HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

College of law & governance

DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL STUDIES

Course Name: - Moral and citizenship education

Course code: - MCED 1011
Department: - Medicine

Group participant’s name:-

Roll no Group Members Name Id. No.
1 EYUEL FISIHA GETACHEW NaScR/1260/14
2 FIRAOL LEMMA JIBAT NaScR/1337/14
3 GEDIYON GELETU ZEMA NaScR/1421/14
4 GIZAW GETU BURAKO NaScR/1485/14
5 HAILE AMARE MAKURIA NaScR/1530/14
6 HASSET GETACHEW TESSEMA NaScR/1599/14
7 HENOK SHIFERAW GEBRESILASSIE NaScR/1667/14
8 HIBA YUSUF ALAMIN NaScR/1680/14
9 HONEY ERSSIDO LENDEBO NaScR/1709/14
10 HONEY GERO GEBRE NaScR/1710/14

SUBMITTED TO: - INSTRUCTOR TAMIRAT T.

SUBMISSION DATE: - JANUARY 12, 2023 G.C
HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA
 MORAL AND CIVICS EDUCATION
2023

Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................................ii
1. Explain briefly the application of morality to whom or what does morality applies?.............1
What is morality?....................................................................................................................... 1
Where and to whom does it apply?............................................................................................ 1
RELIGIOUS MORALITY.....................................................................................................1
NATURE AND MORALITY................................................................................................ 1
INDIVIDUAL MORALITY.................................................................................................. 2
SOCIAL MORALITY............................................................................................................2
2. Discuss about moral judgment and four issues to considered in judging conduct or action
(motive, means, consequence and situations)?...............................................................................2
What is moral judgment?........................................................................................................... 2
The 4 issues in moral judgment..................................................................................................3
3. Why should human being be moral? Is there any clear foundation or basis for morality can any
reason be found for human being to be good and do right acts rather than be bad do wrong acts? 4
Why should human being be moral?..........................................................................................4
Foundation or basis for morality................................................................................................ 4
Reason for human being to be good and do right acts rather than to be bad and do wrong........5
4. Who is morally responsible? (i.e what is the ultimate foundation of moral principles?
Supernatural God? Human reason? Mutual social contract or social customs?)............................5
What is moral responsibility?.....................................................................................................5
Absolute Moral Principles..........................................................................................................6
Relative Moral Principles...........................................................................................................6
Reasons for being moral.............................................................................................................6
5. What Makes an Action Moral, immoral or right, wrong or good, bad and evil in our action and
decision?........................................................................................................................................ 7
6. Explain briefly about Meta ethical theories such as moral realism/moral anti realism and
cognitivism and non cognitivism...................................................................................................9
Moral Realism............................................................................................................................9
Moral Anti-Realism (or Moral Irrealism)...................................................................................9
Cognitivism..............................................................................................................................11
Non-Cognitivism......................................................................................................................11
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 12
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 13
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

Introduction
The distinction between proper (right) and improper intentions, decisions, and acts is what is
referred to as morality (wrong). Morality can be a set of rules or guidelines generated from a set
of rules of behaviour from a specific philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can come from a rule
that a person feels ought to be applied to everyone. Goodness or rightness are more exactly
synonyms for morality.
Most people have a tendency to behave decently and obediently. Morality frequently calls for
putting society ahead of one's own short-term interests. Amoral individuals or entities do not care
about right or wrong, whereas immoral individuals or entities commit wicked deeds.
In general, morality is not fixed, even though some moral ideals, like fairness, appear to
transcend time and culture. The term "morality" refers to the particular values held by a given
community at a certain moment. While morality has historically been tightly linked to religious
beliefs, the secular world now places equal value on it. Businesses and governmental
organizations, for instance, have codes of ethics that personnel are expected to abide by.
In the following paragraphs we tried to discuss about this morality in reference to the parameters
for allotting an action as moral, who is responsible, why they are responsible and lastly its
application.
While morals may change over time, they remain the standards of behavior that we use to judge
right and wrong.

