Changes

55 bytes added , 01:21, 13 December 2020

m

Text replacement - "http://" to "https://"

Line 5: Line 5:

In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be "common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time."

−

In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. In this "prescriptive" sense of morality as opposed to the above described "descriptive" sort of sense, moral value judgments such as "murder is immoral" are made. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as [[moral skepticism]], in which the existence of objective moral "truths" is rejected. [~~http~~://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/]

+

In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. In this "prescriptive" sense of morality as opposed to the above described "descriptive" sort of sense, moral value judgments such as "murder is immoral" are made. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as [[moral skepticism]], in which the existence of objective moral "truths" is rejected. [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/]

−

In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with [[ethics]], the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain. [~~http~~://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-distinction-between-ethics-and-morals/]

+

In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with [[ethics]], the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain. [https://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-distinction-between-ethics-and-morals/]

−

<center>For lessons on the [[topic]] of '''Morality''', follow [~~http~~://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Morality this link].</center>

+

<center>For lessons on the [[topic]] of '''''Morality''''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Morality '''''this link'''''].</center>

−

Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral [[psychology]]). [~~http~~://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm] In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion. In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie told for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified. In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms "right" or "wrong". Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right [[behavior]], that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular [[belief]] systems and socio-historical [[context]]s. This position, known as moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from [[anthropology]] as evidence to support its claims. [~~http~~://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/] The opposite view, that there are [[universal]], [[eternal]] moral truths are known as moral absolutism. Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and customs define moral behavior.

+

Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral [[psychology]]). [https://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm] In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion. In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie told for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified. In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms "right" or "wrong". Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right [[behavior]], that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular [[belief]] systems and socio-historical [[context]]s. This position, known as moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from [[anthropology]] as evidence to support its claims. [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/] The opposite view, that there are [[universal]], [[eternal]] moral truths are known as moral absolutism. Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and customs define moral behavior.

==Philosophical Perspectives==

Line 37: Line 37:

Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of [[evolution]]ary [[force]]s acting at an [[individual]] level and also at the [[group]] level through group selection (though whether "group selection" 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 and/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.

−

In this respect, morality is not absolute, but [[relative]] and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their [[ideology]]. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining selfishness in order to make group living worthwhile. [[Human]] morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural [[phenomenon]] that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and foster human cooperation. (The Science of Good and Evil, ISBN 0805075208, [~~http~~://books.google.com/books?id=eevvWAcMBaAC&pg=PA19&dq=shermer+exegesis&ei=EIC1SNOiE4uWyATTmaj2Bg&sig=ACfU3U3KFh8kP8Ns8-YgpqBuI03N1JrpEg]

+

In this respect, morality is not absolute, but [[relative]] and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their [[ideology]]. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining selfishness in order to make group living worthwhile. [[Human]] morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural [[phenomenon]] that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and foster human cooperation. (The Science of Good and Evil, ISBN 0805075208, [https://books.google.com/books?id=eevvWAcMBaAC&pg=PA19&dq=shermer+exegesis&ei=EIC1SNOiE4uWyATTmaj2Bg&sig=ACfU3U3KFh8kP8Ns8-YgpqBuI03N1JrpEg]

On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and [[intuition]]s that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness). The strength of the maternal bond is one example. Another is the Imprinting Westermarck effect, seen as underpinning taboos against incest, which decreases the likelihood of inbreeding depression.

Line 43: Line 43:

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, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed 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)

−

It has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts. They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics' [~~http~~://www.amazon.com/dp/0674356616 Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.

+

It has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts. They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics' [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674356616 Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.

Christopher Boehm (1982) 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. [[Richard Dawkins]] in ''[[The God Delusion]]'' suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary [[history]] and that the [[Moral Zeitgeist]] helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with [[time]] within a [[culture]].

Line 50: Line 50:

=== Mirror-neurons ===

−

Research on ''[[mirror neuron]]s'', since their discovery in 1996, suggests that they may have a role to play not only in action understanding, but also in emotion sharing [[empathy]]. Cognitive neuro-scientist 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. [~~http~~://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html] The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy, and this would appear to lend support to Decety's view.

+

Research on ''[[mirror neuron]]s'', since their discovery in 1996, suggests that they may have a role to play not only in action understanding, but also in emotion sharing [[empathy]]. Cognitive neuro-scientist 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. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html] The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy, and this would appear to lend support to Decety's view.

==Psychological perspectives==

−

In modern psychology, morality is considered to change through personal development. A number of 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. 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 [~~http~~://www.pep-web.org/search.php?PHPSESSID=h185imo0h2io4255b4bl7e2jk3&author=sigmund+freud&title=&datetype=&startyear=&endyear=&journal=&type=&sort=author,a&fulltext1=&zone1=paragraphs&fulltext2=&zone2=paragraphs Sigmund Freud], who believe that moral development is the product of aspects of the super-ego as guilt-shame avoidance.

