Draft version 1.6 beta — Revised August 22, 2026

A Geoethics Primer for Geoscientists

This is a work in progress—an incomplete draft subject to revision.

Chapter 2. Common Morality

2.1 Introduction

The written record that includes accounts of morality, ethics, and wisdom extends back more than 4,500 years, with early examples in Sumer (ancient Mesopotamia) and in the Middle Kingdom of ancient Egypt.^1-4 Indeed, the literature on moral philosophy and applied ethics is like a vast and deep ocean with many crosscurrents. Instead of going swimming and risking drowning in that ocean before we reach our destination, we rely on the work of well-informed modern experts on moral philosophy to help guide us.

In particular, the account of common morality in this Geoethics Primer is based on the work of philosopher Bernard Gert (1934–2011) and ethicist Deni Elliott (1953– ). Bernie Gert was a professor of moral philosophy at Dartmouth College for 50 years, and developed the concept of Common Morality as a moral system,^5,6 as well as contributing to the early development of bioethics⁷ and other areas of applied or practical ethics. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel that in 1992 developed the formal definition of research misconduct.⁸ Deni Elliott has had a varied and distinguished academic career, and served as the first full-time director of Dartmouth's Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics.

Bernie Gert was an essential participant in an ethics workshop in 1997 hosted by the Geological Society of America^{9, 10}, which inspired development of the American Geological Institute's AGI Guidelines for Ethical Professional Conduct.^11-13 Gert's books Common Morality — Deciding What To Do⁵ and Morality—Its Nature and Justification⁶ provide a coherent and accessible description and explanation of "the moral system that rational persons use, usually implicitly, when making their moral decisions and judgements." Deni Elliott has contributed her perspective to extend Gert's work in ways that are quite useful for our work in applied geoethics,^{14, 15} and produced a delightful video illustrating Systematic Moral Analisis.¹⁶

Other short videos are linked in the list below that can help us get a sense of the meaning of terms like ethics and morals, and how the law relates to these philosophical ideas. Remember that underlined words like this — References — are links to other web resources.

• Ethics from Ethics Defined, UT-Austin McCombs Business School; video in English (a) with English transcript and notes, or (b) with Spanish transcript and notes
• What is Ethics? from The Ethics Centre via YouTube
• Ethical Decision Making from The Ethics Centre via YouTube
• Purpose, Values, Principles – An Ethics Framework from The Ethics Centre via YouTube
• Ethics, Morality, & the Law from The Ethics Centre via YouTube
• Moral Intuition & Ethical Judgment from The Ethics Centre via YouTube

The Primer's Glossary includes many other video-assisted definitions related to our topic.

2.2 Background

Whether or not we are aware of it, humans rely on a shared moral foundation that is not necessarily connected to religion, language, nationality, culture, education, or wealth. Philosopher Bernard Gert referred to this as common morality: "the moral system that thoughtful people implicitly use when making moral decisions and judgments."¹⁷ He explained that it "is based on nothing other than the universal features of our common human nature," such as our ability to reason, our tendency to make mistakes, and our vulnerability.¹⁸ You can think of common morality as the moral reference system or "default setting" that you share with every rational adult — even those who have had no training in moral philosophy, who are part of disparate cultures, and with whom you might share very little other than your humanity.

I imagine that you are an adult who navigates each day using reason, so that you avoid doing things that might get you hurt or in trouble with other people. Although you make most decisions in your life quickly without much thought, you pause to think about the important or complex decisions before you decide and act. You do not want to do anything that will cause you (or anyone else) harm. In other words, you act rationally. "Acting rationally requires no more than not acting irrationally."²¹ Violating one of the moral rules without adequate justification is irrational. We will learn about moral rules in a later section of this chapter.

