Every natural instinct of survival, for both animals and humans, is evil. According to the paradigm of our society, it is immoral to be selfish, to steal, to feel empathy only for your kin and apathy for everyone else, and to kill for personal gain. On the contrary, according to the natural instincts followed by all of the animal kingdom, you are to insure your own and your pack’s own survival, no matter the cost, disregarding all others; to steal, to feel apathy for other groups, and to kill for power and personal gain are all common practices that animals do in nature without the bat of an eye. These instincts do not only apply to lesser animals, but humans share them as well, for we are animals like all the others. There are no morals …show more content…
This is of course true with the impact of societal morals, being a driving factor in Ishmael Beah’s A Long Way Gone. Similar in “For Whom the Bell Tolls”, Ishmael and other child soldiers like himself have their morals completely shaped by their society, further supporting the idea of moral malleability. In the first half of A Long Way Gone, Ishmael has the morality that would be considered “good” by normal society; he is a mild-mannered and innocent boy who would not willingly hurt anybody. However, it can be easily seen in the second half of the book that his morals were significantly changed by the--“evil” by normal standards--society of the army with which he served. In the later part of the book, his nurse Esther tells him “This isn’t your fault, you know. It really isn’t.” (Beah, I, pg 151), referring to how the army’s society changed him. Ishmael's good morals remained intact for a short period after being recruited, but after his first killings and being told by his army that killing is good, his conscious took a complete turn-around, finding it easy to willingly hurt, kill, and torture. In both the song and the book they are taught that killing is alright by society. Furthermore, Ishmael's perception of good and evil is changed once more by his rehabilitation, showing the wide subjectivity and malleability of
Ishmael was a normal 12 year old boy in a small village in Sierra Leone when his life took a dramatic turn and he was forced into a war. War has very serious side effects for all involved and definitely affected the way Ishmael views the world today. He endured and saw stuff that most people will never see in a lifetime let alone as a young child. Ishmael was shaped between the forced use of drugs, the long road to recovery and the loss of innocence of his
The primary issue that was addressed in the Journal article, “Moral Reasoning of MSW Social Workers and the Influence of Education” written by Laura Kaplan, was that social workers make critical decisions on a daily basis that effect others. They influence their clients’ lives through giving timely and appropriate funding to them and their families, through deciding should a family stay together or should they have a better life with another family, or connecting the client with appropriate resources that can enhance their lives. The article addresses data from an array of students from various universities. The researcher posed these questions; “Would social workers use moral reasoning (what is right and what is wrong) more prevalent if it was taught through an individual class during your MSW graduate studies, or if you obtain any other undergraduate degree, or if the ethic course was integrated in the curriculum?”
First, Ishmael arrived at the village Yele which then became a symbol of hope and innocence. In this passage, Ishmael’s inner nature was battling society because he did not want to go to war, however the army wanted to brainwash him into thinking it was the right thing to do. Further, characterization of his thoughts reveals how innocent and child-like he still was because when he first saw the injured people on their way to Yele he felt “nauseated”(Beah 100) and had to look away, this indicates that he disliked war and violence. This also indicates that Ishmael would never have joined the army without its influence.Then Ishmael looked away the soldier said that he would get used to it. This interaction with the soldier makes Ishmael seem more child-like because the soldier’s acted superior and more experienced. In addition, he was still a child upon arriving in Yele, where he could finally feel safe. In Yele there was always “lively chattering and laughter” (Beah 101). It was a place where “girls played clapping games”(Beah 102), the boys “played soccer”(Beah 102). Thanks to this village Ishmael had regained some of his childhood. But then the army took it away again. The lieutenant got up in front of all the civilians and told them to fight. He said that they had a choice but he was lying, the rebels had surrounded the village, if they left they would have no food, and no protection, they would be wal...
The story of Ishmael Beah is absolutely heartbreaking. By the age of 15, there was no way count of how many lives he, personally, had taken in a war that destroyed his home, took his family and friends away from him and turned him from a young boy into a terrifying warrior, all under the guise of freedom, liberty, and revenge. He had seen more murders and deaths in his first decade of life than most people see in a lifetime. Beah was a child soldier in Sierra Leone, West Africa during the civil wars of the 1990’s. It can be assumed that Beah did not experience an average childhood because he was primarily focused on survival, but there were still some childlike things that Beah did throughout his trials that remind one that he is still young,
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46). Throughout the work, Nietzsche uses decidedly negative terms to describe “bad conscience,” calling it ugly (59), a sickness (60), or an illness (56); leading some to assume that he views “bad conscience” as a bad thing. However, Nietzsche hints at a different view when calling bad conscience a “sickness rather like pregnancy” (60). This analogy equates the pain and suffering of a pregnant woman to the suffering of man when his instincts are repressed. Therefore, just as the pain of pregnancy gives birth to something joyful, Nietzsche’s analogy implies that the negative state of bad conscience may also “give birth” to something positive. Nietzsche hopes for the birth of the “sovereign individual” – a man who is autonomous, not indebted to the morality of custom, and who has regained his free will. An examination of Nietzsche’s theory on the evolution of man’s bad conscience will reveal: even though bad conscience has caused man to turn against himself and has resulted in the stagnation of his will, Ni...
