Morality is the set of rules or precepts, obligation or prohibition relative to the conformation of human action to the uses and customs of a given society. Although etymologically narrow, morality differs from ethics which is defined as a fundamental reflection on morality that will establish its norms, limits, and duties. Morality is born of moral philosophy that differs from metaphysics because of its practicality. Morality should not be confused with or with case-specific ideology. It does not seem, on the other hand, that these two conceptions of morality, as a psycho-sociology of morality, the other as teleology or ethical customs, are fundamentally incompatible. They can, we believe, coexist and even confirm or complement each other; But, in our view, the second is only fully appropriate name of morality. In fact, almost all moralists have more or less the same combined or confused in their doctrines, or because they have analyzed first human morality, some by a subjective or psychological method, the other by an objective or sociological method to extract from this analysis The principles of their lifestyle or, on the contrary, was first established their lifestyle, some in a metaphysical system deduced a priori, the other in the data directly taken in the experience, except then show The agreement of the most important requirements of this art with the more general tendencies of human morality. However, it is conceivable rigor a lifestyle based entirely on considerations alien to real morality, a kind of morality without morality. Suppose, in fact, that human morality shows that studies of consciousness and history, as a very variable fact, may take the most diverse, even contradictory forms, no one can unravel the fixed and general law that allows to explain these variations. In this case, it will be impossible to take the study of morality any practical indication: this is the conclusion of moral skepticism. However, even in this case, a way of life is still possible, but the condition of laying bases out of morality. This is not before the sophists Socrates, the founder of hedonism, Aristippe de Cyrène. This is why it is very difficult to give moral – and we are only talking about moral philosophy – a definition that fits all cases, unless they adhere to vague, very indeterminate formulas, such as: lifestyle , Behavioral science, etc. If we define it, as is done in the majority of cases, the knowledge of the good science of duty, by virtue of science, or the science of the conditions of happiness, art of happiness, etc., it is evident that These definitions are not applied equally to all moral doctrines, or be heard by each of them in different directions. Therefore the words right, duty, virtue can not obviously have the same meaning as for Kant and Bentham, and if morality is especially for this art of being happy, on the one hand, on the other hand, n not Has nothing to do with happiness and refers exclusively to the assignment. On the other hand, it seems that the necessary duality of viewpoints requires that the whole division of the doctrines of morality into two parts, a theory and a practice, the first devoted to the analysis of morality and the establishment of principles of conduct, The second Surles conclusions of the first set of rules of human life are based.