Draft version 1.5 beta — Revised Aug 11, 2026

A Geoethics Primer for Geoscientists

Part 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, this account of common morality 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^{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 account of "the moral system that rational persons use, usually implicitly, when making their moral decisions and judgements." Deni Elliott has contributed her perspective to explain and extend Gert's work in ways that are quite useful for our work in applied geoethics,¹⁴ and even produced a delightful video illustrating Systematic Moral Analisis.^{15, 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

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

2.2 Background

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.^5,6 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.

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.

You certainly know that you can be harmed by others, sometimes without any good reason, and act to avoid that experience. YYou 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. YThe 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. ¹⁴

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 for 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." ¹⁴

All active geoscientists are moral agents. Together with every other living human, we are part of a moral community.

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.

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.

2.2 The Moral System

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."⁵

[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.^14-16 We will summarize both Gert's and Elliott's procedures in due time.

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 Other philosophers offered their assessments of the 1998 edition of Gert's work¹⁴ in a published set of critical essays and Gert's responses.¹⁵ In nine pages at the beginning of that volume, Gert provided a brief summary of his more extensive treatise on morality. Gert revised this more extensive treatise in light of the ideas it had generated.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.

The first five moral rules in Gert's description of common morality 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 (or social virtues¹⁴) 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.

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.

2.3 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 July 10, 2026)

Scenario 2.1 title

Some questions [1] text

 [2] text

 [3] text

2.4 Notes and References