I’ve been feeling kind of curious lately about how it might have come to be that we have such widely disparate notions concerning the meaning and origins of morality and ethics. So I looked up moral on an online dictionary, which provided this usage note:
Synonyms: These adjectives mean in accord with right or good conduct. Moral applies to personal character and behavior, especially sexual conduct: “Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights” (Jimmy Carter).
Ethical stresses idealistic standards of right and wrong: “Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants” (Omar N. Bradley).
My question is what’s up with the “especially sexual conduct” bit? Seems completely in left field to me. What am I missing? Is it an older usage of the word?
Consider the source. When religion was rampant, somehow sexuality was inserted into the definition of “moral”. They thought God hated free exercise of sexuality, therefore it was somehow immoral.
To put your mind at ease Merriam-Webster definition does not mention sexuality. Granted they aren’t perfect; the definition of “atheism” has wickedness in it. It also says that its a doctrine.
Anon, I suppose the defintion of morality was given in that context to place it in a near subjective feeling to effect a sampling of how it is perceived by a board of observers. Possibly how it could be agreed upon in a cross section of the populace. My question would will the defintion of ‘moral’ stay in flux as society views ‘right and wrong’ through desensatization from what was previously considered ‘wrong’.
Ah, maybe that’s it. So that means sexual misconduct is mentioned more often than killing a person as an example of an immoral act, rather than people saying that sexual misconduct is more immoral than killing a person? That would make some sense as it’s closer to home for most people. It could also fit into what rule110 is saying. Religion might make a bigger deal out of something which is more common, rather than something which is more extreme.
That’s an excellent question and one I am considering more and more these days.