You certainly know that you can be harmed by others, sometimes without any good reason, and act to avoid that experience. You also know that everybody else can be harmed too, just like you, and they do not want to be harmed without good reason. You know that you can cause harm to others. The connection between wanting to protect yourself and understanding that you are capable of causing harm to others is what Deni Elliott calls the human analogy.²²

You are not perfect, but you try to be good as you understand the concept of "goodness." You have moral awareness. You are mostly free to choose what you think and do (or avoid doing) on your own, without someone else deciding for you. You can act autonomously and exercise your free will within appropriate bounds. You understand that your actions might affect others, and that you are responsible for your decisions. You are what a philosopher might call a moral agent.

A moral agent is a person who is capable and free to make a rational choice, act in response to that decision, and be responsible for the consequences of that action. Deni Elliott describes moral agents as "persons who are rational enough to understand the human analogy—they know that other people can be caused harm and that they, themselves, are capable of causing harm to others..." ²³

All active geoscientists are moral agents. Together with every other living human, from birth to death, we are members of a moral community.²⁴

"A person is impartial to a group in a given respect if [that person] does not favor any member of the group over any other member in that respect."²⁵ For example, a judge must treat both sides in a legal dispute (the group) impartially with respect to the application of the law. Morality requires that a moral agent treat all members of the moral community (the group) impartially with respect to not violating moral rules. The principle of impartiality means that every member of the moral community deserves equal protection from moral harm.²⁶

This morning, I opened a cupboard in my kitchen to get a cup for my coffee. I saw that one cup had a significant crack in it, but the others were all intact. Without stopping to think, I reached for an intact cup. I used common sense. I didn't need to study the situation, or ask anyone else's opinion, or think much at all about it. I intuitively knew that it would be a poor choice to use a broken cup to hold hot coffee, so I made a better choice.

Here, the word "common" indicates that any rational person would intuitively make the same decision if faced with the same situation. That is, any rational person would avoid the broken cup and choose an intact cup. Any of the intact cups would be an acceptable choice to a rational person. (A different rational person might choose the same cup, or perhaps a different cup, based on the optimization strategy they preferred in the instant they made the choice.)

We use the word "common" in a similar manner when talking about common morality, which is a moral system that all rational moral agents understand and can agree on. It is, in a way, the default process that has developed as part of human nature, focused on avoiding trouble that could harm our relationships with other group members. To our early human ancestors, harming relationships with others in their group would have decreased their chances of survival. Today, it will reduce our chances of flourishing within the groups of people around us — family, friends, colleagues, clients, and others.

Moral judgements are made by rational adults in light of their common understanding of the kinds of actions our shared morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows. Gert asserted that there is general widespread agreement about common morality.²⁷

A detailed description of common morality provides a framework that all parties to a moral dispute can accept, even though they may disagree with each other on what morally ought to be done in a particular case. Common morality is not a system that can be mechanically applied to resolve all controversial moral issues. Not all controversial moral issues can be resolved.²⁸

The focus of this Geoethics Primer is on you as an individual who interacts with other people, as we all do. The description of common morality in this chapter is also focused on you and your decisions, with concern for how they might affect others. Common morality is not a description of group behavior, either within a group or across groups. How you move through this world — how you choose to interact with others — is your responsibility alone. With that in mind, developing an explicit knowledge of this moral system might help you move through this world with less friction, because you'll avoid violating moral rules that everyone already grasps implicitly.

2.3 Common Morality in a Systematic Framework

2.3.1 Overview

The moral system that Gert described has three central features.

[1] Moral rules indicate all of the kinds of actions that are morally prohibited, like "do not kill," or morally required, like "do your duty." The first five of these moral rules prohibit "directly causing all of the basic harms and the second five [prohibit] those kinds of actions that indirectly cause these same harms."²⁹

[2] Moral ideals involve acting intentionally to avoid, prevent, or relieve the suffering of harm, whether caused by the violation of the moral rules or by other causes like accident, disease, or natural hazard. Abiding by the moral rules is mandatory unless there is a strong justification that everyone can agree is valid, but providing support to uphold moral ideals is not mandatory. We should support moral ideals, but there is no punishment for anyone who fails to do so in a given situation.

