Is Morality Real? Does it exist? Are they the same thing?

After my wordy post about whether infinity is real, I plan to continue the discussion about what it means to be real, or to exist (are they different?) by discussing morality. Regular readers will already know that I think morality can be objectively described, but so can numbers. I think I concluded that numbers aren’t real. (Seriously.) There is ambiguity about what morality is and, as I’ve already alluded to, it’s not immediately clear whether being real and existing are different.

Morality is commonly defined as “what one ought to do” (at least, in conversations I have with the students of William Lane Craig, it is). But I don’t accept that definition. What one ought to do depends entirely on what they wish to do. For example, if one wishes to win the lottery one ought to play. But it is rare to find a person who would agree with the sentence “buying a lottery ticket is a moral action”. Muslims, who believe gambling should be banned¹, would believe that buying a lottery ticket is immoral.

My dad is of the view that morality means ‘to do what one ought to do, on their own principles’. I can see some merit to this. Red Dwarf once did an episode where the characters met another spaceship where the people on it judged the crew of Red Dwarf. The people on this new ship judged the narcissistic character The Cat and the self-important character Rimmer as doing good. Whereas they judged the (seemingly) morally astute but lazy character Lister and the obedient robotic character who always looked after his shipmates, Kryton, as doing wrong. The reason is that Lister and Kryton knew better than what few transgressions they had made, and both recognised the need to do better but didn’t. This idea should be familiar to anyone who plays attention to a jury-based legal system; judged by your peers. These should be people who share your values and judge you so. For most people this system seems effective. But if you are a paedophile then the people in your paedophile ring are your peers, and they share your values. This is why I also reject my dad’s definition of morality.

It should come as no surprise to my readers that I still believe that morality is best defined as actions that affect our wellbeing. An action that safeguards our wellbeing is ‘morally good’. I think this definition best describes what people mean when they use the word. I also maintain that an action that fails to safeguard wellbeing cannot be said to be morally good.

Am I describing something that exists? That is a difficult question. I find it hard to define what it means to exist, but I can articulate characteristics I think mean something does not exist. Carl Sagan’s incorporeal dragon is my favourite example. This is a dragon that is defined in such a way that it evades all of our investigations: it is invisible, breathes heatless fire and is not made from nor dependent on matter and energy. If you think carefully about what the difference is between that dragon and a dragon that simply doesn’t exist, I think you will come to a considered conclusion about what it means to exist.

Ideas do exist. Ideas are an experiential result of a physical state. What I mean by that is ideas are a thing we experience because our physiology is arranged in a particular way. An idea cannot exist independent of the material world. Your idea of a unicorn exists, the unicorn does not (and so it is with numbers). Wellbeing exists for the exact reason that ideas exist; your wellbeing depends on a very particular arrangement of your physiology.

The reality of morality, if it is so, must be contingent. Ideas, numbers and wellbeing are contingent on the material arrangement from which they arise. Morality, as I’ve defined it (or plagiarised from Sam Harris), is contingent on wellbeing. A universe without wellbeing is also devoid of morality. Justifying morality exists is harder. At the moment, I say it does not. The idea of morality does exist. But as an actual thing which exists, I say it does not. Please don’t lose sight of the fact is can still be expressed and objectively measured in the material world.

As a separate question, is being real different from existing? It is clear that all things that exist must also be real. But can things which do not exist be real? Numbers don’t exist (I feel comfortable saying that), but I’m not sure whether they are real. Numbers and language have a purpose that can apply to the real and material world. Numbers and language articulate ideas (which exist; they have a material foundation).

Is ‘that which is real’ a bigger set, of which ‘that what exists’ is a subset? Here’s my proposal, that I would love your reaction on (regardless of whether that feedback is ‘this is nuance to the point of meaninglessness and intellectual masturbation): that which exists can be defined as that which is composed of or effectively described by the material and energetic world. That which is real can be described as all that relates to the material and energetic world. Numbers are not composed of or effectively described by the material world, and do not exist, but they do relate to the material and energetic world and are real. Morality does relate the material and energetic world, so it is real.

1 – the commas here are actually very technical. If I had written it as “Muslims who believe…” then I would have described a subset of Muslims, implying there is another subset of Muslims who believe differently. But including that comma–“Muslims, who believe…”–means that I am describing all Muslims. It is an independent relative clause. (For Hifzan). That is a mistake, as not all Muslims believe the same. However, according the Koran, they should (on this issue).

(Bonus points for anyone who noticed that morality both exists and is real by the definitions I ultimately give, which means I changed my mind halfway through writing this post)

42 thoughts on “Is Morality Real? Does it exist? Are they the same thing?”

    1. Information needs to be stored. The way it is stored is by highly specific formations in brains or computers (or, on broader definitions, ice cores and tree rings etc). So, yes.

      1. So we can say the information pertaining to a thing is real, but not necessarily the thing itself? I’m asking because was watching a program yesterday on the Holographic Principle of the universe and i’m still trying to wrap my head around it.

      2. I don’t suppose that is available for download or on Youtube, is it? I’ve heard it before, but never found it at a level I can understand.
        From what I do understand, I’m not sure what the source of the holograph is meant to be.
        But yes. If you accept my model of definitions here, information on a unicorn can exist, but the unicorn doesn’t have to.

  1. The definition of “what one ought to do” is too diluted which make the morality itself is something easy to achieve. Therefore not worth to be discussed.

    I still prefer classical view of morality as “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself”. This golden rules is still (1) relevant, (2) understandable to many group of people. (3) Cross culture, religion, races, geography, etc. The definition only unworkable in limited issue with can be neglected which normally “clash of culture)

    To answering either “morality is exist or real”? It was a difficult question because morality itself is abstract and subjective.
    I prefer to understand that morality is real. If I use my definition or golden rules of morality, I can define few action that are considering moral i.e (1) Being polite; (2) Smile; (3) Greeting; (4) Helpful; (5) Philanthropist (6) Patient (7) Righteous (8) sympathies to other (9) maintaining good speech (10) and many more.

    But if use the definition “what one ought to do” or “contingent on well being”. Some of the above meaning are no more relevant or no more real.

    Note on the gambling:

    Muslims, who believe gambling should be banned¹, would believe that buying a lottery ticket is immoral.

    The interpretation is wrong and can be misleading.

    I would like to quote from Buddhism POV (even I can quote a similar thing from Islam). Buddhism takes a nuanced view of gambling and its prohibition. In Sigalovada Sutta’s “The Layman’s Code of Discipline” the following is stated:

    “There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in indulging in gambling:
    (i) the winner begets hate,
    (ii) the loser grieves for lost wealth,
    (iii) loss of wealth,
    (iv) his word is not relied upon in a court of law,
    (v) he is despised by his friends and associates,
    (vi) he is not sought after for matrimony; for people would say he is a gambler and is not fit to look after a wife.”

    Of course if you want me to write an essay about the harm of gambling, 1 page of A4 paper is not enough.

    As Quran is banned and the harm are more higher that benefit, therefore it should be banned. Therefore any action lead or support gambling indirect or direct is not moral. In that case, buying a lottery ticket is immoral. Good government should NOT allows the public to gamble (w understanding that Genting, Malaysia is one of the largest casino on earth)

    In my understanding, most religion (Islam, Buddha and Hindu) banned gambling, may be Islam is more stricter than other in this issue in term of implementation. In my understanding too, Christianity are silent on this issue.

      1. Golden rules mostly applied to most of the cases, it not necessary universal. Let assume an example of mass murder.

        A killer were killing a hundred of people.
        1. The people who being killed are not happy with that action.
        2. A killer also are not happy if they are the one are who being hunted.

        yet, a killer do killed people. This is 2 separate issue. 2 wrong thing are not necessary make it right.

        Morality itself is positive word, we don’t learn a negative action to justify morality.

    1. Your definition of morality is interpreted by most people as a broad example of what it means to be ‘morally good’, but is not morality itself.
      However, the issue is about what exists. Do ideas exist? Does what an idea represents exist? Is existing different from being real?

      1. The purpose of learning morality itself is (1) to have benevolent life (2) harmony (3) peaceful (4) know how to response among humans, etc.

        Does it real? My answer is yes. For me,the meaning of “real” (in term of action/behavior ) is something that can be achieve. So, morality is something can be achieve, therefore its real.

        Same goes to does moral exist? The meaning exist (in term of action/behavior) is something that we experience. Example, someone talking polite to me, therefore he is morally behave. Therefore moral is exist.

        Rather than you discuss about does morality real or existed. It is better to discuss about “Standard of moral”.
        May I ask you a question. What make learning/ philosophy about “Does morality exit or real” is important?

        “Morally good” and “morality” is 2 different word, I agree. But we must remember, the objective of learning morality is to be morally good.

      2. If you refer to my reply, I put in bracket (in term of action/behavior).

        If “you” are defining yourself as action or behavior. By definition, yes, you do not exist. But I believe you are human. Right?

  2. Moral behaviour is behaviour which is universally preferable.

    When faced with immoral people, or a world controlled by immoral people, then moral actions are often the surest way to threaten one’s own wellbeing. Not funding the illegal wars in the middle east is moral behaviour… but if you act that way men in blue costumes armed with clubs, tasers and guns will kidnap you and put you in a cage.

    Morality in society is enforced by a ruling class who make themselves exempt from the moral rules they impose on us. Hence, it is wrong for us to steal, but they must steal half our wages. It is wrong for us to coerce, but they must coerce everyone all the time. It is wrong for us to print money, but they must print money all the time. It is wrong for us to take out huge loans in the names of other people, but they must do this all the time (and use it to pay for their wars which are a noble cause for them…. but which would be called ‘mass murder’ if we were to behave that way)… and so on.

    Thus, the way to understand how morality works in our society is NOT to focus on the moral rule itself…… but instead to figure out which group claims EXEMPTION from that moral rule!

    As brilliantly explained here….
    Good is Evil

    1. Interesting. I disagree, but I do make distinctions between moral intuitions and actual moral ideas.
      Morality is not universally acceptable. I cite death penalties, honour killings, genital mutilation, sexism and laws and cultures surrounding rape as example.

      However, my question is about whether there is a difference between what is real and what exists, and whether morality fits into either (or both) camps.

      1. “…Morality is not universally acceptable…:

        To be clear, my definition was “universally preferable”.

        Take rape for example. How can we test if rape is moral or immoral (or morally neutral)? Well, is it universally preferable? Can the would-be rapist (who desires to commit rape) also desire to be raped? Obviously not. If s/he desires to be raped it is no longer rape, it is consensual sex. Rape is defined as sex which is forced onto a person who does not want to have sex.

        Same goes for murder, theft, assault, torture, kidnapping etc. These behaviours cannot be universally preferable, which makes them all immoral.

        As for being real, or existing, I think morality only exists as an abstract concept, like numbers. ANd like numbers, morality can never be real… but it can be valid/ invalid… or true / false….. or internally consistent/ inconsistent. These all amount the the same thing.

        If there are four apples on a table the number four does not exist, and yet the concept of ‘four’ is perfectly valid in the abstract realm – it remains unchanging and logically unassailable. It is true. In the abstract realm ‘validity’ is the equivalent of ‘realness’ in the physical realm.

        Morality also only exists in the abstract realm of ideas and concepts, but any human activity in the physical realm can be given a moral value (just as objects can be given a numerical value – like ‘four apples sitting on a table’).

        The moral (or numerical) values we give can be determined to be either valid or invalid, by applying logic to agreed definitions of morality (or numbers).

        “Moral behaviour is universally preferable behaviour” is the best definition of moral behaviour I’ve heard.

        I think the issue of the ‘existence’ (realness) or morality is a consequence of being brought up in a society which is run by a coercive and violent ruling class who do NOT enforce moral rules onto society…. but who actually enforce a monopoly on their right to VIOLATE moral rules. Thus, in government run schools the teachers can never teach us WHAT morality is because even the most basic definition of morality defines the government AND the government employed teachers as behaving immorally. ANy bright pupil could point out that the teacher’s salary is taken from their parents (and even from people with no children of their own) at gunpoint and refusal to hand over the money means getting put inside a cage. Attempting to escape the cage means getting shot.

        Thus, we are all taught that morality is not a rational scheme at all, but rather a tangible ‘thing’ which consists of ‘obeying authority’, ‘obeying laws’, ‘doing what you’re told by people with guns’.

        In short, applying even the most basic moral rules (initiating force is immoral, stealing is immoral) to the ruling class (who are just people, after all, not gods) results in the realisation that society is controlled by a group of people who are the most immoral group in society. Rather than admit this painful (or I would say delightful) truth, we choose to tie ourselves up in knots instead.

      2. I think we agree on the realness and existence of morality and numbers.
        However, I still disagree on your definition of morality. ‘Preference’ leaves room for too many contradictions: I prefer to eat chocolate and to look after my health. I prefer to earn a lot of money and to have free time. So long as we talk about preference, there are too many catch-22 positions.
        This is why I talk about maximising wellbeing.

      3. “….‘Preference’ leaves room for too many contradictions….”

        Moral behaviour is not just behaviour which is preferable to you, it must be UNIVERSALLY preferable.

        For you to steal my ipad might be preferable to you, but it is cannot be universally preferable behaviour. You cannot prefer that your ipad gets stolen, because ‘theft’ means taking something against someone’s will.

        For you to murder me might be preferable to you, but it cannot be universally preferable behaviour. You cannot prefer to be murdered because ‘murder’ means killing someone against their will.

        For you to rape me might be preferable to you, but it cannot be universally preferable behaviour. You cannot prefer to be raped because ‘rape’ means being forced to have sex against your will.

        “…I prefer to eat chocolate and to look after my health. I prefer to earn a lot of money and to have free time….”

        These are morally neutral activities, because they don’t really impact other people directly. That’s assuming the chocolate isn’t make by slaves and you don’t earn money through violence, extortion, fraud etc.

      4. You assume there is no moral difference between conservativism and liberalism. Neither have universal support, so there is no moral value attached.
        For clarity, are both immoral for not having universal support? Or, to be immoral must it be universally abhorrent?

      5. It’s not up to me to decide what is moral and what is immoral.

        First we must define a moral rule. Then we must apply that rule to whatever situation or behaviour and see if it violates that moral rule.

        For example…

        Define a moral rule: Theft is immoral

        Behaviour: Mugging someone in the street and stealing their wallet = theft = immoral.

        Behaviour: Taxation = confiscating half of someone’s earnings by force (the threat of being caged at gunpoint) = theft = immoral.

        Behaviour: Accepting money for an ipad on ebay and then not sending the ipad = theft = immoral.

        ‘Conservativism’ and ‘liberalism’ are too vague to be judged morally, as is ‘racism’. No actual harm (or good) is done by simply declaring yourself to be these things.

        If you beat up (ie initiate force against) a black person ust for being black then that is immoral. If you ‘vote’ for a political party to initiate force or theft against the general population then that is immoral too…… assuming we agree that initiating force and theft are immoral ways to behave.

        This is the reason why government theft is called taxation and not government theft.

        This is the reason why voting for a political party to initiate force ON YOUR BEHALF and steal ON YOUR BEHALF is called ‘voting’ or ‘voting for a candidate’.

        If we referred to these things accurately and honestly the immorality of behaving this way would be impossible to deny.

        Euphemisms and vague language have always been the method used for disguising immoral behaviour.

        “I didn’t steal the bike, I was just borrowing it”
        “We were arguing and then he fell down the stairs”
        “I didn’t assault my son with a belt, I was just disciplining him”
        “I wasn’t murdering brown children, I was doing my duty and serving my country”
        etc etc

        As a rule of thumb, the more we resort to euphemisms to describe our behaviour the more likely we are trying to disguise immoral behaviour.

  3. I didn’t get to comment on your first post about infinity but I read a little of it and found that it contained a mishmash of errors.

    For example, infinite comes in different varieties.

    There is numerical infinite as in if we count, there is no largest number or smallest numbers.

    That is different from infinity of space that goes on without end.

    And still different is the infinite of God, who was and is, before time and space and numbers.

    Saint Thomas put this to bed back in the Middle Ages, circa 13th century Anno Domini, in his work, “Summa Theologica.”

    Atheists really do need to get up to speed on things so they don’t continue to compare apples and oranges, which leads to error.

    This post about morality and reality also has a fundamental error and that error is the claim that without God, the Creator, there can be objective morality.

    Without God, there is only nature. Nature has no morality.

    Dogs have no morality. Neither do fish or hurricanes or tornadoes or disease.

    Objective morality was developed all over the ancient world, however, and in the West it was called Natural Law.

    But reasoning out Natural Law leads to the reasoning out of God as Supreme Judge and the “God of Nature and Nature’s laws as America’s Founding Fathers wrote it so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence.

    The end result of reason is that God is the author of reality and thus the author of morality.

    Else both reality and morality are what we opine it to be.

    1. What you call my mistakes are evidence you didn’t read my post.
      I don’t know why you’re talking about God (I didn’t). I don’t know why you’re talking about atheists (I didn’t).
      Then you sort of go off the rails, talking about the Declaration of Independence (I’m British, I don’t care).
      You assert dogs have no morality. But without your definition of morality and an explanation of how dogs are exempt, I simply don’t follow.

      So, you’re on form.

  4. Allallt or John,

    I read your reply to Spinning for difficulty said “I cite death penalties, honour killings, genital mutilation, sexism and laws and cultures surrounding rape as example.” Similar issue to John Zande, where he linked “pedophile, the dictator, or the mass murderer”.

    Let say you disagree with my definition. What make above behavior are being categories under morality? Why not discuss it under the definition of law, social behavior, social science, local custom, etc.

    The question, why it must link to the word “morality”?

    Why I ask this question. In my study, there are NO lecturer, religious figure, or philosophy that trying to linked the above issue in studies of morality either in mandarin, english, tamil or malay language.
    Therefore, it was very odd and absurd for me to understand the message that you trying to tell people.

    The only people that I meet that link the action “death penalties, honour killings, genital mutilation, sexism and laws and cultures surrounding rape” with morality is atheist and Western Evangelist Christian or people who do wrong but want to justify it as right thing.

    So, my question again. Why those behavior must be link to the word “morality”?

      1. John,

        Exactly. It suppose to be under “right” or “wrong”, “should be” or “should be not”.

        I don’t reject it because it was “actions”, but the term itself is wrongly being used.

      2. I disagree with the post, but I do agree with term “sense of morality increases with better information”.

        Because I believe morality can be improve through education, learning, imitating good behave people.

    1. Are you attempting to tell me, with sincerity, that you have never heard the issue of sexism from moral point of view? Or, the death penalty?
      Are you also saying that you cannot see the relationship between morality and the law? The law is a series of rules that generally mandate moral behaviour. It should be law if it is generally moral (i.e. murder is illegal; theft is illegal and in many countries discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation and religion are illegal). These laws arose as we realised that their negation (i.e. murder, theft and discrimination) are immoral.

      When someone gives me a culturally dependent definition of morality I think it behooves me to point out some of the cultural-specific behaviours that would permit.

      As a returned question, given that you’ve apparently never encountered a moral argument against honour killings and genital mutilation, what topics do you cover when you discuss morality?

      1. “..The law is a series of rules that generally mandate moral behaviour…”

        Strictly speaking a law is just an opinion backed by the willingness to use force. There is nothing inherently moral (or immoral) about any law, just as there is nothing inherently moral (or immoral) about a gun. A law is just an ‘an opinion with a gun’.

      2. Yes, a law is just a command backed by the threat of force (guns, cages, clubs, tasers etc).

        It is possible for a law to be created which reflects a moral rule, but it is equally possible for a law to be created which violates a moral rule.

        The only way to find out if a law is moral or immoral is to check it against moral rules.

        Moral rules should always be the basis for all laws. And moral rules should determine whether or not the public obeys a law or not.

        But unfortunately we are taught in government schools, the media etc that laws MUST ALWAYS be obeyed EVEN IF they are blatantly immoral. In fact we are taught by governments that to disobey an IMMORAL law is itself IMMORAL! Even if the law is to turn in Jews to be shot, or fund the murder of children in Iraq we are taught that it is immoral to disobey the immoral law.

        Accepting this kind of insane indoctrination has caused the murder, torture, persecution and imprisonment of hundreds of millions of people.

        We all understand that murder is wrong, but whenever a tyrant passes a law saying we must fund murder and commit murder we (the general public) imagine some obligation to obey it! In fact we imagine it would be immoral to NOT commit murder…… because that would mean breaking a ‘law’.

        If people stopped feeling an obligation to obey immoral laws all wars would end immediately, as would all government rule by force.


        “….Topic covered in morality – (1) Being polite; (2) Smile; (3) Greeting; (4) Helpful; (5) Philanthropist (6) Patient (7) Righteous (8) sympathies to other (9) maintaining good speech….”

        Being polite, smiling etc have very little to do with morality. These are more associated with social niceties, etiquette etc.

