80. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00389.x. hdl:1874/11212. PMID 16033635. S2CID 45683502.
  48. Fernandez YM, Marshall WL (2003). "Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists". Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 15 (1): 11–26. doi:10.1023/A:1020611606754. PMID 12616926. S2CID 195293070.
  49. Sevinc, Gunes; Gurvit, Hakan; Spreng, R. Nathan (July 2017). "Salience network engagement with the detection of morally laden information". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 12 (7): 1118–27. doi:10.1093/scan/nsx035. PMC 5490682. PMID 28338944.
  50. Seeley, W. W.; Menon, V.; Schatzberg, A. F.; Keller, J.; Glover, G. H.; Kenna, H.; Reiss, A. L.; Greicius, M. D. (28 February 2007). "Dissociable Intrinsic Connectivity Networks for Salience Processing and Executive Control". Journal of Neuroscience. 27 (9): 2349–56. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007. PMC 2680293. PMID 17329432.
  51. Harenski, CL; Antonenko, O; Shane, MS; Kiehl, KA. (2010). "A functional imaging investigation of moral deliberation and moral intuition". NeuroImage. 49 (3): 2707–16. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.062. PMC 4270295. PMID 19878727.
  52. Young, Liane; Camprodon, Joan Albert; Hauser, Marc; Pascual-Leone, Alvaro; Saxe, Rebecca (2010). "Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments". PNAS. 107 (15): 6753–58. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107.6753Y. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914826107. PMC 2872442. PMID 20351278.
  53. Young, Liane; Bechara, Antoine; Tranel, Daniel; Damasio, Hanna; Hauser, Marc; Damasio, Antonio (2010). "Damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex impairs judgment of harmful intent". Neuron. 65 (6): 845–51. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.003. PMC 3085837. PMID 20346759.
  54. Zakharin, Michael; Bates, Timothy C (2022-05-26). "Testing heritability of moral foundations: Common pathway models support strong heritability for the five moral foundations". European Journal of Personality. 37 (4): 485–497. doi:10.1177/08902070221103957. ISSN 0890-2070. S2CID 249115484.
  55. Smith, Kevin; Hatemi, Peter K. (December 2020). "Are Moral Intuitions Heritable?". Human Nature. 31 (4): 406–420. doi:10.1007/s12110-020-09380-7. ISSN 1045-6767. PMID 33420605. S2CID 231202698.
  56. See Weber, Eric Thomas. 2011. Morality, Leadership, and Public Policy (London: Continuum).
  57. Haidt, Jonathan; Joseph, Craig (September 2004). "Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues". Daedalus. 133 (4): 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555. S2CID 1574243.
  58. Graham, J.; Haidt, J.; Koleva, S.; Motyl, M.; Iyer, R.; Wojcik, S.; Ditto, P.H. (2013). Moral Foundations Theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism (PDF). pp. 55–130. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4. ISBN 978-0124072367. S2CID 2570757. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-07-31. Retrieved 2019-07-22. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  59. "Morality: 2012: Online Only Video". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2012-05-06.
  60. "Introducing Sentience Institute". Sentience Institute. 2 June 2017. Retrieved 2019-08-05.
  61. Chomsky, Noam (2002-07-02). "Terror and Just Response". ZNet. Archived from the original on 2013-01-13.
  62. Rachels, James; Rachels, Stuart, eds. (2011). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. . ISBN 978-0-078-03824-2.
  63. Childress, James F.; Macquarrie, John, eds. (1986). The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. p. 401. ISBN 978-0-664-20940-7.
  64. Peggy Morgan, "Buddhism." In Morgan, Peggy; Lawton, Clive A., eds. (2007). Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions (Second ed.). Columbia University Press. pp. 61, 88–89. ISBN 978-0-7486-2330-3.
  65. Miller, Barbara Stoler (2004). The Bhagavad Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War. New York: Random House. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-553-21365-2.
  66. Werner Menski, "Hinduism." In Morgan, Peggy; Lawton, Clive A., eds. (2007). Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions (Second ed.). Columbia University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-7486-2330-3.
  67. David Hume, "The Natural History of Religion." In Hitchens, Christopher, ed. (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.
  68. Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
  69. Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
  70. Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 11–12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
  71. Elizabeth Anderson, "If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" In Hitchens, Christopher, ed. (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. p. 336. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.
