“Morals” is considered indispensable for human beings in their socal life, but its connotation and constitution remain undefined. The present paper aims at clarifying this indefinite notion by structural analysis.
In this approach “morals” is defined from the viewpoint of the behavioral sciences as part of standards of value-orientation in an actor or of basic valuesin cultures. In this sense, “morals” fulfils its function as an agent not only of social control but of normative delimitation of freely availableareas or ways of action being left in man's hands.
From this consideration, the rational formula of “morals ” based upon the general features of values is given as follows:
1. “Morals” is the values that are useful for the individual or group integration of systems of action. It insures the identity of an individual and carries on harmonious social relations within a group.
2. “Morals” is composed of both cognitive and affective elements.
3. “Morals” is a kind of normative ideology which reflects people's existential propositions on their living world.
4. “Morals” is not categorical but relative ethics, the validity of which is decided by its suitability to the situation of action.
In the next place, the structural formula of “morals” is shown as the conceptual scheme which is made up of two crossing axes named the axis of direction of systematization and of positivity. The first one divides “morals”. into two kinds, that is, that for the integration of personality and of social system. The second classifies “morals” into two categories, namely, the external and internal ones. The following are the sub-systems of “morals” obtained by intersecting of these axes.
1.SOCIAL NORMS which are for group integration and very positive, apply external sanction against the deviant members.
2.MORES which is for group integration but not so positive, have internal sanctionfor the infringers.
3. CHARACTERS which are for individual integration and very positive, have external control over an individual as ego-ideal.
4. VIRTUES which are for individual integration but not so positive, maintain internal control over an individual as super-ego.
Finally, two significant properties of “morals” are mentioned. These are their self-evident nature that needs no proof of validity by the members of a group and their viscoelasticity as defined in rheology.
