Morality can be seen in the development of an ethical theory.

If one uses morality in its

descriptive sense, and therefore its refer to codes of conduct actually put forward by groups
or societies, one will almost certainly deny that there is a whole morality that applies to all
people in this world. The descriptive use of morality is the one used by anthropologists when
they report on the morality of the societies that they study. From studies, some comparative
and evolutionary psychologists which are (Haidt 2006; Hauser 2006; De Waal 1996) have
taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of humans.

In the middle of the 20th century the dominant sense of morality seems to have been the
descriptive sense. This is told by the the fact that both C.H. Whiteley and Neil Cooper took
themselves to be revealing the importance in the real meaning of morality when they
distinguished the sociological sense from the psychological ways (Whiteley 1959) and the
social sense from the individual (Cooper 1966). But according to the some of the opinions, all
of these are versions of the descriptive sense, which is determined by the size of the relevant
group.

Although the morality of society may derive from its religion, morality and religion are not
the same thing. Morality is only a guide to conduct, whereas religion is always more than this
and cannot be compared between each other. For example, religion includes stories about
events in the past that already happened, that are used to mostly to explain or justify the
behaviour that it shows or prohibits. Although there is often an unexpected overlap in the
conduct that prohibited or required by religion and that prohibited or required by morality,
religions may prohibit or require by guides to behavior that are explicitly labeled as morality
guides, and may allow only some of the behaviour that is prohibited by morality. Even when
morality is not referred as the code of conduct that is put forward by a formal religion, it is
often thought to require some religious explanation and also acceptable justification.
However, only with laws, some of these religious practices and precepts can be criticized on
moral grounds. As an examples, the practice or precept that involves discrimination on the
basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Guides to behavior that are regarded as moralities normally involve avoiding and preventing
harm to others (Frankena 1980), and perhaps some norm of honesty (Strawson 1961). But,
from what can be seen, all of the people are involve in other matters as well. Hare’s view of
morality as that which is most important allows that these other matters may be more
important than avoiding and preventing harm to others. This view of morality are concerning
that the things which is most important to a person or group are allowing matters related to
religious practices and precepts, or matters related to customs and traditions. It is possible for
a society to have a morality that is concerned primarily with minimizing the harms that
human beings can suffer. Some of a society might claim that their morality is based on some
universal features mostly of human nature or of all rational beings.

In the event of Bhopal Disaster, it can be seen the immoral attitude of the manager when he
been told by the coworkers about the uncontrolled reaction that had been started and need to
shutdown the scrubber, he just told the workers to keep on run the plant so that they can
inceease the production and not being late or behind the schedule. The person did not admit
his awful behaviour when being confrontted in the court which cause death to 25000 people
in India. The Union Carbide Group also did not admit any fault in running their plant system
as no maintenance to their equipment which are out of date and not maintenance well. This is
to ensure that they not spending their money too much on the maintenance of their plant
system. Besides that, running more than five chemicals in one place also an immoral attitude
as they want to gain more profit by making more than five chemical substances in one plant
system. They are not aware about the consequences that will happen if the chemical gases
react with each other until the disaster happened. After one year of the event, local authorities
also collected 350 tonnes of waste and left it in the yard which againts the safe management
practices. This cause the underground water to be contaminated which is sources for nearby
residents. After a court order, only partial clearance have been done by the government which
shows the immoral attitude of the state government who does not care about the health of
nearby people.

At first, the company involved tried to dissociate itself from the responsibilities. Eventually it
reaches an agreement with the Indian Government through the supreme court and accepted
the moral responsibilities. The UCC only paid small amount of money as they only said that
only 3000 people died from this event and another 102000 people suffered permanent
disabilities. It paid $470 million in compesation which can be said small amount based on a
long terms effect and health consequences on the number of people exposed. UCC also
attempted to manipulate with scientific data with the victims. Until today, they have not
stated what exactly what was in the toxic cloud that enveloped the city on that night as they
know that their immoral behaviour can cause them another court order or law will charged on
them. This incident indicates that a need of enforceable international standards for the
environmental safety and preventative measures in order to prevent the same event to occur
in the future and preparedness of industrial disasters