Defining the Term Morality

Morality
Introduction
This paper compares and contrasts two definitions of the term “morality” to show how both definitions are problematic. The simple Google definition of “morality” is easy to understand but it also seems to suggest that standards of right and wrong are universally understood. The more in-depth definition by Gert suggests that “morality” has to be contextualized according to the beliefs of the groups or society that put forward the standards of acceptable behavior. Both definitions are similar in that they identify morality as the degree to which behavior corresponds with these standards—but they differ in terms of how those standards are understood. Google implies they are basic and universal; Gert implies they are much more subjective.
Differences of Definition: Ross, Gert and Google
Ross makes the case that “moralism is not the same thing as morality”—that it is quite distinct from morality in the sense that it is a surfeit of morality. Morality is defined by Google dictionary as “the extent to which an action is right or wrong.” Gert gets down deeper into the definition of morality by stating that the term can be applied in two ways—descriptively and normatively:
1. “descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. “normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons” (Gert).
Morality, according to Gert can thus be used to refer to a system of morals—i.e., ideas or standards of conduct that people are expected to follow, adhere to, conform their lives to, live by, and so on. Or morality, also according to Gert, can refer to a rational moral order—i.e., a universal sense of right conduct.
Google’s Definition in Closer Detail
The Google definition of morality as a concept that measures the degree to which one’s behavior can be judged as right or wrong is the simplest of the two definitions but also the most problematic. It insinuates that there is a standard of right or wrong that exists but it does not describe what this standard is or how it is defined. One would have to know what ethics is to understand the standard. Morality according to the Internet definition of the term provides only a brief window in to the terminology used to explain action in a moral way. It means that one is either behaving rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly.
However, implicit in this understanding is the idea that there can be different types of morality, as there can be different types of standards. There can be, for example, a Christian morality or a Muslim morality or a Hindu morality or a Protestant morality or a Catholic morality or an atheistic morality or a philosophical morality. But who sets the standard? How is the standard affixed as the standard? The Internet definition of morality does not provide much in the way of explanation on this point. Morality is thus conceived as a process of adherence to a standard or rule of conduct that distinguishes right conduct from wrong conduct, but what about the morality of setting the standard? What if the standard itself is immorally set? Does there need to be an objective standard by which all else can be judged? The Internet definition does not give any sense of this predicament.
Gert’s Definition Has Similar Problems though Its Approach is Different
Gert gets more to the heart of the matter with his lengthy article on morality. However, he too places conditions on morality—i.e., it is based upon adherence to an agreed upon code that is put forward by a group, a society, an organization such as religion or so on. The standard is always developed by someone or some group when morality is defined in the descriptive sense. In the normative sense, morality is understood by rational persons based upon their assessment of the circumstances. This then indicates that there may in fact by an objective standard that the rational person identifies that exists in the universal sense—i.e., outside the standards put forward by individuals or groups, societies or religions. It may overlap and be integrated into their standards, but it does not necessarily have to. The universal standard of right and wrong, however, is not explicitly described or defined by Gert.
Ross also is unclear on the matter of morality. The main objective on the Ross site is to show why moralism is a fallacy and why moral aestheticism is also a fallacy. The idea of morality, though, is not clearly presented in a specific definition. Ross refers to morality frequently on the site but only by way of what others say of morality and contextually by associating morality with either moralism or moral aestheticism in order to prove why the latter two are not legitimate. The concept or definition of what constitutes morality in essence is lost.
How They Overlap
The Internet definition gives a general definition and could be considered the most effective definition as it does not even bother to discuss the issue of standards or perspectives but just alludes to the concepts of right and wrong as though they were universals that could be understand by one and all. Yet, Gert’s definition helps to bring more ideas into the picture to provide some nuance to the definition of morality and show how it can be fashioned by groups or societies or individuals into something that suits their fancy. Gert’s definition because it is so wide-ranging does raise a number of problems about morality—particularly the problem of whether a standard exists universally or not. The Internet definition seems to imply that such a standard does in fact exist—but it does not explicitly state as much. Moreover, neither definition comes to a comprehensive or conclusive resolution on the matter—i.e., whether a standard of morality can be true, truer or truest; right, better or best. Is there a degree of morality that makes one standard more moral than another? Is morality completely subjective only, or is there an objective aspect to morality? These questions really should be considered more deeply to better understand what morality is.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Ross discusses moralism and moral aestheticism with respect to morality but never really defines morality in a clear or simple manner. Google provides a basic concept of morality that is simple and easy to understand but that does not go into great detail to resolve questions of universality. Gert provides a definition of morality that is more comprehensive and does address the question of context but also does not come to a clear conclusion on whether morality stems from a universal standard ultimately.


Works Cited
Gert, Bernard. “The Definition of Morality.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
Google. “Morality.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+morality&oq=definition+of+morality&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3159j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Ross, Kelley. The Fallacies of Moralism and Moral Aestheticism.
http://www.friesian.com/poly-1b.htm