Draft version 1.2 beta — Revised March 14, 2026

A Geoethics Primer for Geoscientists

Part 2. Common Morality and The Common Good

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.

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
• Ethics, Morality, & the Law from The Ethics Centre via YouTube
• Morals from Ethics Defined, UT-Austin McCombs Business School; video in English (a) with English transcript and notes, or (b) with Spanish transcript and notes

Other video definitions are listed in the Primer's Glossary.

2.2 Common Morality

Every human community relies 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.^5,6 He explained that it "is based on nothing other than the universal features of our common human nature" — our ability to reason, our tendency to make mistakes, and our vulnerability.

Bernard Gert taught at Dartmouth College for fifty years and is recognized as one of the most significant moral philosophers of the 20th Century. Bernie was active in bioethics and other areas of applied or practical ethics. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel that developed the formal definition of research misconduct (1992)⁷. Bernie was also an essential participant in an ethics workshop hosted by the Geological Society of America in 1997, which inspired development of the American Geological Institute's AGI Guidelines for Ethical Professional Conduct.^8-10 Gert's book, Common Morality — Deciding What To Do, provides an account of "the moral system that rational persons use, usually implicitly, when making their moral decisions and judgements."⁵

The following summary of common morality is taken from Gert's excellent book on the topic: Common Morality – Deciding What To Do.⁵ If you have the opportunity, I encourage you to read his full account of common morality. The following is just a bare outline of his work.^5,7

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. You think about the important or complex decisions before you decide and act. In other words, you act rationally.

You are not perfect, but you try to be good. 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. 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 for that action.

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.

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 our community and harm the community as a whole.

In writing about common morality, Bernard Gert stated, "The most important distinguishing feature of moral judgments ... [is that they] are appropriately made only about the actions of people insofar as they are capable of understanding what kinds of actions morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows."⁵ Moral judgements are made by moral agents in light of their common understanding of moral rules, about which there is general widespread agreement. Gert wrote:⁵

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.

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 involve causing harm to someone.

[2] Moral ideals involve acting intentionally to avoid, prevent, or relieve the suffering of harm caused by the violation of the moral rules. 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.

The ten general moral rules are listed below.

The general moral rules are stated briefly, 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 to painful feelings like causing anger, disgust, anxiety, fear, sadness, as well as physical and emotional pain. Gert provides an expanded explanation of each of these rules in his published summary of common morality.⁵

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,¹¹ 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."¹² Harassment in general and sexual harassment in particular are plainly covered by the rule, "do not cause pain," and could also be a cause of disability — "do not 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 pleasure. A person who inflicts these harms on themself is irrational. We do not want to be deceived, become victims of lawlessness, be cheated, experience broken promises, or be harmed by someone else's faithlessness. 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.

Everyone can agree that these 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 someone in the nose for saying that your dog is ugly, but that emotional reaction to their comment does not justify causing them 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.

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 the act. As Gert phrased them, these questions are:⁵

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?

Fundamentally, you try to determine which moral rule(s) would be violated as a result of the action (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 ethical problem.¹³

The second step is to estimate the consequences of allowing or prohibiting the kind of violation of moral rules involved in this case if everyone knows about it. So, after taking the first step and carefully considering the morally relevant features of the act, the next step is to imagine that you choose to act. Then, you need to estimate "the consequences of everyone knowing that this kind of violation is allowed" and also estimate the consequences of the opposite scenario: "of everyone knowing that this kind of violation is not allowed."⁵ Before you act, fully consider the moral consequences.

Practically speaking, when you are motivated to break a moral rule, you should pause and consider whether you would be strongly, weakly, or not justified in breaking it. Would you break the rule if everyone knew about it? Would everyone, some people, or no one agree that your action was justified? Would it be universally justifiable for everyone, only some, or no one else to choose to break the rule in the same circumstances? And if you realize that not everyone would approve of breaking the rule, are you willing to accept the legal and moral consequences of your actions?

The moral system that Gert describes allows us to agree on acts that are morally right (that is, every impartial moral agent would agree that the acts do not violate any moral rules), wrong (the acts violate a moral rule without justification that any impartial moral agent would accept as sufficient), and controversial or weak (the acts violate a moral rule with a justification that some impartial moral agents would not accept as sufficient). Deciding to act in a way that is morally wrong or controversial might expose you to negative consequences, including punishment.