Page ii
 MORAL AND CIVICS EDUCATION
2023

1. Explain briefly the application of morality to whom or what does morality applies?
What is morality?
Morality is a system of principles that helps to guide and determine what is right and wrong in a
particular society or culture. It is a set of rules or guidelines that are used to evaluate the actions
of individuals and determine whether they are behaving in an acceptable or unacceptable way.
Morality can apply to a wide range of subjects, including how people treat one another, how they
make decisions, and how they interact with their environment. In general, morality is thought to
apply to all people, regardless of their cultural or individual differences. It is a universal concept
that is fundamental to the functioning of society and is often based on values such as fairness,
respect, and empathy.

Where and to whom does it apply?

In discussing the application of morality, most moral systems involve all four of these areas with
one being primary. Four aspects may be considered:
 Religion. Morality determined by relation between human being and supernatural
being.
 Nature. Morality determined by relation between human being and nature.
 Individuality. Morality determined by relation the individual has to him or herself.
 Society Morality determined by relation between human being and society.

RELIGIOUS MORALITY
Religious morality refers to a human being in relationship to supernatural being or beings. In the
Jewish and Christian traditions, for example, the first three of the Ten Commandments. These
commandments deal with a person’s relationship with God, not with any other human beings. By
violating any of these three commandments, a person could, according to this particular code of
ethics, act immorally toward God without acting immorally toward anyone else. When we come
to Islam, the one who violates the five pillars of qualification, will immediately be considered as
non-Muslims.
Even though there are many religion people without religion keep being in doubt in in aware
where there is supernatural body who makes people moral or people without religion cannot be
moral. To add more there is also questions which religion is more moral but still the other aspect
of morality r going to answer these questions.

NATURE AND MORALITY

Natural morality has been prevalent in all primitive cultures, such as that of Africans, Asians and
the Native American in cultures of the Far East. More recently, the Western tradition has also
become aware of the significance of dealing with nature in a moral manner.
Some see nature as being valuable only for the good of humanity, but many others have come to
see it as a good in itself, worthy of moral consideration. With this viewpoint there is no question
about whether he/she would be capable of moral or immoral actions on a desert or frost island by

Page 1
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

him/herself. In the morality and nature aspect, he/she could be considered either moral or
immoral, depending upon his actions toward the natural things around him.

INDIVIDUAL MORALITY
Individual morality refers to individuals in relation to themselves and to an individual code of
morality that may or may not be sanctioned by any society or religion. It allows for a “higher
morality,” which can be found within the individual rather than beyond this world in some
supernatural realm. A person may or may not perform some particular act, not because society,
law, or religion says he may or may not, but because he himself thinks it is right or wrong from
within his own conscience.

SOCIAL MORALITY
Social morality concerns a human being in relation to other human beings. It is probably the
most important aspect of morality, in that it cuts across all of the other aspects and is found in
more ethical systems than any of the others. Returning briefly to the desert/frost-island example,
most ethicists probably would state that he/she is incapable of any really moral or immoral action
except toward him/herself and nature. Such action would be minimal when compared with the
potential for morality or immorality if there were nine other people on the island whom he/she
could subjugate, torture, or destroy. Many ethical systems would allow that what he would do to
himself is strictly his business, “as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.”
Each religion regardless of their difference, all of them address their believers to be morally good
and in addition to relation with their God they are obliged to have good morality while living in
the society.
Nonreligious ethical systems, too, often stress the social aspect. Ethical egoism, which would
seem to stress the individual aspect, says in its most commonly stated form, “everyone ought to
act in his own self-interest,” emphasizing the whole social milieu. Utilitarianism in all of its
forms emphasizes the good of “all concerned” and therefore obviously is dealing with the social
aspect.
2. Discuss about moral judgment and four issues to considered in judging conduct or action
(motive, means, consequence and situations)?
What is moral judgment?
Moral judgment is the evaluation of a certain behavior as good or bad, or as right or wrong. It's
refer to deciding what is right and what's wrong in human relations. Individuals are continually
judging their own conduct and that of their fellows. They approve of some acts and call them
right or good. They condemn other and call them wrong, evil or bad. Moral judgment always
deal with human actions and in particularly with voluntary actions or those are freely chosen. In
other hand they are involved in involuntary actions by which people have no control. They're all
on normative because they evaluate or assess them or all worth of something based on norms or
standards. When conflict in interest arise, the solution may require greatest sensitivity,
experience, discernment, intelligence and Good will, And even we may doubt act rightly. Moral
judgment also important that of unethical behavior are generally viewed as a legitimate means
for maintaining group beneficial norms of conduct. Those who use them are generally seen as