+

In modern psychology, morality is considered to change through personal development. A number of 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. 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 [https://www.pep-web.org/search.php?PHPSESSID=h185imo0h2io4255b4bl7e2jk3&author=sigmund+freud&title=&datetype=&startyear=&endyear=&journal=&type=&sort=author,a&fulltext1=&zone1=paragraphs&fulltext2=&zone2=paragraphs Sigmund Freud], who believe that moral development is the product of aspects of the super-ego as guilt-shame avoidance.

== Morality in judicial systems ==

Line 61: Line 61:

Especially in the systems where modesty (i.e., with reference to sexual crimes) is legally protected or otherwise regulated, the definition of morality as a legal element and in order to determine the cases of infringement, is usually left to the [[vision]] and appreciation of the single judge and hardly ever precisely specified. In such cases, it is common to verify an application of the prevalent common morality of the interested [[community]], that consequently becomes enforced by the law for further reference.

−

The government of [~~http~~://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa South Africa] is attempting to create a Moral Regeneration movement. Part of this is a proposed Bill of Morals, which will bring a biblical-based "moral code" into the realm of [[law]]. This move by a nominally secular democracy has attracted relatively little criticism.

+

The government of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa South Africa] is attempting to create a Moral Regeneration movement. Part of this is a proposed Bill of Morals, which will bring a biblical-based "moral code" into the realm of [[law]]. This move by a nominally secular democracy has attracted relatively little criticism.

== Morality and 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. It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham have studied the differences between liberals and conservatives, in this regard. [~~http~~://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.when-morality-opposes-justice.doc]

+

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. It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham have studied the differences between liberals and conservatives, in this regard. [https://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.when-morality-opposes-justice.doc]

−

''When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize''] (DOC) Social Justice Research. [~~http~~://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt Morality: 2012: Online Only Video: The New Yorker][~~http~~://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1445] According to their model, political conservatives make their moral choices using five moral variables (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity), whereas liberals use only two (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). 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 homogenous communities, in contrast to port-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism.

+

''When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize''] (DOC) Social Justice Research. [https://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt Morality: 2012: Online Only Video: The New Yorker][https://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1445] According to their model, political conservatives make their moral choices using five moral variables (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity), whereas liberals use only two (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). 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 homogenous communities, in contrast to port-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism.

Group morality develops from shared [[concept]]s and [[belief]]s 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 [[movement]]s, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one common morality, regardless of in what it consists.

−

Political Morality is also relevant to the behaviour internationally of national governments, and to the support they receive from their host population. Noam Chomsky states that [~~http~~://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2064][~~http~~://www.artsandopinion.com/2007_v6_n6/chomsky-4.htm]

+

Political Morality is also relevant to the behaviour internationally of national governments, and to the support they receive from their host population. Noam Chomsky states that [https://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2064][https://www.artsandopinion.com/2007_v6_n6/chomsky-4.htm]

:... if we adopt the principle of [[universal]]ity : 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.

Line 91: Line 91:

== Moral psychology ==

=== Religiosity and morality ===

−

In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes.[~~http~~://www.springerlink.com/content/r30712pn2q513456] Although a recent study by Gregory S. Paul published in the ''Journal of Religion and Society'' argues for a positive correlation between the degree of ''public religiosity'' in a society and certain measures of dysfunction.[~~http~~://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html] An analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research. [~~http~~://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html] In another response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[~~http~~://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html] [~~http~~://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf] His conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that a complex relationship exists between religiosity and homicide with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it." Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior, many surveys suggest a positive connection between faith and altruism. [~~http~~://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey.html] showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations. Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an ''inverse'' relationship between religion and crime, with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one.

+

In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes.[https://www.springerlink.com/content/r30712pn2q513456] Although a recent study by Gregory S. Paul published in the ''Journal of Religion and Society'' argues for a positive correlation between the degree of ''public religiosity'' in a society and certain measures of dysfunction.[https://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html] An analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research. [https://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html] In another response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[https://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html] [https://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf] His conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that a complex relationship exists between religiosity and homicide with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it." Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior, many surveys suggest a positive connection between faith and altruism. [https://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey.html] showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations. Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an ''inverse'' relationship between religion and crime, with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one.

For example:

Line 111: Line 111:

Religious [[belief]] systems usually include the idea of [[divine]] [[will]] and divine judgment and usually correspond to a moral code of conduct, and many religions claim that religion and morality are intimately connected. For example, the Roman Catholic Church maintains that although morality can be derived from unaided reason as it is simply the "right ordering" of man's actions, ultimately it derives from God because God created man and nature and that the ultimate sanction for immorality is the loss of a relationship with God.

