Comparing Definitions of Morality: Google, Gert, and Ross
This paper compares and contrasts two primary definitions of the term "morality" to reveal how each is, in its own way, problematic. The Google dictionary definition offers a simple, accessible explanation but implies a universal standard of right and wrong without identifying what that standard is or how it is established. Bernard Gert's more detailed account distinguishes between descriptive and normative uses of the term, grounding morality in group codes of conduct or rational consensus. Kelley Ross's work on moralism and moral aestheticism is also examined. The paper concludes that neither definition resolves the central question of whether morality rests on a subjective or objective standard.
- Introduction: Overview of three definitions and their problems
- Differences of Definition: Ross, Gert, and Google: Contrasting how each source frames morality
- Google's Definition in Closer Detail: Simple definition implies universal standard without explaining it
- Gert's Definition: A More Complex but Still Incomplete Account: Descriptive and normative morality still lacks objective grounding
- How the Definitions Overlap and Where They Fall Short: Both definitions leave subjectivity versus universality unresolved
- Conclusion: None of the three sources fully resolves morality's foundations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a clear compare-and-contrast structure, keeping each source's definition distinct before drawing connections in a dedicated synthesis section.
- It moves productively from simple to complex, beginning with Google's accessible definition before layering in Gert's more nuanced descriptive/normative distinction, which organizes the argument logically.
- The conclusion honestly acknowledges that none of the sources resolves the central problem, which demonstrates intellectual honesty rather than forcing a tidy ending.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates analytical source comparison: rather than summarizing each source in isolation, the author consistently evaluates each definition against an implicit criterion — whether it resolves the question of universal versus subjective moral standards. This gives the paper a through-line and transforms a straightforward definition exercise into a genuine philosophical inquiry.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis-driven introduction that names all three sources and the core problem. Three body sections each examine a separate thinker or source, followed by a synthesis section that identifies both overlaps and unresolved tensions. A brief conclusion restates the key finding without introducing new claims. This is a textbook five-part essay structure applied to a philosophy topic at the introductory undergraduate level.
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 offered by Bernard Gert in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests that "morality" must 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 goes deeper into the definition of morality by stating that the term can be applied in two ways — descriptively and normatively:
First, descriptively, morality may 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." Second, normatively, morality may 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 refer to a system of morals — that is, ideas or standards of conduct that people are expected to follow, adhere to, conform their lives to, and live by. Alternatively, morality can also refer to a rational moral order — 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 simpler of the two definitions, but also the more problematic. It insinuates that a standard of right or wrong exists without describing what that standard is or how it is defined. One would have to know what ethics is in order to understand the standard. The internet definition of morality provides only a brief window into the terminology used to explain action in a moral way — 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, just as there can be different types of standards. There can be, for example, a Christian morality, a Muslim morality, a Hindu morality, a Protestant morality, a Catholic morality, an atheistic morality, or a philosophical morality. But who sets the standard? How is the standard established as the standard? The internet definition of morality does not provide much explanation on this point. Morality is conceived as a process of adherence to a rule of conduct that distinguishes right behavior from wrong behavior — but what about the morality of setting the standard in the first place? What if the standard itself is immorally set? Does there need to be an objective standard by which all others can be judged? The internet definition gives no sense of this predicament.
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 does not go into sufficient detail to resolve questions of universality. Gert provides a definition of morality that is more comprehensive and does address the question of context, but he too does not arrive at a clear conclusion regarding whether morality stems ultimately from a universal standard. All three treatments, taken together, illustrate how difficult it is to pin down a concept that most people use freely in everyday life — and how much more work remains to be done in normative ethical theory before a truly satisfactory definition can be established.
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
Ross, Kelley. The Fallacies of Moralism and Moral Aestheticism. http://www.friesian.com/poly-1b.htm
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.