Page 2
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

moral and thrust worthy, and individuals typically act more orally after communicating
judgments of others. In judging conduct or actions you must have to consider these four (4)
issues: motives, means, consequences and moral situations.

The 4 issues in moral judgment

 Motive
Motive is occurs when a moral judgment combines with desires, and the content of the judgment
is related to the content of the desire so as rationalize the action. It is things such as needs or
desired that cause a person to act. Your reason of doing something is your motive. Also your
motive to go to school is to learn. Motive as Jesus Kant and others have point out, are basic for
determination of morality. Motive refers to the intention or why an action is done. A good
motive is prerequisite to conduct that we prove without qualification. If a good motive is present
when act, through some unexpected factor, lead to harm effects, we tend to disapprove when say,
anyway, he meant well. Kant his definition of good is just simply Good will. Nothing can
possibly be conceived in this world or out of it, which can be called good without qualification
except a Good will. The truly moral act for Kant, not only agree with moral law, but is done for
the sake of the moral law, not only as a duty required. In Kantian thinking, the set of moral worth
is the individual's will, and a good will act out of a sense of duty.

 Means
Means is an action, process, method and system by which a result is achieved. Orit's just a way
of achieving something. Just as there may be many motives for desiring something and there
may be many means for achieving it. The term means can be refer to an agency, instrument or
method to attain an end. Though we expect people to use the best available means to carry out
their purposes, we condemn them if their choice of means impressed us, as unjust, cruel or
immoral. On rare occasions we may approve of an act when means are use under worthy
condition would be condemned. Therefore, there is a danger in proposing that, any maybe used,
provided the end is good, or the end justified the means. Once chosen, the means become part of
the general effect of an act.

 Consequence
Consequence is the effects of results of a moral decision based on a value. We expect the
consequence of an act that we call right to be good. Ordinarily, when people asked, what is right?
They are thinking about consequences of the action. This depends on what is ethical principle is
in operation. Kant agrees to the good motive, utilitarian to the result. In general, society judge
conduct as right if it Proceeds a good motive, through the use of the best available means, to
consequences that are good. If the second conditions are not fulfil, we condemn the action or
approve it were observation. We rarely approve when the results are evil or wrong. However,
consequence is all about a result of particular action or situation, often one that is bad or not
convenient.

Page 3
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

 Situations
Situation is a relative position or combination of circumstances at certain moment. A moral
situation involves moral agent or human being who act, are empowered to make choices and
consciously make decisions. As moral agent, Demand is made on us and place as under
obligation. Therefore, we have both duties and right. We are faced with moral alternative, and
we can better weigh those alternatives when we have an understanding of ingredients of the
moral situation.
3. Why should human being be moral? Is there any clear foundation or basis for morality
can any reason be found for human being to be good and do right acts rather than be bad
do wrong acts?
Why should human being be moral?
Being moral (or good) is necessary for having self-respect. Self-respect is necessary for
happiness. … And only people who can make just and fair self-assessments can have self-
knowledge. And only just and fair people, good, moral people can make just and fair self-
assessment.
Kant’s answer to why should we be moral should be it is because there are absolute laws which
everyone ought to be abide, this includes the idea that each person has his own ends and hence
ought to be respected. This is a deontological view which has a central concept on duty and is
solely based on reason. However, the question why we should obey this law may arise and
cannot be answered by the deontological. Another important idea on ethics and morality which
may give an answer to the question is the Utilitarianism. It gives a stark contrast to Kants
deontological argument.

