What does it mean to be moral?

The word "moral" in relation to a person means: "the next definite morality", so the article on what it means to be moral, you need to start with the definition of morality.

On morals and moral

Morality is the notion of good and evil, obad and good, accepted in this or that society. Therefore, to be moral means, first of all, to follow the morals of the society in which a person lives. At the same time, it is quite possible to be moral in relation to one society and immoral in relation to another. The thing is that the principles laid down in the "moral code" of this or that people can be completely different. The lesson, what it means to be moral, can be given on a concrete example. So, in Thailand, only someone who respects the king and does not discuss his personal life and deeds is considered moral. In Russia, it would be strange to consider an immoral person who, even in harsh terms, speaks about his president and his actions. It is not difficult to learn a truly moral person. He will never violate the laws of the society in which he lives. He can not even violate the law in any way from a legal point of view. This, by the way, is the problem of our society (and not only ours), since to the majority of the authorities, far from moral, but, rather, immoral persons seek. A truly moral person adheres to those vital principles that forbid him to act not according to the laws of the society in which he is.

What does it mean to be moral for real?

But it was a moral in a narrow sense. If we talk about universal values, here the situation will be somewhat different, because a moral person is far from moral. Many people consider the words "morality" and "morality" to be synonymous, but there is one significant difference between them. A moral person simply follows formally the norms that are accepted in a particular society. A moral person does not just follow the rules, but agrees with them internally. He will not kill a dog or a cat, not because it is impossible by law, but because he understands that he does not have the right to take life from another being. He will not steal, not because he is afraid that he will be seized and punished, but because he understands that, perhaps, the thing taken away can be very necessary for someone from whom he steals it, etc. Thus, there is a whole chasm between a moral and a moral person, since the former formally follows the rules, and the second understands their significance and, being above specific moral norms, lives according to universal principles, not to local principles. By the way, I suggest you look at the questions of morality and here with such an interesting point of view.