Defining morality and what could be the differences between Moral Standards and Non-

Moral?
Moral theories are large and complex things; definitions are not. First off, defining
morality according to (Martin 2017), Morality requires recognizing the inherent value of people,
both. ourselves and other, a value that is not reducible to how others benefit us. “Morality” also
seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More
particularly, the term “morality” can be used either descriptively to 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, or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions,
would be put forward by all rational people. The descriptive use of “morality” is the one used by
anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some
comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt 2006; Hauser 2006; De Waal 1996) have
taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals:
primarily, but not exclusively, other primates. This descriptive use of “morality” is now
becoming more prominent because of the work of psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt (2006),
who have been influenced by the views of David Hume (1751), including his attempt to present a
naturalistic account of moral judgments. Those who use “morality” normatively hold that
morality is (or would be) the behavioral code that meets the following condition: all rational
persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse it. These features might, for example,
include fallibility and vulnerability. Other moral theories claim to put forward an account of
morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, even if these beings do not have these
human characteristics, e.g., God.
Defining moral standards, these are the principles, norms or models that an individual or a
group has about what is” right or wrong” or “about what is good or what is bad”. Moral
standards are divided into two number one subdivisional model standard norms and the other one
is values according to the video Moral Standards vs Non-Moral Standards of Moral Standards
vs Non-Moral Standards.
Norms are general rules about our actions or behavior, examples of which are responsibility
for your actions, you should “always tell the truth” Or “treat others as you want to be treated”.
Another on is it is wrong to kill innocent people. While values are the beliefs and ideals that are
expressed as enduring beliefs or statements about “what is good and desirable” or “not good and
not desirable” and their underlying beliefs and ideas that are expressed as. Examples are Honesty
is good, Injustice is Bad. Modern standards will lead us to live our life to the fullest. It promotes
human welfare or well-being. Promote Good and prescribe what human ought to be done. When
it comes to right and obligations.
Non-Moral Standards are standards by which we judge what is good or bad nor right or
wrong in a non-moral way. It talks more about manners, etiquette, house rules, technical
standards, etc. Non moral standards are matters of taste or preference hence a scrupulous
observance these types of standards do not make one a moral person violation of said standards
also does not pose any threat to human well-being.
A moral standard says do not harm innocent people or don't steal a non-moral standard
says don't text while driving or don't talk while the mouth is full.
Why is it important to differentiate moral standards from non-moral ones?
As I’ve watched the video Moral Standards vs Non-Moral Standards of Moral Standards
vs Non-Moral Standards. Aside from defining and distinguish the moral standards from non-
moral, it also emphasized the importance and to consider the different societies have different
moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this
reason, some values do have moral implications while others don't. Let us consider, for example
the wearing of a hijab. For sure, in traditional Muslim communities the wearing of hijab is the
most appropriate act that women have to do in terms of dressing up in fact for some Muslims
showing parts of a woman's body such as the face and legs is despicable. However, in many parts
of the, especially in Western societies, most people don't mind if women barely cover their
bodies as a matter of fact the Hollywood Canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the
wearing of extremely daring dress the point here is that people in the West may have pitted
Muslim women who wear hijab while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly
despicable and so this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards.
There could be danger without knowing how important differentiating moral from non-
moral is that one culture may impose its own cultural standards and others, which may result in a
clash in cultural values and beliefs when this happens as we may already know violence and
crime may ensue, such as religious violence.
This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards and
non-moral ones comes in. The issue may be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but
understanding the difference between the two may have reaching implications. It could be a very
great help that may guide our actions through the aid of the principles, theories and ethics.
Indeed, once we know the particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will be able to avoid
running the risk of falling into the pit of cultural reductionism that are complex cultural issues,
and the unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others.
References:
(2022). Retrieved 15 March 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVYcETMuJg8&t=5s
Van Bavel, J., Packer, D., Haas, I., & Cunningham, W. (2012). The Importance of Moral Construal: Moral versus
Non-Moral Construal Elicits Faster, More Extreme, Universal Evaluations of the Same Actions. Plos ONE, 7(11),
e48693. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048693
DLSU-D College/GS. (2022). Retrieved 15 March 2022, from
https://dlsud.edu20.org/student_lesson/show/3295299?lesson_id=15198860&section_id=56900602
How do people define the dilemma?
According to Ms. Antonette Palma-Angeles PhD lecture, that many of people phrase or
articulate a dilemma in a wrong way and that’s why we come up with decisions that are not
always correct. A quick definition of a dilemma, as she stated, it happens because of the good
and evil are not apparent. If it is apparent, then you wouldn’t have any reasons to be worried
anymore. Dilemmas are not really about only good and evil, but it is about competing values, so
that if you choose one value while having the chance or the will to sacrifice the other and this is
what makes it confounding. If a dilemma is a set of competing values and not competing options
it means that the value should be articulated first, because the truth are values and issues are the
reasons for people’s actions and so strictly speaking people do not choose an action, people in
fact choose a value.
What could be your possible steps or process when dealing or experiencing Dilemma?
As I’ve watched the Magisterial Lectures of Ms. Antonette Palma-Angeles PhD video, asking
the the same scenario with myself, if I saw my father sitting in a corner of an expensive
restaurant and kissing a woman on the lips, and the question is What should I do? A very
difficult question to answer or to do something so quickly without thinking and to move harshly.
In line with that, Ms. Antonette proposed, once you caught in ethical dilemma especially the
more emotionally involved you are, a process on how to decide. Firstly, gather the facts. Avoid
casting judgment on people which people always do and have the patient in gathering data. There
are two very important questions to ask for the gathering, the first question is what I already
know, and the second question is what I need to know.
Secondly, who are the stakeholders, in a dilemma you always have several people involved.
The problem with many people is they only see the stakeholder who is very dear to them or
immediately there for us. We do not in fact capture or we miss the stakeholders who are the
abstract stakeholders. You must figure out who are your abstract stakeholders they could all have
a valid and strong position in your case.
Third is to articulate the dilemma as clearly as you can, not actions these are competing
issues and what are the issues involved and then fourth list the alternatives, we brainstorm as
many possible options as we can and then we eliminate the untenable ones. Then you’ll know the
doable and not doable ones. It is also important to understand that these possible solutions should
match the values and the principles that we identified in the dilemma. Remember that values and
principles are the more important ones than the options. Address as many values as we can.
Fifth, compare the alternatives to the principles you've identified in the dilemma, when you have
the alternatives, you now compare the alternatives with the values that were in the dilemma, do
not airdrop values from nowhere.
And lastly, weigh the consequences and then finally you make the decision. there is no painless
decision. We just do it.

References.

Tools for Ethical Decision Making and Doing Philosophy. (2022). Retrieved 15 March 2022, from
https://arete.ateneo.edu/connect/tools-for-ethical-decision-making-and-doing-philosophy