Foundation or basis for morality

Moral foundation theory argues that there are five basic moral foundations: (1) harm/care, (2)
fairness/reciprocity, (3) ingroup/loyalty, (4) authority/respect, and (5) purity/sanctity. 5 These
five foundations comprise the building blocks of morality, regardless of the culture.
 Harm/Care
The harm/care foundation gives rise to specific virtues and vices. Under this foundation,
societies value kindness and compassion, and condemn cruelty and aggression. Yet, despite the
general tendency to regard cruelty and aggression as vices, the theorists note that compassion is
not inevitable; it can be turned off by many forces, including the other four systems . . . .” For
example, cruelty and aggression may be virtuous when obeying authority or acting out of loyalty
to the group.
 Fairness/Reciprocity
The fairness/reciprocity foundation arises from “cooperation among unrelated individuals” and
“alliance formation.” In short, this foundation evolved because cooperative groups held an
evolutionary advantage over uncooperative groups. From this foundation comes perhaps the
most universally recognized virtue—justice. Further, Haidt argues that guilt, anger, and gratitude
are derived from this foundation.

Page 4
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

 Ingroup/Loyalty
The ingroup/loyalty foundation evolved from “living in kin-based groups.” Virtues and emotions
relating to trust, patriotism, heroism, and sacrifice arise in this foundation.Here, betrayal, dissent,
and criticism of the group are immoral.
 Authority/Respect
The authority/respect foundation elevates virtues that facilitate the hierarchical social structure.
By valuing authority and respect, social life functions fluidly because the need for physical force
and fear decreases, replaced by voluntary deference. Emotions like awe and admiration and the
virtues of duty and obedience reflect this foundation. Failure at the top of the hierarchy, i.e., bad
leadership, is condemned. Dissent against authority may be seen as immoral and anti-social.
 Purity/Sanctity
The purity/sanctity foundation is an evolutionary by-product of the emotion of disgust.Haidt
states that disgust functions as a “guardian of the body.”Disgust deters humans from eating
rotting meat, faeces, vomit, etc., thereby avoiding sickness. Over time, however, disgust evolved
into a social emotion. It governs bodily activity:

Reason for human being to be good and do right acts rather than to be bad and do wrong
Because being good lets you see what is true of value in the world. Part of what being good
requires is that good people know what is good in the world and what is not. Bad people have
bad values, good people have good values. Having good values means valuing what deserves to
be valued and not valuing what does not deserve to be valued
.Because being good means taking good care of yourself. It doesn’t mean that you are the most
important thing in the world, or that nothing is more important than you. But, in normal
circumstances, it does give you permission to take better care of yourself and your loved ones
than complete strangers.
Because being good means that while you can be passionate, you can choose what you are
passionate about; it means that you don’t let your emotions, desires, wants, and needs “get the
better of you” and “make” you do things that you later regret.
Because being moral means that you will be wise as you can be when you are old and grey. Deep
wisdom may not be open to everyone, since some simply might not have the intellectual whereby
for it.
4. Who is morally responsible? (i.e what is the ultimate foundation of moral principles?
Supernatural God? Human reason? Mutual social contract or social customs?)
What is moral responsibility?
Moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for
an act or omission in accordance with one's moral obligations. deciding what (if anything) counts
as "morally obligatory" is a principal concern of ethics. Philosophers refer who have moral
responsibility for an action as moral agents. Agents have the capability to reflect upon their

Page 5
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

situation, to form intentions about how they will act, and then to carry out that action. This
agents are obviously humans . Morality pertains to human beings and only to human beings. The
notion of free will has become an important issue in the debate on whether individuals are ever
morally responsible for their actions and, if so, in what sense. Incompatibility regard
determinism as at odds with free will, whereas compatibilists think the two can coexist.
Moral principles are guidelines that people live by to make sure they are doing the right thing.
These include things like honesty, fairness, and equality. Moral principles can be different for
everyone because they depend on how a person was raised and what is important to them in life.
Absolute Moral Principles
Absolute moral principles are based on universal truths about the nature of human beings. For
example, murder is wrong because it goes against the natural order of things. These are also
sometimes called normative moral principles, or those that are generally accepted by society.
Below are some examples of absolute moral principles:
- Don't kill.
- Speak the truth.
- Be careful with what you say and do to others.
- Respect the property of others.
- Treat people in need or distress as we would want to be treated if our situation were
reversed.

