Morality, like color, does not exist in the absence of a defining mechanism. By themselves, these two terms are indefinite. In the presence of light and culture they take on clarity. The colors of the spectrum are only visible to the human eye in the presence of light. Morality, likewise, only has meaning within a defined value system. To answer the question, "What does morality mean?" requires that we ask, within whose value system?
Those who speak of a moral society often refer to Christian morality, a set of values loosely defined by historical Christianity. I say "loosely defined" because even within Christianity there is no set value system that clearly defines what is and is not moral. What is moral and what is immoral within the Christian culture is about as clear as the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. There are foundational similarities; yet the guiding practices are quite different.
Present day Catholicism differs greatly from Protestantism regarding what is and is not moral behavior. If we are obligated to be moral, by whose standard will we define moral? The implication that "morality" has a religious value set also excludes a large segment of the population, further complicating how to define morality. If morality is tied to following what is believed to be God's laws, how does it apply to those who do not accept the God construct? It begs the question to determine if this God construct is the Christian God, the Hebrew God, the Muslim God, etc. Morality takes on a different definition in each of these religious venues.
The Catholic view of moral and the Protestant view of moral differ greatly. In fact that difference is precisely why Protestantism exists. Although other Sixteenth Century church leaders had already begun a separation from Catholicism, Martin Luther's nailing of his 95 Theses to the church door in 1517, accusing the Roman led church of heresy is considered to be the defining point of separation. Luther viewed the selling of indulgences, among other things, to be immoral. Luther's innate sense of morality led him to oppose Catholicism and its practices, launching a holy war and a cultural revolution that still echoes into the Twentyfirst Century with Protestant - Catholic conflict.
Henry VIII, King of England during the early days of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland fueled the fires of controversy by declaring the English monarchy head of the newly formed Church of England. Interestingly enough his motivation for this "moral" separation from Rome was partly due to the Catholic Pope's refusal to grant him an annulment from his wife Catherine who seemed unable to bear him a male heir. Simultaneously he was conducting an extra-marital affair with Anne Bolyn who was to become the second of his eight wives. Growing impatient with the political process of obtaining the annulment from Catherine, he had her executed for treason and proclaimed himself the moral leader of the church. Thus the Church of England, the Anglican Church, celebrated its illegitmate birth, ultimately generating the spread of Protestant morality to the American continent.
The young Arab extremists who flew hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center buildings in New York on September 11, 2001 were acting morally, according to their Islamic faith. According to Islam it is not only morally acceptable, it is morally desirable to kill infidels. When George Bush, President of the United States, ordered the bombing of Baghdad in March 2003, he was acting morally. He presented a case to the United States people that it was necessary to strike Iraq, known (according to what we now know to have been flawed intelligence) to be stockpiling weapons of mass destruction for a planned attack against the world. It was morally imperative to protect the world from this despot. Thousands died in the ensuing war and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Which act was more moral, the attack of the World Trade Center or the attack of Baghdad?
Primarily, morality is a code of conduct loosely defining the boundaries of right and wrong behavior. The obvious problem is determining whose standard of right and wrong. We have been struggling with what constitutes right and wrong behavior in the United States since the first settlers fleeing persecution from the religious reformation in Europe set foot on the American continent. The Puritans, the Pilgrims, and the Anabaptists each brought different moral definition to the new land. What they all agreed on, though, was the immorality of the American savages who danced half-naked around their campfires at the full moon. Eventually, the decendants of these European moralists recognized their moral obligation to wipe out this indiginous immorality by genocide.
American religious moralists who founded the United States agreed it was acceptable to engage in slave trade as a means to promote the economy and to achieve prosperity in the new land. It took a civil war almost a hundred years later that nearly destroyed the new nation to convince Southern leadership of the immorality of its economy. It wasn't until the 1960s, another hundred years later, though, that White Americans discovered the immorality of "separate but equal." As recent as the Nineteenth Century in the United States it was considered immoral for women to engage in politics. It took passing the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1920 to define their moral right of citizenship. Today, because of flawed theology, it is still considered "moral" in many churches to teach hatred of homosexuals. America has had a long, historical struggle with defining "moral." Moral righteousness drove slavery, segregation, unequal treatment of minorities and persecution of homosexuals in this country for generations. How do we define moral?
Regardless of how we attempt to clean up religion to utilize it as our gauge for moral behavior, we cannot escape the immoral history of religion. The Papacy for the first fourteen centuries of the Catholic Church was largely a political position that wielded despotic control over Italy and the rest of Europe. The family that controlled the Papacy controlled the wealth, the power, and the government of Europe. To place a family member on the Papal seat of moral superiority as the Holy See, families resorted to murder, treachery, and war. The foundation of the Catholic Church had little to do with morality. It was about power and the use and abuse of power to obtain wealth. Do we use the Catholic definition to define moral? The world is choking itself to death with overpopulation. World wide children are dieing from disease and starvation while the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is immoral.
In attempting to determine what is an acceptable code of moral behavior society can generally agree on some broader points. It is generally agreed that we are morally obliged not to murder. However, that breaks down in the face of capital punishment, which is legal in 38 of the 50 states. It is generally agreed that child abuse is immoral, but Rove v Wade in 1973 legalized abortion, the killing of unborn fetuses. Adultery is understood to be an act of immorality, yet over half of US marriages end in divorce. Are those who divorce morally obligated not to remarry or engage in sex?
In the broader, world culture, what is considered moral in the Islamic world varies considerably from what it considered moral in the Western world. The tradition of "moral honor" in the Islamic culture allows the murder a young woman who disgraces her family by being raped. Responsibility for the rape is placed on the victim, not the rapist. It is an act of immorality for an Islamic woman to be alone with a man other than a family member, so if she is raped, it was brought on by her immorality, not that of the rapist. Such behavior entitles her family to beat or kill her because family honor has more moral value than life.
In a more universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct that would be found acceptable by most reasonable people. This construct struggles to separate itself from the religious application of morality, moving toward an ethical base. The very effort, though, to move away from the religious application of morality alienates the core of fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist Christians hold to the idea that if belief in God is not the defining aspect of a person's life, that person is, in fact, immoral. Islam holds to the belief that it is immoral to follow any religious code save Islam. Within each of these mainstream religions can be found sects that depart from the whole on grounds of moral difference. How can we define morality?
Morality is impossible to define. Morality is created and defined by each culture as well as individually by each person according to his core beliefs. As civilization moves toward a "World Culture" it is inevitable that we will experience more moral crises. Unless we can rid ourselves of the obligation to be moral, the culture with the best weapons will define morality for the rest of us.