1. The authors argue that an anthropological approach to morality should not be limited to the question of good and bad, but should also take into account the perspective of those being studied.
2. The article examines how two thousand years of religious and philosophical doctrines have shaped the idea of morality as something defined in terms of what is good or bad.
3. It discusses two main approaches to studying morality: the "ethnography of moralities" which follows a Kantian deontological ethic, and more recent research which emphasizes social differentiation and hierarchy in determining moral behavior.
The article is generally reliable and trustworthy, providing a comprehensive overview of different approaches to studying morality from an anthropological perspective. It draws on a range of sources, including religious and philosophical doctrines, as well as more recent research on moral behavior. The authors provide clear arguments for their position that an anthropological approach to morality should not be limited to the question of good and bad, but should also take into account the perspective of those being studied.
The article does not appear to present any biases or one-sided reporting; it presents both sides equally by examining both traditional religious/philosophical views on morality as well as more recent research on moral behavior. There are no unsupported claims or missing points of consideration; all claims are supported by evidence from relevant sources. There are no unexplored counterarguments or promotional content; all arguments are presented objectively with no attempt at persuasion or promotion. The article does note potential risks associated with certain approaches to studying morality, such as the risk that an outsider's perspective may lead to misinterpretation or misunderstanding of local values and beliefs. All in all, this article is reliable and trustworthy in its presentation of different approaches to studying morality from an anthropological perspective.