Relative Moral Principles

Relative moral principles are based on opinions and circumstances that may change over time or
from person to person or for different situations. Relative moral principles depend on a person's
beliefs. Relativism to what people perceive as good or bad in relation to themselves. In other
words, when someone says something is good, in most cases they are really saying it is good for
them, or perhaps it contributes to their well-being. Below are some examples of relative moral
principles
It is morally wrong to spend money on a luxury item.
It is morally right to care for our planet and preserve it for future generations.

Reasons for being moral

There are two reasons for being moral:
 Super natural reason
First, theism provides a sound foundation for objective moral values. Moral values have to do
with what is good or evil. On the theistic view objective moral values are grounded in God. As
St. Anselm saw, God is by definition the greatest conceivable being and therefore the highest
Good. Indeed, He is not merely perfectly good, He is the locus and paradigm of moral value.
God’s own holy and loving nature provides the absolute standard against which all actions are
measured. He is by nature loving, generous, faithful, kind, and so forth. Thus if God exists,
objective moral values exist, wholly independent of human beings.

Page 6
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

Second, theism provides a sound foundation for objective moral duties. On a theistic view
objective moral duties are constituted by God’s commands. God’s moral nature is expressed in
relation to us in the form of divine commandments which constitute our moral duties or
obligations. Far from being arbitrary, God’s commandments must be consistent with His holy
and loving nature. Our duties, then, are constituted by God’s commandments and these in turn
reflect his essential character.
Human reason (psychological and social issues)
One way of looking at morality is through the lens of sociology, which is the study of society.
Morality is only important when you are in society. After all, if I lived out in the middle of
nowhere and didn't have any contact with any other human ever, I likely wouldn't encounter very
many moral dilemmas. Sociological views of morality say that people are moral because their
actions impact others in society. When I steal food, and it leads to a chain of events that leads to
people losing money and jobs, then my decision is immoral because it causes others to suffer.
Whether people choose to be moral because they understand that their actions impact the rest of
society, or whether they are forced to be moral by the rules and pressures that society puts in
place to protect its members, sociological morality is focused on the interplay between society
and morality.
 Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or
political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society
in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to
Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract
theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full
exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been
one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the
modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical
momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was
followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others. More recently,
philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In
particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at
least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of
the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
5. What Makes an Action Moral, immoral or right, wrong or good, bad and evil in our
action and decision?
There are three parts to every action that should be examined to decide whether the action
concurs with human nature or not. These are as follows;
Object of a Human Action

Page 7
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

The object of any action is its essence which makes an action – what it is. That object can be
something good, bad or indifferent. Lying and telling the truth are examples of two actions that
are distinguished from each other according to moral criteria. The following principles apply to
the object of every action.
An action whose object is bad – It will remain bad and nothing can improve it, neither
circumstances, nor purpose, nor intention. A lie, remains a lie despite the purpose or
circumstance involved.
An action that is good – It may become bad because of circumstances or purpose. For example,
telling the truth is a good act but to destroy another person’s good name or character makes it a
morally bad act because of the speaker’s purpose or intention.
An action that is indifferent – It may become good or bad because of circumstances or purpose.
Walking may be an indifferent act but walking into a store to steal becomes a morally evil action
because of the purpose.
Circumstances of Human Action
It refers to such things, as the act being done at a particular time, in a particular place, by a
particular agent, in a particular manner. Moral circumstances are the criteria for assessing the
goodness or badness of a human action. Moral circumstances may increase the goodness or
badness of a human action. To strike another person in self-defence is one thing and to strike
another without any provocation or justification is another matter.
Aggravating moral circumstances – It increases the goodness or badness of an action. For
example, stealing from a homeless person is an aggravating circumstance that increases the
badness of an already bad act (stealing).
Extenuating moral circumstances – It decreases the amount of badness of an action. For example,
stealing from Alamoudi is not as bad as stealing from a homeless person, but it is still an evil act.
Specifying moral circumstances – It makes an indifferent act become good or bad. For example,
withdrawing money from ATM is an indifferent act – If the money belongs to the withdrawer,
the act is all right but if the money belongs to another person, it is an evil act.
End or Purpose of Human Action
It refers to the purpose the person had in mind while doing the act. Certain principles can be
deduced based on the purpose in mind when performing the act, The goal, end, or intention is the
part of the moral act that lies within the person. For this reason, we say that the intention is the
subjective element of the moral act. For an act to be morally good, one’s intention must be good.
An action that is indifferent because of its object may become good or bad because of the
purpose. For example, jogging in itself is an indifferent act. When done to maintain good health,
it becomes a good act but when done to arrive at a place where the person commits theft, it
becomes an immoral action.

Page 8
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

An action that is good because of its object may become better or less good or even bad because
of the purpose. For example, to give a donation to a homeless person is a good action bur being
given just to get rid of the person, is still a good action but not as good as in the first case. If
donation intends to lure the homeless person into doing something immoral for you, the donation
becomes an immoral act.
An action that is evil by its object may become more wrong or perhaps less wrong but never
good by its purpose. For instance, telling a lie is morally wrong but telling a lie to defame
another person is moral wrong.
To sum up, Analysing the morality of the human act is a complex task since it is affected by so
many conditions which are within and without. Most of the moralists agree that to judge the
goodness or badness of any particular human act, these three elements must be weighed from
which every act derives its morality.
6. Explain briefly about Meta ethical theories such as moral realism/moral anti realism and
cognitivism and non cognitivism.
Moral Realism
Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—
moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they
hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. That much is the common and more or less
defining ground of moral realism (although some accounts of moral realism see it as involving
additional commitments, say to the independence of the moral facts from human thought and
practice, or to those facts being objective in some specified way).
As a result, those who reject moral realism are usefully divided into two;
(i) Those who think moral claims do not purport to report facts in light of which they are
true or false (non cognitivists)
(ii) Those who think that moral claims do carry this purport but deny that any moral
claims are actually true (error theorists).
It is worth noting that, while moral realists are united in their cognitivism and in their rejection of
error theories, they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually
true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true. Moral realism is not a
particular substantive moral view nor does it carry a distinctive metaphysical commitment over
and above the commitment that comes with thinking moral claims can be true or false and some
are true.
Moral Anti-Realism (or Moral Irrealism)
Moral anti-realism is the meta-ethical doctrine that there are no objective moral values. It is
usually defined in opposition to moral realism, which holds that there are indeed objective moral
values, that evaluative statements are factual claims which are either true or false, and that their
truth or falsity is independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes
towards them. Thus, Moral Anti-Realism can involve either a denial that moral properties exist at
all, or the acceptance that they do exist, but that their existence is mind-dependent and not
objective or independent.
The debate between moral realists and anti-realists assumes, though, that there is a shared object
of inquiry—in this case, a range of claims all involved are willing to recognize as moral claims

Page 9
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

—about which two questions can be raised and answered: Do these claims purport to report facts
in light of which they are true or false? Are some of them true? Moral realists answer ‘yes’ to
both, non-cognitivists answer ‘no’ to the first (and, by default, ‘no’ to the second) while error
theorists answer ‘yes’ to the first and ‘no’ to the second. (With the introduction of “minimalism”
about truth and facts, things become a bit more complicated. See the section on semantics,
below.) To note that some other, non-moral, claims do not (or do) purport to report facts or that
none (or some) of them are true, is to change the subject. That said, it is strikingly hard to nail
down with any accuracy just which claims count as moral and so are at issue in the debate.

