nite regress. If the ultimate principle is self-evi-dent, then the problem may have an answer. Butif it is not it would appear to be arbitrary. Theproblem of the justification of an ultimate prin-ciple continues to be a leading one in moral epis-temology.

Recently there has been much interest in thestatus and existence of “moral facts.” Are thereany, what are they, and how are they establishedas “facts”? This relates to questions about moralrealism. Moral realism maintains that moralpredicates are real and can be known to be so;anti-realists deny this. This denial links with theview that moral properties supervene on naturalones, and the problem of supervenience isanother recent link between ethics and episte-mology.

Pragmatism in ethics maintains that a moralproblem is like any problem in that it is the occa-sion for inquiry and moral judgments are to beregarded as hypotheses to be tested by how wellthey resolve the problem. This amounts to anattempt to bypass the is–ought problem and allsuch “dualisms.” So is constructivism, a develop-ment owing much to the work of Rawls, whichcontrasts with moral realism. Constructivismmaintains that moral ideas are human constructsand the task is not epistemological or metaphys-ical but practical and theoretical – that of attain-ing reflective equilibrium between consideredmoral judgments and the principles that coordi-nate and explain them. On this view there are nomoral facts. Opponents maintain that this onlyreplaces a foundationalist view of ethics with acoherence conception.

The question whether questions of moral epis-temology can in this way be bypassed can beregarded as itself a question of moral epistemol-ogy. And the question of the foundations ofmorality, and whether there are foundations,can still be regarded as a question of moral epis-temology, as distinct from a question of the mostconvenient and efficient arrangement of ourmoral ideas.

See also ETHICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM,ETHICS, INTUITION, MORAL REALISM, REFLEC-TIVE EQUILIBRIUM. M.G.S.

moral evil. See PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.

morality, an informal public system applying toall rational persons, governing behavior thataffects others, having the lessening of evil orharm as its goal, and including what are com-monly known as the moral rules, moral ideals,and moral virtues. To say that it is a public sys-

tem means that all those to whom it applies mustunderstand it and that it must not be irrationalfor them to use it in deciding what to do and injudging others to whom the system applies.Games are the paradigm cases of public systems;all games have a point and the rules of a gameapply to all who play it. All players know thepoint of the game and its rules, and it is not irra-tional for them to be guided by the point andrules and to judge the behavior of other playersby them.

To say that morality is informal means thatthere is no decision procedure or authority thatcan settle all its controversial questions. Moralitythus resembles a backyard game of basketballmore than a professional game. Although thereis overwhelming agreement on most moral mat-ters, certain controversial questions must be set-tled in an ad hoc fashion or not settled at all. Forexample, when, if ever, abortion is acceptable isan unresolvable moral matter, but each societyand religion can adopt its own position. Thatmorality has no one in a position of authority isone of the most important respects in which itdiffers from law and religion.

Although morality must include the com-monly accepted moral rules such as those pro-hibiting killing and deceiving, different societiescan interpret these rules somewhat differently.They can also differ in their views about thescope of morality, i.e., about whether moralityprotects newborns, fetuses, or non-human ani-mals. Thus different societies can have somewhatdifferent moralities, although this difference haslimits. Also within each society, a person mayhave his own view about when it is justified tobreak one of the rules, e.g., about how muchharm would have to be prevented in order to jus-tify deceiving someone. Thus one person’smorality may differ somewhat from another’s,but both will agree on the overwhelming num-ber of non-controversial cases.

A moral theory is an attempt to describe,explain, and if possible justify, morality. Un-fortunately, most moral theories attempt to gen-erate some simplified moral code, rather than todescribe the complex moral system that isalready in use. Morality does not resolve all dis-putes. Morality does not require one always toact so as to produce the best consequences or toact only in those ways that one would willeveryone to act. Rather morality includes bothmoral rules that no one should transgress andmoral ideals that all are encouraged to follow,but much of what one does will not be governedby morality.

moral evil morality

586

4065m-r.qxd 08/02/1999 7:42 AM Page 586