Moral philosophy is the systematic study of how human beings should live, what makes actions right or wrong, and what sort of person it is good to be. It is the parent discipline from which economics, sociology and political science separated, and reading figures like Adam Smith as moral philosophers, not as proto-specialists, recovers what was most distinctive in their thought.
The ancient tradition asked mainly about character and the good life. Aristotle's ethics is an account of virtue, habituation and flourishing, not a procedure for deciding cases. Modern moral philosophy narrowed the question to right action and produced the two frameworks that still structure most argument. Kant grounded rightness in a law reason gives itself and in the requirement to treat persons as ends. The utilitarian line running from Bentham through Mill to Sidgwick grounded it in consequences for wellbeing. Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics (1874) remains the most careful statement of how badly the two fit together.
The twentieth century turned first to metaethics and nearly lost the subject. Moore's charge of the naturalistic fallacy, followed by emotivism's claim that moral statements express attitudes and do not assert facts, left philosophers analyzing moral language instead of moral questions. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy" (1958) attacked the whole modern project as the residue of a divine-law conception whose lawgiver had been abandoned, and triggered the revival of virtue ethics that MacIntyre's After Virtue (1981) carried into political thought.
Substantive ethics returned decisively with Rawls and with the applied literature that followed: Singer on famine and animals, and the bioethics that medical technology forced into existence. The unresolved question is the oldest one. Persistent disagreement between the frameworks may indicate that moral knowledge is not the kind of thing that converges, or merely that the work is unfinished.