[3] A two-step procedure that people use to decide whether a given violation of the moral rules is justified.

Elliott's utilization of Gert's system also has a two-step procedure for analyzing a situation, involving conceptualization and justification.³⁰ We will summarize both Gert's and Elliott's analytical procedures in a later section.

Perhaps the key to understanding Gert's account of common morality is that it is centered on the moral requirement or obligation to obey the moral rules, which prohibit causing harm. It helps us discern what we cannot do — violate the moral rules — and leaves us free to choose what to do. (In our roles as geoscientists, our choices are further constrained by the standards and norms of science, and ethical codes of our profession.)

2.3.2 Justification

Everyone can agree that the moral rules should generally be followed and only disobeyed if there is a clear and sufficiently strong reason. Likewise, everyone can agree that violating a moral rule can lead to negative legal, employment, professional, reputational, and personal consequences.

Motivation is not the same as justification for breaking a moral rule. You might feel motivated to punch me in the nose for saying that your dog is ugly, but that emotional reaction to my unkind comment does not justify causing me pain. So, what do we mean by justification for breaking a moral rule?

You are justified in breaking a moral rule only if, upon reflection, you are certain every impartial moral agent who knows all of the morally relevant features of the case would agree that violating the rule is justified in this case, and would also be a justified exception for everyone else to use if faced with the same situation. If the exception was thought justified by some—but not all—impartial moral agents, or if the exception was not allowed for everyone faced with the same situation, the exception would be controversial or weak — not universally accepted. Even though a controversial exception to the rule might be considered weakly justified, it would be a morally acceptable response for others to punish you with appropriate negative consequences for your decision.

2.3.3 Immoral Acts: What You Can't Do Without Sufficient Justification

The ten general moral rules, articulated by Gert,³¹ are:

The general moral rules are each stated briefly, and can be thought of as categories of harm. For example, the first rule explicitly prohibits causing death, but implicitly extends to causing permanent loss of consciousness. The second rule explicitly prohibits causing pain, but extends beyond physical pain to emotional pain like anger, disgust, anxiety, fear, and sadness. Gert provides expanded explanations of these in his books on common morality.³³

Moral rules apply only to moral agents, because they are the only ones who comprehend the moral rules instinctively and can act in ways that avoid violating the rules. They do not apply to children who are younger than the "age of reason" and people of any age who are conscious but incapable of independent action. All of these members of the moral community are entitled to impartial protection from moral harm.

Serious problems like harassment and sexual harassment are covered by the moral rules, even though those terms do not appear in the ten-part list. In Black's Law Dictionary,³⁵ harassment is defined as words, conduct, or acts (usually repeated or persistent) directed at a person that annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress to them, and that serves no legitimate purpose. Sexual harassment includes "verbal or physical maltreatment, pestering, or abuse of a sexual nature, including lewd remarks, salacious looks, and unwelcome touching."³⁶ Harassment in general and sexual harassment in particular are plainly covered by the rule, "don't cause pain," and could also be a cause of disability — "don't disable." So, although they are not explicitly included in the list of ten general moral rules, harassment and sexual harassment cause harm and are forbidden in this moral system.

The origin of these rules is simple. We all understand intuitively that there are certain harms all of us want to avoid: death, pain, disability, being deprived of freedom or opportunity, being deprived of pleasure. A person who inflicts these harms on themself is irrational. You do not want to be deceived, become victims of lawlessness, be cheated, experience broken promises, or be harmed by someone else's faithlessness. You know that others do not want to be harmed in these ways either. Without sufficient justification, inflicting any of these harms on another person is immoral, because everyone would agree that these acts are prohibited by our shared morality.

The list of moral rules does not constitute a moral system by itself. It becomes useful when accompanied by a procedure for analyzing an act or a pending decision to assess whether it is prohibited, required, discouraged, encouraged, or allowed by common morality. Bernie Gert and, building on his work, Deni Elliott each described simple procedures for analyzing the morality of an act.