  72. Colley, Caleb. "Is Christianity a Threat to Ethics?". Apologetics Press. Retrieved 3 May 2012.
  73. "Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery? An Overview". Enrichmentjournal.ag.org. Archived from the original on 2018-10-05. Retrieved 2012-05-06.
  74. See Weber, Eric Thomas. "Religion, Public Reason, and Humanism: Paul Kurtz on Fallibilism and Ethics Archived 2013-10-14 at the Wayback Machine." Contemporary Pragmatism 5, Issue 2 (2008): 131–47.
  75. Baier, C. J.; Wright, B. R. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 38: 3–21. doi:10.1177/0022427801038001001. S2CID 145779667.
  76. Zuckerman, Phil (October 2008). Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment. New York: New York University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8147-9714-3.
  77. Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society. Baltimore, MD. 7: 4–5, 8, 10. Archived from the original on 2011-12-14.
  78. Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University "Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look'", Journal of Religion and Society, Vol. 8, ISSN 1522-5658
  79. "Highly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers". Science Daily
  80. Laura R. Saslow, Robb Willer, Matthew Feinberg, Paul K. Piff, Katharine Clark, Dacher Keltner and Sarina R. Saturn "My Brother's Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals"
  81. Barna Group (31 March 2008). "New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released". Barna Group. Archived from the original on 19 December 2014. Retrieved 19 November 2011.
  82. Wicker, Christine (2000). "Survey Inspires Debate Over Why Faith Isn't a Bigger Factor in Marriage". www.adherents.com. Archived from the original on March 28, 2002. Retrieved 1 April 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  83. Kerley, Kent R.; Matthews; Blanchard, Troy C. (2005). "Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 44 (4): 443–57. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x.
  84. Saroglou, Vassilis; Pichon; Dernelle, Rebecca (2005). "Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings" (PDF). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 44 (3): 323–48. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.503.7559. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x.
  85. e.g. a survey Archived 2007-10-08 at the Wayback Machine by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
  86. As is stated in: Chu, Doris C. (2007). "Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use". Criminal Justice and Behavior. 34 (5): 661–79. doi:10.1177/0093854806293485. S2CID 145491534.
  87. For example:
    • Albrecht, S. I.; Chadwick, B. A.; Alcorn, D. S. (1977). "Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 16 (3): 263–74. doi:10.2307/1385697. JSTOR 1385697.
    • Burkett, S.; White, M. (1974). "Hellfire and delinquency:Another look". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 13 (4): 455–62. doi:10.2307/1384608. JSTOR 1384608.
    • Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
    • Cochran, J. K.; Akers, R. L. (1989). "Beyond Hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 26 (3): 198–225. doi:10.1177/0022427889026003002. S2CID 145479350.
    • Evans, T. D.; Cullen, F. T.; Burton, V. S. Jr.; Dunaway, R. G.; Payne, G. L.; Kethineni, S. R. (1996). "Religion, social bonds, and delinquency". Deviant Behavior. 17: 43–70. doi:10.1080/01639625.1996.9968014.
    • Grasmick, H. G.; Bursik, R. J.; Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": Religiosity and taxpayer's inclinations to cheat". The Sociological Quarterly. 32 (2): 251–66. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00356.x.
    • Higgins, P. C.; Albrecht, G. L. (1977). "Hellfire and delinquency revisited". Social Forces. 55 (4): 952–58. doi:10.1093/sf/55.4.952.
    • Johnson, B. R.; Larson, D. B.; DeLi, S.; Jang, S. J. (2000). "Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth". Justice Quarterly. 17 (2): 377–91. doi:10.1080/07418820000096371. S2CID 144816590.
    • Johnson, R. E.; Marcos, A. C.; Bahr, S. J. (1987). "The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use". Criminology. 25 (2): 323–40. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00800.x.
    • Powell, K. (1997). "Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths". Family and Community Health. 20 (2): 38–47. doi:10.1097/00003727-199707000-00006.
  88. Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society. Baltimore, MD. 7: 4–5, 8. Archived from the original on 2011-12-14.
  89. Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society. Baltimore, MD. 7: 11. Archived from the original on 2011-12-14.
  90. Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society. Baltimore, MD. 7. Archived from the original on 2011-12-14.
  91. Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith; Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society. Cedarville University. 8. Archived from the original on 2011-10-28.
  92. Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 10, 12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
  93. Westacott, Emrys. "Moral Relativism". iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 12 May 2018.

Further reading
Look up morality in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikiquote has quotations related to Morality.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Morality.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.