What is being supposed here is that rationality, vis-a-vis morality, is very demanding: moral requirements just are rational requirements, so that a failure to act morally is a failure to act rationally.
(Can one live well, as an individual, only if one complies with moral requirements? Or does morality sometimes interfere with the conditions for living a meaningful life?) Can life have meaning if there are no objective values?
A person might truly believe that her society takes something to be morally required, but not be fully motivated by her society's moral requirements because they dictate sexist behavior.
If overall self-interest ever conflicts with moral requirements, then there will be overriding reason not to do what is morally required, on the assumption that all reasons are self-interested.
Another way is by having recourse to role morality: within morality itself there are general moral principles, rules etc. and then special moral requirements dictated by significant social roles.
In other words, before his pardon Arpaio wouldn't have met the moral requirements to have an application for DACA approved.
Are formal requirements like consistency and coherence sufficient, or does law have to meet substantial normative and moral requirements?
He felt that only when people have learned to be in harmony with themselves will they be able to fulfill moral requirements.
If you say yes, then you think the only moral requirements are the ones we freely bring on ourselves — say, by making promises or contracts.
In his writing he concentrated on the moral requirements of a revolutionary and hoped that Cuba would see the dawn of a "new man" such as was dreamt of in 1917.
The polls that show more Americans abandoning organized religion don't suggest a dramatic uptick in atheism: They reveal the growth of do-it-yourself spirituality, with traditional religion's dogmas and moral requirements shorn away.
