{"id":443,"date":"2016-02-28T15:44:26","date_gmt":"2016-02-28T15:44:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/teachingblogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/hst6347\/?p=443"},"modified":"2016-08-19T05:24:16","modified_gmt":"2016-08-19T05:24:16","slug":"moral","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/2016\/02\/28\/moral\/","title":{"rendered":"Moral"},"content":{"rendered":"

Emmeline Wilcox\u00a0took the \u2018Philosophical Britain\u2018 module at Queen Mary in 2016. In this post she writes about \u2018moral\u2019 as a\u00a0philosophical keyword.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Growing up as a Harry Potter fanatic, I lapped up all the moral messages that littered the books. The importance of empathy, friendship, loyalty, love, and acceptance were set out as qualities that should be fostered. Finding moral lessons in stories is not unfamiliar ground when you\u2019re a child. In fact, as children we are bombarded with moral messages. A children\u2019s TV show, for example, will most likely take you on a journey of moral discovery. Characters make mistakes, and lessons are learned. In this way, the child can reap the moral benefits without the anguish of making mistakes. Teaching moral behaviour in children is essentially teaching a child how to live in our society, and what is expected of them. To my delight, a whole book<\/a>\u00a0has been dedicated to child moral development using Harry Potter as a basis.\u00a0However, this use of the word \u2018moral\u2019 in terms of a lesson is just one of the ways we use the word. Exploring other definitions and usages of the word takes us deep into our history.<\/p>\n

‘The Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry. And I think it’s one of the reasons that some people don’t like the books, but I think that’s it’s a very healthy message to pass on to younger people that you should question authority and you should not assume that the establishment or the press tells you all of the truth.’<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 J.K. Rowling.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The word \u2018moral\u2019 first appeared in the English language around the mid to late 14th century. It is thought that the word was first used by John Gower to translate the Latin title of St. Gregory the Great\u2019s moral exposition on the Book of Job (Moralia, sive Expositio in Job<\/em>) for use in his poem, The Lovers\u2019 Confession<\/em> (circa. 1393).\u00a0The Latin word moralis<\/em> (the singular of moralia<\/em>) literally translated from Latin to ‘pertaining to manners’ \u2013 with mos <\/em>meaning manner, custom, or law. The word \u2018moral\u2019 was subsequently used in translating many other classical works. The use of moral as an adjective can similarly be traced back to the late 14th<\/sup> century – first appearing in Chaucer\u2019s The Canterbury Tales<\/em> with the term ‘moral virtue’ (circa. 1387-95).\u00a0Crucially, the use of the word as both an adjective and a noun emerged around the same time: Gower used the word as a noun, and Chaucer used the word as an adjective.<\/p>\n

\"St.

“Forthi Gregoire in his\u00a0Moral \/ Seith that a man in special” \u2013 Gower.<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moral: Human Behaviour<\/strong><\/p>\n

The earliest use of the word as an adjective, merely indicated human behaviour and was unchanged from its Latin meaning. It is this definition that the term \u2018moral philosophy\u2019 has sprung from. Moral philosophy and \u2018ethics<\/a>\u2019 are often seen as one in the same and are frequently used interchangeably. Surprisingly, the two words actually share a common evolutionary ancestor: the Latin word moralis <\/em>was coined by Cicero when translating the ancient Greek word ethikos<\/em>. Moral philosophy, being concerned with the big question of how we should live our lives, is a topic that has been taken up by many philosophers over the course of history. From Aristotle\u2019s Nicomachean Ethics<\/em>; Immanuel Kant\u2019s The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals<\/em>; and G.E. Moore\u2019s Principia Ethica<\/em> are just a few examples of philosophers who have explored moral philosophy and ethics. Moral philosophers have traditionally been divided into two categories: moral universalists, and moral relativists<\/a>. Moral universalists believe that there is a moral code which all humans share, and it can be arrived at through rational thought. Moral relativists (and later moral sceptics<\/a>) denied that these universal moral laws exist, citing that many different cultures had very different moral codes.<\/p>\n

In the mid 20th<\/sup> century, the meaning of \u2018moral\u2019 which referred to behaviour, was taken up by scientists and transformed into something that could now be tested and measured. With the advent of behavioural psychology in the 1920s, psychologists began to test morals and explore moral development. Psychologists such as Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg came up with theories of moral development in children. In adults, the famous 1963 Milgram experiment tested the strength of someone\u2019s ‘moral imperative against hurting others’. Milgram\u2019s experiment is certainly a mirror of the time \u2013 the study was set up as an attempt to explain how the holocaust could ever have occurred.<\/p>\n

\"\u201cStark

\u201cStark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.\u201d<\/p><\/div>\n

Moral: good b<\/strong>ehaviour or\u00a0having good principles\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the mid 15th<\/sup> century, the word took on a positive definition \u2013 meaning virtuous, or good behaviour and beliefs. We can infer a great deal about a society or person when the term moral is used as a justification for views or behaviour. Most starkly, we can begin to deduce someone\u2019s general political views when he or she states that something is \u2018moral\u2019. For example, in 2004(?), Tony Benn stated that ‘there is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons.’\u00a0<\/a>Conversely, and more recently, the exact word, was used by David Cameron to justify an opposing stance. When attempting to justify his position on airstrikes in Syria, Cameron claimed that there was a ‘moral case<\/a>‘<\/a>.\u00a0Even Katie Hopkins, famed for causing outrage by expressing views which oppose generally accepted morals, still likes to think she has a ‘moral compass’.\u00a0Hopkins claims that her moral compass is only different as it is ‘not to do with religion [\u2026], it\u2019s something to do with Britishness.<\/a>‘.\u00a0\u00a0When people talk about what they believe is moral, we can begin to make a good stab at where they are on the political spectrum. When Katie Hopkins associates her morals with nationalism, we can infer that she is a nationalist and is therefore right wing. When Tony Benn associates morality with an anti-war agenda, we can reasonably guess that he is sympathetic to the left. George Lakoff wrote the book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think <\/em>\u2013 ultimately illustrating how the difference in morals is the fundamental factor when it comes to differing political views.<\/p>\n