• David SteinbergEmail author


Although morality is widely embraced, often as a sacrosanct entity, it is a complex and controversial concept. The moral philosopher Bernard Gert implied the complicated nature of morality when he said, “If one starts by saying ‘morality is’…nothing one says afterward seems quite right”. Morality is a human concept that cannot be empirically evaluated; in any case science is not the proper source of moral values. Morality has been variously defined by respected ethicists and there are conflicting moral theories which are based on differing fundamental arbitrary assumptions. Philosophers who are moral skeptics deny the existence of moral truths. The value of morality may lie in its usefulness rather than its truth. An exploration of morality will be done from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes the relationship of morality to biological evolution, moral psychology, anthropology, religion, and the law.


  1. Beauchamp, Tom L, and James F. Childress. 2009. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boehm, Christopher. 2000. Conflict and the Evolution of Social Control. Journal of Consciousness Studies 7(1–2): 79–101.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, Richmond, 2011. Moral Epistemology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. Available at Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
  4. Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  5. Flack, Jessica C, and de Waal, Frans B.M. 2000. Any Animal Whatever. Darwinian Building Blocks of Morality in Monkeys and Apes. Journal of Consciousness Studies 7(1–2): 1–29.Google Scholar
  6. Gert, Bernard. 1988. Morality: A New Justification of the Moral Rules. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hitchens, Christopher. 2007. God is Not Great. New York: The Hachette Book Group.Google Scholar
  8. Jacobellis, V. Ohio. 378 US184 1964.Google Scholar
  9. Joyce, Richard. 2006. The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Katz, Leonard D. 2000. Toward Good and Evil Evolutionary Approaches to Human Morality. Journal of Consciousness Studies 7(No 1 and 2): xi.Google Scholar
  11. Kemeny, John G. 1959. A Philosopher Looks At Science D. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand and Company.Google Scholar
  12. Moore, G. E. 1903. Principia Ethica Pantianos Classics.Google Scholar
  13. Pellegrino, Edmund, and Thomasma David. 1993. The Virtues in Medical Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Peterson, Dale. 2011. The Moral Lives of Animals New York. Berlin, London, Sydney: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pinker, Steven. February 10, 2008. The Moral Instinct. New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  16. Ruse, Michael and Wilson Edward O. 1986. Moral Philosophy as Applied Science. Philosophy. 61: 186. Available at Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
  17. Singer, Peter. 1994. Ethics. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. 2011. Moral Skepticism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
  19. Sober, Elliott, and Wilson, David Sloan. 2000. Summary of Unto Others. Journal of Consciousness Studies 7(1–2): 205.Google Scholar
  20. Street, Sharon. 2006. A Darwinian Dilemma For Realist Theories Of Value. Philosophic Studies 2006; 127 (1):109–166.Google Scholar
  21. Veatch, Robert M. 1989. Medical Ethics. Boston Portola Valley: Jones and Bartlett.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Emeritus StaffBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations