What is Morality: an Exploration of Moral Philosophy at the Lower Red Lion (3 Feb 2026)?

This was the sixth session of Philosophy at the Lower Red Lion (LRL).  We started with the question (with a silent answer) had we recently observed in another some immoral behaviour and why was it immoral. This led to examining the definition of morality and its framing as one of humanity’s most enduring and urgent inquiries: a normative pursuit concerned not with what is, but with what ought to be. Moral philosophy seeks to provide a rational framework for our most profound social and personal decisions, structuring our intuitions about justice, virtue, duty, and human advancement. This introduction set the stage by highlighting the dynamic tension within moral thought—between objective foundations and subjective experience, between communal duty and individual freedom.

The agenda ranged from the ancient world, focusing on Aristotle’s virtue ethics to modern ideas of Care Ethics. For the ancients, the moral question was presented not as “What should I do?” but as “What kind of person should I become?” The concept of eudaimonia—human flourishing— is achieved through the habitual cultivation of a virtuous character, grounded in an objective understanding of human nature. Traits like courage, temperance, and practical wisdom were seen as the pillars of this teleological framework. It was pointed out, however, that ancient society was very exclusive, with only free men framing this concept of morality, assigning women, slaves and foreigners to a ‘silent’ and amoral experience.

Then we looked at Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics (a study of duty). Kant’s belief that moral worth derives solely from duty, guided by the Categorical Imperative: to act only according to principles one could will to be universal law. This absolutist system, which prizes rational autonomy and forbids using persons as mere means, was acknowledged for its power but also its potential for rigidity,

A contrasting paradigm was raised with Consequentialism, chiefly in the form of Utilitarianism. The principles of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill—judging actions by their outcomes and seeking the greatest happiness for the greatest number—were examined. The strength of this focus on welfare was balanced against its poignant critiques, particularly its potential to justify sacrifices of minority rights and the inherent difficulty in quantifying something as nebulous as happiness (a previous topic at Philosophy at the LRL).

The relationship of religion to ethical codes was also examined, and how past cultural norms have flexed and been reformed: for example, cultural attitudes and legislation concerning homosexuality. The rigidity of the ‘word of god’ has been eroded in Western societies. However, it still commands in matters of life and death in other religions – the concept of killing/murder can have an alarming relativism.

And moral relativism has presented a challenge to universal truths, acknowledging ethical diversity while raising troubling questions about the basis for moral critique - the example of headhunting as a male rite of passage came to mind.

As we moved into modern and postmodern thought, the narrative became even more complicated. Moral scepticism’s deeper doubts about objective moral knowledge were noted. The 20th century’s expansion of the moral landscape was highlighted through the rise of Care Ethics. The advancement of women’s rights and the erosion of the patriarchal society in the West have inspired a new perspective on moral questions, particularly around sexual politics. Iris Murdoch argued that morality was a mobile set of principles of empathy, which are related to thinking about our behaviour to others. (Cf. the imaginary debate I wrote between Kant and Murdoch:   https://timboatswain.wixsite.com/website/post/what-is-morality-1

Concurrently, the seminar touched upon insights from evolutionary ethics and neuroscience, suggesting our moral intuitions may be hardwired adaptations for social living, adding a biological layer to the discussion.

Bringing the exploration to the present, the final segment addressed applied ethics. The audience was confronted with dilemmas: for example, the famous ‘trolley problem’ was examined. We also touched on frontiers of bioethics and gene editing, the pressing duties of environmental ethics – treatment of animals -, and the tangled web of digital ethics concerning privacy and algorithmic bias. Inevitably, the poor behaviour of some politicians crept into the discussion. These examples illustrated how classical theories are tested and stretched by new realities, often demanding hybrid and pragmatic approaches.

In conclusion, the reflection was that moral philosophy does not yield a single, uncontested answer. Instead, it provides a rigorous toolkit—a heritage of competing theories—for examining our deepest commitments. Whether through the lens of character, duty, consequence, care, or contract, each paradigm illuminates a vital facet of our moral experience. The seminar closed with a resonant thought: this enduring quest is far more than an academic exercise; it is the foundational project of building a just and meaningful world. As we navigate global challenges that demand collective moral action, this philosophical conversation remains our most vital resource for understanding what we owe to each other and to ourselves.