Definitions
Morality has several definitions thus encompassing broader facets in the world’s phenomena. One of the definitions indicates that morality is a code of conduct embraced by a community, an organization, religion, or an individual. This is upon reference to an argument on the righteousness of the act (Gert, 2011).
It is a descriptive label where the involved entity has no divergence with its acts or behaviors. When “morality” is utilized to incorporate a demeanor embraced by any definite group, including a community, whether it is different from etiquette, decree, or religion, then its use is in a descriptive sense.
It also refers to central stance demonstrated by an individual. Since one can connect a given characteristic of morality to a definite faction of people, it might also submit to a particular person. The second definition is normative in nature and tends to illuminate morality as a conventional aspect but not a confined matter.
It is an assortment of behaviors, which are rationally superior and marvelous. Everybody agrees to such acts as virtuous thus worth ratification (Gert, 2011). Equally, morality is something that should necessitate a conventional agreement when encountered. Any act that goes against this definition deems immoral.
How authors differ on their definition
The disparities noticed amid several authors while considering their descriptions concerning morality emerge due to differing perspectives seized by the author in question. This is evident by the fact that some authors may peg their definition to a particular entity while some consider global rational aspects (Thomasma & Weisstub, 2004).
Concurrently, the differences emerge due to issues under discussion by the author. Several authors are motivated by different themes to discuss thus tend to incline their definitions to favor the matter in contention. It is possible to have a specific view on themes concerning specific entities.
This means that the author in such a context will never attempt to generalize his/her argument but will rather hit the community or individual in question directly. They will reckon if that particular act they are discerning is considerable to be moral and why.
Ultimately, their definition will be based on instances that abreast the act. Conversely, other authors tend to apply exclusive approaches in handling their areas of interest thus coming up with definitions supported by their ultimate findings (Thomasma & Weisstub, 2004).
Modern morality issues
There are numerous conventional morality issues but this paper only considers two, namely homosexuality and gender equality. These aspects are of greater concern when considered critically.
It is imperative to assert that these morality facets have had heated reactions globally; nevertheless, they still stand a judgment on whether their full ratification should be left in sole discretion of the parties involved or be a worldwide concern.
Homosexuality entails sexual acts on which the participants are of same gender. Its major examples are gays for men and lesbians for women (Ekwo, 2010). The societies and individual who embrace homosexuality have no negativities with the act even though other external parties educe numerous criticisms upon this very act.
The act of treating women fairly is no exception in this realm. Numerous communities depict women as equivalent beings who similarly deserve better treatments and opportunities just as their fellow men. The matter still meets current hiccups although considered as a morality aspect in diverse regions globally.
Viewing moralities according to one of the definitions
When considering the first definition, which depicts morality as an individual phenomenon, a given entity might accord an act as just, hence rendering it moral in its own context.
The issue of homosexuality has elicited numerous rebuffs globally but when the parties involved are interrogated for their take on the matter, they are contented and instead point fingers at their critics warning them never to infringe. They accept this act with all its aspects and view it virtuous (Ekwo, 2010).
Contextually, homosexuality is a morality, which is of no harm to some individuals. The societies involved do not discriminate themselves and conversely care very little on other people’s say.
Precisely, the definition considered view homosexuality as a morality accepted by a given society. It cares less on what the uninvolved parties believe. Furthermore, what is a virtue to someone might be vicious to another.
Concurrently, the concerned definition hardly globalizes the issue of equality. If only a given community or an entity can consider the issue as of moral value, thus it is solely their decision to embrace it. Gender equality is a global phenomenon; nonetheless, it hardly meets a global ratification (Connolly, 2005).
Conversely, some communities and individuals have never believed sharing anything evenly with women thus would never ratify any accord closer to that. Such individual will always consider gender equality as something immoral and injurious to the interests of the society.
Concurrently, these matters are regionalized with varied intensities from one country to the next. Conclusively, morality incorporates an essential feature where involved entities discern the kind of deeds, which morality forbids, obliges, dejects, or upholds.
References
Connolly, S. (2005). Gender Equality. Minnesota, MN: Black Rabbit Books.
Ekwo, E. (2010). Homosexuality: Explaining the Zeitgeist. Indiana, IN: AuthorHouse.
Gert, B. (2011). The Definition of Morality. Web.
Thomasma, D. & Weisstub, D. (2004). The variables of moral capacity. Dordrecht: Springer.