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.

The details of this approach to common morality are provided by Bernard Gert in his summary volume,⁵ and are explored in much greater philosophical depth in his book, Morality – Its Nature and Justification.⁶ Another brief description is given by Deni Elliott in her book, Ethics in the First Person,¹³ in which she describes a modified version of Gert's work as a systematic moral analysis, with examples. She also produced a short video about systematic moral analysis for the Ethics Unwrapped web resource, accessible in English with a transcript and notes available as a PDF file in English and Spanish.

Another aspect of Gert's description of common morality is worth including here. The first five moral rules describe acts that cause harm to others, and for which society generally requires punishment. The second five can be described in terms of moral vices that are the opposite of corresponding moral virtues. For example:

Gert also noted that these moral virtues can be differentiated from personal virtues 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.

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.

2.3 The Common Good

The concept of the common good has ancient origins that date back at least to Plato (c. 427-347 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 BCE) in written records.¹⁴ In his Nicomachean Ethics,¹⁵ Aristotle said that your well-being is bound up with the well-being of your community. Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Moore, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the authors of the United States Constitution, and many modern leaders in philosophy, religion, and politics have written about the common good and its variations.

Philosopher Anthony Weston wrote that "to think or act ethically is to take care for the basic needs and legitimate expectations of others as well as our own."¹⁶ Acting ethically requires respect for the equal value and dignity of every person.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, affirms the "inherent dignity" and "equal and inalienable rights" of all people.¹⁷ After the devastation of the Second World War, which claimed an estimated 70 to 85 million lives, the UDHR was drafted by a diverse international group determined to prevent such moral catastrophe from recurring. "Never again" became a guiding refrain, as the world recognized that dehumanization leads to disaster, even genocide. In contrast, universal acceptance of the dignity and rights of others can lead to hope, progress, and peace.

How your actions and work as a geoscientist might impact other people matters for several reasons. Geoscientists are expected or obligated to conduct their work ethically and to behave with integrity. Acting ethically requires considering basic needs and legitimate expectations of others. Every person has the same human value and rights as you. Treating others as if they are not worthy of respect, or ignoring their human rights, endangers the well-being of the community as well as your own.

There are no super-humans, no sub-humans — only humans with intrinsic dignity and worth.

The common good is a goal that is made possible by establishing conditions where people can prosper, both on an individual basis and as a community. This assumes that community members recognize certain elements that benefit everyone, including mutual respect, security, public and environmental health, equal justice (fairness), and access to life's essentials. It also recognizes that, sometimes, we need to prioritize the interests of the many over individual self-interest. Being part of that community involves responsibilities to others, along with the exercise of our personal rights.

In an Independence Day oration in 1915, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis said, "What are the American ideals? They are the development of the individual for [their] own and the common good — the development of the individual through liberty, and the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice."¹⁸

Robert Reich thinks of the common good as consisting "of our shared values, about what we owe one another as citizens who are bound together in the same society — the norms we voluntarily abide by, and the ideals we seek to achieve... A concern for the common good — keeping the common good in mind — is a moral attitude. It recognizes that we're all in it together. If there is no common good, there is no society."¹⁹

The importance of the concept of the common good in geoscience comes from our responsibilities to both science and society to act with integrity in the public interest. You are called to uphold the moral attitude of caring about how your work might impact people beyond your immediate circle (i.e., beyond yourself, your family, your client, your supervisor, your company, its owners or investors, and those who enforce the relevant rules you must follow). Society is always a stakeholder.

2.4 Reprise: Paramount Obligations

The paramount obligations of geoscientists can be understood as promoting a moral attitude in support of the common good. In our professional scientific work, geoscientists must act with integrity to...

1. Safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
2. Adhere to the ethical principles, standards, and norms of science to seek and report faithfully on reliable information — truth — about our world.
3. Promote, protect, and sustain the viability and resilience of Earth's ecosystems.

2.5 Scenarios

Scenarios are depersonalized outlines of situations that might involve a violation of moral rules or ethical standards, presented here to help you. {This section is under construction as of November 25, 2025.}

Scenario 2.1 Text

Some questions [1] text

 [2] text

 [3] text

2.6 Notes and References