2.3.3 Two Analysis Procedures

2.3.3.1 Gert's Procedure

We presume that violation of moral rules is not justified. This is the default view unless a reasonable and well-supported justification that would be accepted by all impartial and rational people can be provided. Gert defined a two-step process for assessing a moral situation before acting.

The first step is to describe the situation in terms of morally relevant features — features that, if different, would affect whether some rational person would accept the proposed act as justifiable. Gert provided a list of ten questions, each with a full discussion to help clarify the moral dimensions of a contemplated act. As Gert phrased them, these questions are:³⁷

1. Which moral rule would be violated?
2. Which evils or harms (including their kind, severity, probability, the length of time they will be suffered, and their distribution) would be (a) caused by the violation, (b) avoided or not caused by the violation, or (c) prevented by the violation?
3. What are the desires and beliefs of the person toward whom the rule is being violated?
4. Is the relationship between the person violating the rule and the persons toward whom the rule is being violated such that the former sometimes has a duty to violate moral rules with regard to the latter independently of their consent?
5. Which goods or benefits (including kind, degree, probability, duration, and distribution) are being promoted by the violation?
6. Is the rule being violated toward a person in order to prevent her from violating a moral rule when her violation would be (a) unjustified or (b) weakly justified?
7. Is the rule being violated toward a person because he has violated a moral rule (a) unjustifiably or (b) with a weak justification?
8. Are there any alternative actions or policies that would be morally preferable?
9. Is the violation being done intentionally or only knowingly?
10. Is the situation an emergency, such that people are not likely to plan to be in that kind of situation?

You try to determine which moral rule(s) would be violated as a result of the act (if any), who are the moral agents involved, who might be harmed, and how they might be harmed. If no one is likely to be harmed, then there is no moral problem. The result of the first step is an answer to the question, "What kind of violation of the moral rules would occur if you acted in this way?" 

The second step involves comparing the consequences of that kind of violation being publically known and allowed to the consequences of it not being publically allowed."₃₈ In practice, this means that whenever you're tempted to break a moral rule, you pause and ask yourself whether you'd still break it if everyone knew about it. Would everyone agree your action was justified, would only some people agree, or would no one? Would it be justifiable for everyone in your circumstances to break the rule the same way, or only some people, or no one? And if you suspect not everyone would agree, are you willing to accept the consequences — legal and moral — of acting anyway?

How you answer determines how your act might be judged using Gert's procedure for evaluating justification. An act is morally right or correct if every impartial moral agent would agree it violates no moral rule. It is wrong or immoral if it violates a rule without a justification any impartial agent would accept as sufficient. And it's controversial or weak if it violates a rule with a justification that some impartial agents would accept and others wouldn't. Because acting in a way that's wrong or controversial can expose you to real consequences, including punishment, it's worth knowing in advance which category your act falls into.

Sometimes, the harm resulting from the violation of a moral rule is less severe than the harm prevented by that violation. Gert wrote, "Unjustified violations of the first five moral rules almost always cause more harm than they prevent in the particular case, but this is not true for unjustified violations of the second five moral rules."⁵ For example, truthfully disclosing where another person is located might expose that person to significant danger. Is it better to speak truthfully in this instance, disclosing their location, or to deceive? Resolving this sort of dilemma requires moral reasoning to find a solution — one that results in the least harm and that other impartial moral agents would consider just.

2.3.3.2 Elliott's Procedure—Systematic Moral Analysis

Ethicist Deni Elliott developed a system of analysis built on Gert's description of common morality, called Systematic Moral Analysis.^14,15, abbreviated as SMA. SMA is a two-step procedure in which the first step involves conceptualization of the issue and the second step involves justification for a violation of the moral code.

Elliott's analysis includes members of the moral community as well as what she calls subjects of moral worth: entities that are worthy of moral consideration.³⁹ Relevant to our purposes in this Geoethics Primer, those subjects include, but are not limited to, animals, the environment, biosystems, culture, and art. They must not be harmed without justification. Elliott describes the criterion for judging whether harm has been done to a subject of moral worth in this way: "Generally speaking, harm for a subject of moral worth is something that destroys or threatens to destroy the aspect of the entity that gives it value."⁴⁰ Subjects of moral worth are not worthy of the same level of concern as members of the moral community, but they are worthy of an appropriate level of protection from harm.