==Quotes==

−

*The extent of civil government and statutory regulation, in an intermediate state of advancing civilization, is in inverse proportion to the '''morality''' and spirituality of the citizenship. [~~http~~://mercy.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=~~http~~://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper55.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper55.html&line=166#mfs]

+

*The extent of civil government and statutory regulation, in an intermediate state of advancing civilization, is in inverse proportion to the '''morality''' and spirituality of the citizenship. [https://mercy.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=https://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper55.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper55.html&line=166#mfs]

−

*The religious challenge of this age is to those farseeing and forward-looking men and women of spiritual insight who will dare to construct a new and appealing philosophy of living out of the enlarged and exquisitely integrated modern concepts of cosmic truth, universe beauty, and divine goodness. Such a new and righteous vision of [[morality]] will attract all that is good in the mind of man and challenge that which is best in the human soul. Truth, beauty, and goodness are divine realities, and as man ascends the scale of spiritual living, these supreme qualities of the Eternal become increasingly co-ordinated and unified in God, who is love. [~~http~~://mercy.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=~~http~~://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper2.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper2.html&line=150#mfs]

+

*The religious challenge of this age is to those farseeing and forward-looking men and women of spiritual insight who will dare to construct a new and appealing philosophy of living out of the enlarged and exquisitely integrated modern concepts of cosmic truth, universe beauty, and divine goodness. Such a new and righteous vision of [[morality]] will attract all that is good in the mind of man and challenge that which is best in the human soul. Truth, beauty, and goodness are divine realities, and as man ascends the scale of spiritual living, these supreme qualities of the Eternal become increasingly co-ordinated and unified in God, who is love. [https://mercy.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=https://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper2.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper2.html&line=150#mfs]

==See Also==

Line 140: Line 140:

# [2] Arts and Opinion Vol. 6, No. 6, 2007 Gabriel Matthew Schivone interviews Noam Chomsky

# As is expressed in the review of literature on this topic by: Conroy, S.J. and Emerson, T.L.N. (2004). "Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students". Journal of Business Ethics 50 (4): 383--396. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09. DOI:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09

−

# 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, Maryland) 7. ~~http~~://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html.

+

# 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, Maryland) 7. https://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html.

−

# Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith, Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8. ~~http~~://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html.

+

# Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith, Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8. https://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html.

−

# Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look ~~http~~://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html ~~http~~://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 ~~http~~://purl.org/JRS

+

# Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look https://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html https://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 https://purl.org/JRS

# KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4), 443-457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x

# SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3), 323-348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x

Line 161: Line 161:

30. 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.

−

31. "Morality". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. ~~http~~://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Morality.

+

31. "Morality". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Morality.

32. Stace, Walter T. (1937, Reprinted 1975 by permission of MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc.). The Concept of Morals. New York: The MacMillan Company. ISBN 0-8446-2990-1.

== Bibliography ==

−

* Walker, Martin G. ''LIFE! Why We Exist...And What We Must Do to Survive'' ([~~http~~://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIFE_Why_We_Exist...] Wiki Book Page) ([~~http~~://www.meaninginmylife.com] Web Site), Dog Ear Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-59858-243-7

+

* Walker, Martin G. ''LIFE! Why We Exist...And What We Must Do to Survive'' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIFE_Why_We_Exist...] Wiki Book Page) ([https://www.meaninginmylife.com] Web Site), Dog Ear Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-59858-243-7

* Trompenaars, Fons. ''Did the Pedestrian Die?'' ISBN 1-84112-436-2

== External links ==

−

* [~~http~~://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Definition of Morality]

+

* [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Definition of Morality]

−

* [~~http~~://www.percepp.com/morality.htm Objective Morality An evolutionary approach]

+

* [https://www.percepp.com/morality.htm Objective Morality An evolutionary approach]

−

* [~~http~~://www.examinethetruth.com/page_morale_01.htm Christian and Muslim debates on Morality]

+

* [https://www.examinethetruth.com/page_morale_01.htm Christian and Muslim debates on Morality]

−

* [~~http~~://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=1222 Morality and Judaism] chabad.org

+

* [https://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=1222 Morality and Judaism] chabad.org

−

* [~~http~~://www.worldmoralmovement.org Wiki site for discussing and taking action on shared morals (WorldMoralMovement.org)]

+

* [https://www.worldmoralmovement.org Wiki site for discussing and taking action on shared morals (WorldMoralMovement.org)]

−

* [~~http~~://moralsandethics.wordpress.com/ Morals and Ethics in Islam]

+

* [https://moralsandethics.wordpress.com/ Morals and Ethics in Islam]

−

* [~~http~~://www.examinethetruth.com/moralitydebate.htm Understanding the Islam, Christianity Debate]

+

* [https://www.examinethetruth.com/moralitydebate.htm Understanding the Islam, Christianity Debate]

−

*[~~http~~://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?ei=5090&en=23ff00b4cd4b1e91&ex=1357880400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print Stephen Pinker on the Psychology and Evolutionary Biology of Morality]

+

*[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?ei=5090&en=23ff00b4cd4b1e91&ex=1357880400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print Stephen Pinker on the Psychology and Evolutionary Biology of Morality]

[[Category: General Reference]]

Mywikis

Bureaucrats, Administrators

13,094

edits

Changes

Morality (view source)

Revision as of 01:21, 13 December 2020