This page has been established to discuss and distinguish a particular sub-group of interrelated social concepts that we use to judge ourselves and others in our (their) personal, social, and political lives.

At the top of the category are those old standbys: good and evil. If we compare the definitions of these terms it is important to note that "good" is a term thought of in the widest sense, covering perhaps half of human experience. "Evil", on the other hand, is a narrower concept, and one with sharper overtones. For some "evil" necessarily involves religious belief, while "good" is equally secular or religious in tone. Nevertheless, whatever the overtones and limitations, it is the contrast of these two terms that informs much of the discussion of the terms below.

Below the top rung, then, we have to deal with terms such as moral (with the side concepts immoral and immorality), ethical (with the side concept ethics),responsible (with the side concept responsibility), customary with the side concept custom, polite (with the side concepts politeness and impolite), and civil. The reader is urged to refer to the definitions of each as they are found in "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" (links to each on the left).

If we set aside the narrower specific uses, the meanings of these terms overlap considerably. If one asks the question "Is this the ________ thing to do", usually the blank can be filled in by any one of the positive words discussed here. Yet in choosing which word, the writer or speaker chooses to emphasize certain aspects of the situation and to downplay others. Our purpose here is to briefly explore these choices and their implications, and to suggest why we should as individuals and members of society generally choose to use certain of these words and avoid others.

The definitions as given in Webster's are excellent, yet they miss some of the flavorings or overtones that go with their usage. This is because the several apparently "distinct" meanings of words are never quite as distinct in the minds of an audience as a speaker or write might wish. No matter how clearly the context tells an audience that a word is being used in a specific sense, the other senses, the ones "not intended" inevitably creep into the mind of the reader or listener.

Morality, for example, is in many respects the strongest of these words, the one that connects the discourse to the our broadest and deepest intellectual and philosophical traditions. Unfortunately, outside of the higher reaches of academia, its usefulness has been seriously compromised. No matter how hard we might try, in general discourse it carries too much baggage. There is a certain preachiness attached to "moral" and "morals", due in part to the sense of "moralizing" and in part due to the frequent popular usage that identifies "moral" with "chaste", and "immoral" with culturally devalued sexual activity (as in "loose morals").

Except for "responsible", the meanings of all these words are largely determined by the cultural background of their users. Users are then encouraged by these vocabulary choices to act by reference to others instead of to their own values. By filling the blank with "responsible", on the other hand, the user is encouraged to determine the parameters of action on a more universal scale, and is thus less likely to be misunderstood by persons from another cultural background.