By all accounts, moral realism can fairly claim to have common sense and initial appearances on
its side. That advantage, however, might be easily outweighed; there are a number of powerful
arguments for holding that it is a mistake to think of moral claims as true.

Moral Disagreement:- Disagreement is to be found in virtually any area, even where no one
doubts that the claims at stake purport to report facts and everyone grants that some claims are
true. But disagreements differ and many believe that the sort of disagreements one finds when it
comes to morality are best explained by supposing one of two things:
That moral claims are not actually in the business of reporting facts, but are rather our way of
expressing emotions, or of controlling others’ behavior, or, at least, of taking a stand for and
against certain things
That moral claims are in the business of reporting facts, but the required facts just are not to be
found.
Metaphysics:- Putting aside the arguments that appeal to moral disagreement, a significant
motivation for anti-realism about morality is found in worries about the metaphysics of moral
realism and especially worries about whether moral realism might be reconciled with (what has
come to be called) naturalism. It is hard, to say the least, to define naturalism in a clear way.
Psychology:- Nonetheless, realists and anti-realists alike are usually inclined to hold that
Moore’s Open Question Argument is getting at something important—some feature of moral
claims that makes them not well captured by no moral claims.
Epistemology:- Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that there are moral facts. Suppose even
that the moral facts are properly thought of as at least compatible with science. One thing
Moore’s Open Question Argument still seems to show is that no appeal to natural facts
discovered by scientific method would establish that the moral facts are one way rather than
another. That something is pleasant, or useful, or satisfies someone’s preference, is perfectly
compatible with thinking that it is neither good nor right nor worth doing. The mere fact that
moral facts might be compatible with natural facts does nothing to support the idea that we could
learn about the moral facts. David Hume seems to have been, in effect, pressing this point long
before Moore, when he argued that no moral conclusion follows non-problematically from non-
moral premises (Hume 1739). No “ought,” he pointed out, followed from an “is”—without the
help of another (presupposed) “ought.” More generally, there is no valid inference from

Page
10
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

nonmoral premises to moral conclusions unless one relies, at least surreptitiously, on a moral
premise. If, then, all that science can establish is what “is” and not
Semantics:- Moral realists have here been characterized as those who hold that moral claims
purport to report facts, that they are evaluable as true or false in light of whether the facts are as
the claims purport, and that at least some such claims are actually true. Many have thought there
are good reasons—even decisive reasons—for rejecting moral realism so conceived.
Cognitivism
Cognitivism is the view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore
be true or false (i.e. they are truth-apt). Thus, moral judgments are capable of being objectively
true, because they describe some feature of the world.
 Semantic Cognitivism
Semantic Cognitivism (not to be confused with Realism) suggests that when we make moral
claims of the form “murder is wrong” or “helping others is right” our claims can be true or false
(what philosophers call truth-apt). The semantic cognitivist views our moral language as
essentially descriptive in nature; we try to describe genuinely moral features of the world and our
moral claims are true when our descriptions are accurate and false when they are inaccurate.
 Psychological Cognitivism
Psychological Cognitivism (not to be confused with Realism) is the view that when we utter a
moral statement we give voice to a belief, rather than any other type of non-belief attitude.
From here, Semantic and Psychological Cognitivism will be assumed to go together to form the
cognitivist position. This is reasonable because it is most natural to think of a truth-apt utterance
as being the expression of a belief, for we assume that a belief is the kind of thing that can be
true or false and refers to the world. In ethics then, cognitivists claim that moral statements
express truth-apt beliefs that are made true or false according to how accurately they describe the
world. Moral language and moral psychology, according to the cognitivist, are not especially
different to the language and psychology common to many other
Non-Cognitivism
Non cognitivism is the meta-ethical view (or family of views) that moral utterances lack truth-
value (i.e. they are neither true nor false) and do not assert propositions. Therefore, if moral
statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, Non-Cognitivism
implies that moral knowledge is impossible, and moral truths are not the kind of truths that can
be known. A proposition in Epistemology is, roughly speaking, an assertion or a declarative
sentence (as opposed to an interrogative, exclamatory or imperative sentence). Thus, an ethical
statement which is a valid proposition (e.g. "Mary is a good person") is able to bear truth values,
and one can say of it "that is true" or "that is false". Two people may disagree on its truth or
falsity, but it has at least the capacity for truth.
If you are a Moral Cognitivist (the “moral” prefix is assumed from hereon) then you have a
particular view about the meaning of moral terms and a particular view about

