Morality

==Anthropology==

=== Morality with practical reasoning ===
Practical reason is necessary for the moral agency but it is not a sufficient condition for moral agency.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ezedike |first=Edward Uzoma |date=2020-01-02 |title=Morality within the limits of practical reason: a critique of Kant's concept of moral virtue |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijoes-11-2018-0171 |journal=International Journal of Ethics and Systems |volume=36 |issue=2 |pages=205–216 |doi=10.1108/ijoes-11-2018-0171 |issn=2514-9369 |s2cid=214501283}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Citation |last=Richardson |first=Henry S. |title=Moral Reasoning |date=2018 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/reasoning-moral/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Fall 2018 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=2022-05-04}}</ref>{{POV statement|date=April 2021}}

===Tribal and territorial===
[[Celia Green]] made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.<ref name="Green">Green, Celia (2004). ''Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I–XX.</ref> 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 [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]'s '[[categorical imperative]]' and [[Norman Geisler|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|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 psychology|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.<ref>T.R. Shultz, M. Hartshorn, and A. Kaznatcheev. [http://141.14.165.6/CogSci09/papers/500/ Why is ethnocentrism more common than humanitarianism?] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120327152454/http://141.14.165.6/CogSci09/papers/500/ |date=2012-03-27 }} Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society, 2009.</ref> In simulations this discrimination can result in both unexpected cooperation towards the in-group and irrational hostility towards the out-group.<ref>Kaznatcheev, A. (2010, March). [http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~akazna/kaznatcheev20100910.pdf Robustness of ethnocentrism to changes in inter-personal interactions]. In ''Complex Adaptive Systems – AAAI Fall Symposium''. Butiz wintrades</ref> 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<ref name = haidt>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z | title = When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize | year = 2007 | last1 = Haidt | first1 = Jonathan | last2 = Graham | first2 = Jesse | journal = Social Justice Research | volume = 20 | pages = 98–116 | url = http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pub041.pdf | citeseerx = 10.1.1.385.3650 | s2cid = 6824095| access-date = 2014-09-26 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140830110131/http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pub041.pdf | archive-date = 2014-08-30 | url-status = dead }}</ref> that experimental observation indicating an in-group criterion provides one moral foundation substantially used by [[conservative]]s, but far less so by [[Liberalism|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<ref>Peterson, Christopher, and Martin E. P. Seligman. ''Character Strengths and Virtues''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.</ref> 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 (virtue)|humanity]]; justice; temperance; and transcendence''. Each of these include 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.<ref>{{cite web |website=PewResearch.org |url=http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/table/alcohol-use/ |title=Global Views on Morality|date=15 April 2014 }}</ref>

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 <ref>(Westacott, https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2g).</ref>  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 dilemma]]s. 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.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BAYKAQAAMAAJ|title=Did the Pedestrian Die: Insights from the World's Greatest Culture!|last=Trompenaars|first=Fons|date=2003|publisher=Wiley|isbn=978-1841124360|language=en}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Curry |first1=Oliver Scott |last2=Mullins |first2=Daniel Austin |last3=Whitehouse |first3=Harvey |title=Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies |journal=[[Current Anthropology]] |date=2019 |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=47–69 |doi=10.1086/701478|s2cid=150324056 |url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:8dd8d82d-3829-4857-bcf4-eebf196d11be }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Seven moral rules found all around the world {{!}} University of Oxford |url=https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-world |work=www.ox.ac.uk |date=11 February 2019 |language=en}}</ref>