        Morality is more concerned with matters like theft, violence, coercion, assault, fraud, murder, torture, kidnapping etc…. not ‘smiling’.

      3. Yes, this argument only can be found in atheist, Evangelist Christian or someone who want to justify the wrongdoers.

        If you refer to my reply, I do said “Why not discuss it under the definition of law, social behavior, social science, local custom, etc.”

        I already suggested that the issue should being discuss in context of law.


        1) Morality is a system of learning and lead people to have good or positive behavior.
        2) law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.

        Both is a system that lead people to good behavior but the policy is different.

        Morality is through understanding and consciousness but law is through govern, rules and penalty. It discuss a different issue in context of “human behavior”. Is that so difficult to understand?

        Morality is about uplifting good behavior standard to AND law is about govern/manage behavior standard. Both have a different objective.

        Therefore, sexism, death penalty, etc should be discuss in context of law not morality.


        Topic covered in morality – (1) Being polite; (2) Smile; (3) Greeting; (4) Helpful; (5) Philanthropist (6) Patient (7) Righteous (8) sympathies to other (9) maintaining good speech.

        That why, when we discuss about morality, we always relate to philosophy of manner, ethic.

        When, we discuss about law, it talk about good behavior, but it relate to philosophy of wrongdoer, penalty, and corrective action.

        It not I never encounter issue such honour killings and genital mutilation. But it totally awkward to discuss in context of morality, because it hardly linked.

      4. Do you believe that genital mutilation is not related to good and bad behaviour? Do you believe that you cannot answer “is genital mutilation moral?” with a yes or no?

      5. Genital mutilation t was clinical overview. If, I would like to answer in in view of clinical, it is wrong.

        But, in context of morality, – ????? What your question again?

      6. You seem to define morality as being polite, smiling and altruistic. You don’t seem to recognise it as a way of describing intentional behavior. I do.
        Genital mutilation is a culture-specific assault on children. It does not safeguard wellbeing. It is immoral. If I can objectively say that, is morality real and does it exist and are they different questions?

  5. @ Spinning For Difficulty and Allallt,

    Thanks for explanation, then we just talking a different thing due different in term of geography.

    So, morality in Western society talk about negative issue as theft, violence, coercion, assault, fraud, murder.

    That explain a lot. No wonder many Asia or Central Asia “jump” when many Western news try to explain about morality…. Which I also not expected it…

    I am not english speaking person, my reference is only dictionary and wiki.

    When I refer to the word,
    it refer to “Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) ” (wiki).
    principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour (Oxford)

    When people telling me that morality is less related to ethics, manner and more related crime. It contradict with dictionary and wiki. When, this happen, I need to make a decision that wiki and dictionary is more reliable that bloggers.

    1. “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour” – do you not think the law is related to this?

      “(from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”)” you need to read further than the word’s relationship to a long-dead language. Wikipedia goes on to say ” is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are “good” (or right) and those that are “bad” (or wrong).”

      Is a criminal not immoral? (Or, at least, should the two not be synonymous?)


        do you not think the law is related to this?
        Not at all. you click on the link I provided, look title “Ilm al-Akhlaq”, (Knowledge of morality). That is the definition of “distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior”.

        Akhlaq itself is referring to practice of virtue, “morality” and manners. It was synonymous to word morality as per Oxford.

        This knowledge is to tune human to be perfect in term of behavior. That is the main objective. The knowledge are not to determine which behaviour are wrong i.e FGM, killing, etc.

        I also try to provide you a Hinduism link regarding morality.

        Is a criminal not immoral?
        Nope. Even, Oxford dictionary are not agree with that. So, why I should agreed?
        Immoral = not conforming to accepted “standards of morality.”

        The more you all trying to explain to me, the more I feel you all trying too fool me.

      2. Temperament, temper, nature, virtue and manners are all semi-related to morality. It seems “akhlaq” is a much broader term than morality, but they are certainly not synonymous. We are simply talking past each other because you have assumed akhlaq is an appropriate translation of morality.

      3. Of course, this definition have being from borderline of Middle East, India, Central Asia, to South East Asia. Nvr mind, I will assume it as “Asian English”.

        Still, I don’t think I was in wrong side. Sorry, I need to disagree w you until I found that I was wrong even you are more “English” than me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s