Moral statements are considered normative statements rather than factual ones because they express a value judgment—a judgement that claims that something is ought to be (as opposed to a factual judgement that claims that something is the case. As a result, normative statements are evaluated based on standards/norms instead of empirical data.
A normative statement is a moral statement if it uses a moral standard as its basis for evaluation.
Empirical data or facts can support a moral statement but it is not enough; a certain moral standard(s) or principle(s) is necessary to form a moral conclusion.
Ethicists have identified characteristics that make a standard a moral one. Although these characteristics are not exclusive to a moral standard, if all characteristics are present in a particular standard, it is considered a moral standard. The characteristics are
deals with matters that can seriously harm or benefit human beings (they have to be able to govern our conduct)
have universal validity
people should think that they should prevail over other values
they are not established by decisions of authoritarian bodies nor appealing to the consensus/tradition.
Etiquette are customs that determine the accepted behaviors in a particular group; following them shows respect and courtesy to others.
Etiquette differs from morality in a way that it is focused on proper behavior, while the latter is focused on correct conduct; therefore, etiquette is more culture-based and arbitrary.
This entails that violating a rule in etiquette is not immoral and following the etiquette is also not morally good
Etiquette can be rooted in something immoral or moral. Despite not being synonymous, they are related because they affect human action.
Morality and law
Similar to etiquette, law frequently coincides with morality but should not be conflated together. There are cases where something is moral but is illegal and vice versa; hence, they should be distinguished from each other.
Law relates to morality in a way that it uses moral principles as a foundation for its adoption
Law is too blunt to provide moral guidance and too narrow to cover the various possible individual and group conduct. In addition, legislators may unfairly influence the law to protect their vested interest.
Morality and religion
Religion, like law, is related with morality. However, unlike law, many people use religion as their basis for morality—because God is the source of goodness, so people adhere to God’s will.
The issue with religion is whether something is moral because God says so or does God says so because it is moral. It becomes problematic when something is good only because God says so without any other moral justification/reasoning.
Religion should not replace our faculty of reasoning for governing our morals. If it did, we would only need to know the opinion of the church (or mosque, etc. depending on your religion) and conform to it, instead of leading a rational life. For this reason, morality should transcend religion.
Religion also provide moral directives that are too general and imprecise, where these directives can be tricky to apply in specific situations.
It asserts that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the particular society’s norms
It differs from individual ethical relativism in a way that it considers the social aspect of morality. Despite rejecting universal moral principles, it argues that the validity of a moral fact depends on the cultural/social norms.
It asserts that one’s moral standards depends on their commitments, preferences, and approval
Ethicists criticize this form of standard for rendering the concept of morality useless because no interpersonal criticism or judgement is possible. Therefore, there is no interpersonal basis to judge whether an action is morally good or bad.
It is derived from the diversity argument which states that morality is relative to time and culture.
It argues that an individual’s values are a product of their social/cultural environment.
The strongest version of its assertion is that all truths is relative to the conceptual framework and the culture in which it is situated in (even science)
The moderate version asserts that the meaning of human behavior is always relative to the culture it occurs in. Consequently, the moral aspect of our actions is dependent on the cultural context for its meaning.
This argument states the acknowledgement of different moral norms between various societies leads to respect, social harmony, and co-existence among different cultural and social groups
Criticisms
Diversity of moral beliefs between different people does not prove that morality is relative. Similarly, the disagreements in the past about the earth revolving around the sun did not prove that the truth was relative: the objective truth is that the earth is revolving around the sun, regardless of what people thought at that time.
Ethical conventionalism implies that we cannot criticize a particular culture’s belief or practice no matter how abhorrent or inhumane it is.
Ethical conventionalism also implies that being moral is when one conforms to society’s standards and being immoral is one does not. Hence, I should accept the practices and beliefs of the society I inhabit regardless if I feel like it is wrong.
Similar to religion, it can discourage us from needing moral reasoning and justification
Ethical conventionalism also hinders moral progress because it avoids criticisms and changes by dismissing them as attempts to diverge from the norm
Even if the moral practices and traditions vary depending on the culture/society, there exists a number of universal and fundamental moral standards or principles that underlie them
Sources
Ethics - Theories and Applications by Francis Evangelista and Napoleon Mabaquiao Jr. (Chapter 1)