Elliot provided several examples.^61-62 "Harms that can be caused to the natural environment or wildlife include disruption of the biosystem upon which sustainability depends. Harms caused to objects of culture include the destruction of the intergenerational memory that culture preserves." Harm done by damaging or destroying works of art, which deprive us of the intellectual stimulation and pleasure we could have enjoyed.

"While every rational person has an obligation to avoid causing other humans unjustified harm [such as death, pain, disability, deprivation of opportunity, and deprivation of pleasure], subjects of moral worth have, instead, some people with special stewardship obligations to protect them. [For example,] art gallery directors have special stewardship obligations to protect the art under their care... Stewards...have the special role of educating other humans about the nature of the subjects over which they have stewardship." ⁴²

The first step in Elliott's procedure for assessing the morality of an act is conceptualization, which she describes as necessary and sometimes sufficient to reach a decision about a contemplated act or a verdict about a past act.^89-90 Begin by determining if harm has been (or is likely to be) caused by answering the first three questions below and, if so, whether a moral agent is blameworthy for the harm — answer question 4. The criteria for harm to a member of the moral community is violation of a moral rule as described by Gert.^5,6 For subjects of moral worth, harm refers to destruction or endangerment of the aspect of the entity that gives it moral value.

1. Is a member of the moral community or subject of moral worth being caused harm?
2. Has a moral agent caused the harm?
3. What are the agent's role-related responsibilities [if any]?
—————
4. Was harm intended or could it have been predicted? ¹⁴

In the context of the Geoethics Primer, "role-related responsibilities" are our duties as geoscientists in the context of the contemplated or past act.

The process of conceptualization might reveal that the past or contemplated act wouldn't cause any moral harm or an insignificant amount of harm, in which case this process has been sufficient to reach a decision: the act is morally permitted. If that is not the verdict, we move on to the second step in the assessment process — justification⁴⁴.

Evaluation of justification is not always necessary, and is never sufficient on its own without having completed the process of conceptualization. In evaluating the justification for an act, we examine whether the act could be morally permitted in this particular situation and in all other cases under similar conditions. In Elliott's words,⁴⁵ the analysis of the identified violation of moral rules involves the following questions:

1. Which harms are caused by the violation of the rule? Which harms are avoided?
2. What are the relevant desires and beliefs of the person toward whom the rule is being violated?
3. Is the relationship between the agent and the person toward whom the rule is being violated such that the former has a duty to violate moral rules with regard to the latter, independent of their consent?
4. Which goods (including kind, degree, probability, duration, and distribution) are promoted by the violation?
5. Is the rule being violated toward people in order to prevent them from violating moral rules when the violation would be (1) unjustified or (2) weakly justified?
6. Is the rule being violated toward people because they have violated moral rules (1) unjustifiably or (2) with weak justification?
7. Are there any alternative actions or policies that would not violate moral rules?

Whether you use Gert's or Elliott's process, or create a defensible analytical system of your own to render judgment in light of all the relevant moral facts, there are three possible verdicts: the act is morally right or correct or acceptable; the act is morally wrong or immoral; or the act is morally weak or controversial. If an act is under consideration — not yet a past act — you should take Elliott's advice: seek alternative actions or policies that would be morally acceptable because they would not violate moral rules.

2.3.4 The Parable of the Prudent Boat Captain

Imagine yourself as the captain of a rather fragile wooden boat, on which are all of the people you love most in this world are your passengers. Your boat is offshore in a pretty bay whose entire shoreline is rocky, with large angular boulders and outcrops on all sides — some visible and many others just below the waterline. Some of your passengers are urging you to bring the boat to shore.