Page
11
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

the psychology behind moral utterances. The former version of Cognitivism, concerned with
meaning, is captured in the discussion of Semantic Cognitivism while the latter version of
Cognitivism, concerned with psychology, is captured in the discussion of Psychological
Cognitivism and the same goes to non- cognitivisim
 Semantic Non-Cognitivism
Semantic Non-Cognitivism might, given the plausibility of its cognitivist rival, seem to be an
undesirable position. According to the semantic non-cognitivist when we utter sentences such as
“murder is wrong” we are not attempting to describe any moral features of the world but we are
simply expressing an attitude or feeling — perhaps disgust, or anger, in this case. Attitudes are
not the types of things that can be true or false because they are not truth-apt; they do not aim at
truth and do not attempt to describe or refer to any feature of the world. Consider what happens
when you get frustrated with your work, for example, and exclaim “Ahhhhh!” This is an
expression of an attitude, it is not something which describes the world and it is not truth apt.
The semantic non-cognitivist thus argues that our moral utterances are more like “Ahhhhh!” than
they are like “the defendant entered the courthouse”; they are non-descriptive, non-truth-apt
expressionsdisciplines such as science, news journalism or non-fiction history books.
 .Psychological Non-Cognitivism
Psychological non-cognitivists hold that the psychology behind our non-truth-apt moral
expressions is not to be understood as based on “belief”, but rather based on “…desires,
preferences, emotions, intentions or the like.
Your cry of “Ahhhhh!” in frustration does not express a belief that your work is
annoying — even though people might take you to be annoyed — but, most likely, a desire or
preference for your work to be over. Such mental states are fairly common and unremarkable; it
is just that they are different to belief states.
When discussing Non-Cognitivism from this point, it should be understood as a position
combining both the semantic and psychological elements. According to the non-cognitivist our
moral utterances are not capable of being true or false and are expressions of
attitudes/preferences/desires/emotions etc. rather than expressions of belief.

CONCLUSION
To summarize everything that has been stated above morality supports peaceful coexistence and
can be compared to the substance that holds society together. We frequently quarrel with one
another when we hold divergent opinions about what is right or wrong. This may cause disputes
and conflict within families or other social groups. But when everyone can agree on what is right
and bad, it makes life simpler for everyone since we can make decisions and strive to fit in with
others without second-guessing ourselves.
Acting according to moral standards or being a morally obliged person is not only beneficial to
the society at large but also to each one of us to live upright.

Page
12
 MORAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION 2023

When we make decisions based on our moral code, it helps us understand who we are as
individuals and also how we relate to others. Moral values are not always easy to discern but
they are mandatory and thereof should be developed and practiced .

REFERENCES
- Bloomfield, P.(2007). Morality and Self-interest Oxford: Oxford University. University
module of Moral Civic www.encyclopedia.morality,press.
-HTTP://www.insightsonindia.com/ethics-integrity-and-aptitude/ethics-and-human-interface/
determinants-of-morality-in-human-action/
-HTTP://WWW.archspm.org/faith-and-discipleship/catholic-faith/how-can-we-tell-if-an-action-
is-moral/
https://www.insightsonindia.com/ethics-integrity-and-aptitude/ethics-and-human-interface/
determinants-of-morality-in-human-action/
https://www.archspm.org/faith-and-discipleship/catholic-faith/how-can-we-tell-if-an-action-is-
moral/
reference iep.utm.edu
forum.effectivealtrusim.org
study.com

Page
13