You know with certainty that trying to land on a rocky shoreline in a fragile wooden boat will almost certainly cause significant harm. You could plot a course to land on the rocky shore of the bay although there are no docks there, or you could set out into the lake to find a safer landing. What should you do, Captain?

The rocky shoreline that surrounds you in the bay is like the set of moral rules, which you must not violate without very persuasive justification. Your goal is to avoid causing harm. You can move along any compass bearing except ones that will dash your boat against the rocks. What is your decision, as a prudent captain, about which way to go? What should you do?

(The decision is easy — trivial, even. That is because you have an intrinsic sense of common morality, plus some additional knowledge gained by learning how current and past moral philosophers — and others — analyze their options while making moral decisions. Keep learning.)

2.3.5 Moral Acts—Your Moral Compass

To this point in this chapter, we have focused on what not to do, because morality has as its goal the lessening or avoidance of harm or evil. If you could ask Bernie Gert how to know what you should do, he might respond, "Don't violate the moral rules. Beyond that, use your moral judgment to choose from among the universe of acceptable moral options."

The process of working systematically with common morality allows us to identify options for action that are available for further consideration because they are not morally excluded. Common morality does not provide us with a unique best option that everyone will agree with. To the extent that there are disagreements about the best option from among several morally right or acceptable options in a given case, those disagreements will not be based on moral grounds. Different people who are faithful moral agents can and often do disagree about which morally acceptable option is the best choice.

2.3.4.1 Moral Ideals and Virtues

This section is undergoing active revision. Please check back in a few days.

The first five moral rules in Gert's description of common morality prohibit causing direct harm to others. Violation of any of the second five moral rules can result indirectly in causing harm. One answer to the question "what should I do" is to be guided by the moral virtues, which are all related to the moral rules. The second five moral rules can be described in terms of moral vices that are the opposite of corresponding moral virtues.⁴⁶ For example:

2.3.4.2 Personal and Social Virtues

This section is undergoing active revision. Please check back in a few days.

Gert also noted that these moral virtues can be differentiated from personal virtues (or social virtuesⁿ) such as courage, kindness, courtesy, gratefulness, prudence, helpfulness, friendliness, and temperance. A corresponding list of personal vices can be imagined. Personal virtues and vices are not directly linked to the systematic application of common moral rules used to guide our behavior. A geoscientist can seem to lack the personal virtue of courtesy and still do fine work; however, a person who lacks the moral virtue of truthfulness probably cannot function as a geoscientist.

2.4 Summary and Suggestions

Common morality applies to all rational persons — to all moral agents. It applies to you and to essentially everyone you meet. Our common morality provides us with solid guidance as we act rationally to decide what to do in different situations in which moral decisions or judgments are necessary.

I have done the best I can in a limited space to introduce you to the work of Bernard Gert and Deni Elliott — describing and explaining Common Morality and developing useful methods of moral analysis. To make their work truly useful to you, I encourage you to study their writings directly. In my process of self-education, I started with the summary that Bernie's children Heather and Joshua (both of whom are philosophers) encouraged him to write for us non-philosophers: Common Morality—Deciding What To Do⁵. This 179-page book is very clearly written. I confess that I had a copy of his more extensive book, Morality—Its Nature and Justification⁶ nearby as I read the summary, so I could take deeper dives into the some of the topics that particularly interested me.

I stumbled onto Deni Elliott's scholarship on Common Morality by seeing the video she created with the Ethics Unwrapped project in the McCombs Business School, University of Texas at Austin.¹⁶ That drew me to her short books, Ethics in the First Person—A Guide to Teaching and Learning Practical Ethics¹⁴ and Ethical Challenges: Building an Ethics Toolkit¹⁵. These, along with the two books by Bernie Gert I just mentioned, provide a clear and comprehensive account of Common Morality and offer useful analytical tools to help us make better moral decisions in our geoscience work.

I strongly encourage you to acquire and study these books on your way to a career supported by continuing education in applied ethics.

2.6 Notes and References

This section is undergoing active revision. Please check back in a few weeks.