Every human is born with the potential to be inherently evil. Whether they choose this path or not depends on the influences of the outside world. We can see an example of how this is true from the book, Lord of the Flies by William Golding. Although all of the boys in the novel start out as innocent choirboys, they show their true form of evil when they are put in a dire situation. The boys no longer become friends to one another, instead they try to kill animals and even each other for the pure enjoyment of it. Humans are born evil and have the intent of doing violent and harmful things as evident by; the world’s history, violence as a source of entertainment, constant wars, and bullies, both cyber and physical.
Being able to think and reason should be a primary requirement for deserving dignity and respect. With no ability to think or reason how could an animal even understand that it is being treated differently than other animals. Fukuyama argues this point as well, “Human reason…is pervaded by emotions, and its functioning is in fact facilitated by the latter.” Clearly moral choice cannot exist with out reason but it can also be seen in other feelings such as pride, anger, and shame. Humans are conscious of their actions, in spite of acting on instinct as other animals do. Animals do not contemplate any deeper meaning of life or justify complex mathematical equations or even think about the question ‘why’; Humans, however, do think about those things. It is our conscious thought that sets us apart from any other animal in the world. Yes animals have perception and problem solving abilities, but unlike they are not able to understand complex knowledge based concepts, although they can solve problems within their normal parameters. Every animal on the planet should have the ability to solve problems but only to a certain extent, the extent of survival. When a situation becomes a matter of life or death animals must to be able to learn to live. Survival of the fittest has ultimately
“The sanctity of the oath” (Keillor 102), the controversial hot topic of this year. This is a subject that has sparked great debates not only to those in Congress, but among the American people as well. Some hold the oath as a promise of civility and humanity. On the other hand, others view the morality the oath is supposed to stand for as unreachable and unattainable. In my opinion Garrison Keillor sums it up in his essay, “The Republicans Were Right, But.” I feel this is a good essay based upon the author’s argument of morality, his use of symbolism, and the entire structure of the essay.
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
In every civilized society you will always find many varying forms of morality and values, especially in the United States of America. In Societies such as these you find a mosaic of differing religions, cultures, political alignments, and socio economic backgrounds which suggests that morality and values are no different. In Friedrich Nietzsche’s book, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses morality and the two categories that you will find at the very basis of all varieties of morality. One category of morality focuses on the “Higher Man” and his superiority to all those under him and his caste. The second system is derived from those of a lower caste that may be used by those in higher castes to further themselves and society. These categories as described by Nietzsche are known as Master Morality and Slave Morality. In this modern time in our culture, morality is becoming a more polarizing topic than ever before. Morality is often times held synonymous with religious practice and faith, although morality is an important part of religion and faith, everyone has some variation of morality no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Friedrich Nietzsche’s theories on morality, Master and Slave Morality, describe to categories of morality which can be found at the very basis of most variations of morality. Master and Slave morality differ completely from each other it is not uncommon to find blends of both categories from one person to another. I believe the Master Morality and Slave Morality theories explain not only religious affiliations but also political alignments and stances on certain social issues in American society. By studying the origins and meanings of Nietzsche’s theories, comparing these theories to c...
Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.
As society as a whole we are most often times given a set of rules to follow. These rules or laws act as a pathway to help us choose between right and wrong. If someone were to choose the wrong path, there can be severe consequences. In the United States it is common to see jail time when we go against the set moral code. In other countries we may see forced labor or find people put to death for their actions. Each society sets it’s own rules and moral standards. But there is much more to being a moral person than following the laws of a society. As defined by Alan Wolfe, moral freedom means “individuals should determine for themselves what it means to lead a good and virtuous life” (Wolfe, 2001). This means that even though we are given a
‘Moral judgments are nothing more than expressions of personal preference. While there is some point to arguing about questions of fact, moral arguments are a waste of time. The only thing at issue is what people like or don’t like’. I have probably read this statement about a million times and still do not have any qualms against it. Moral judgments are typically based on your upbringing, your likes, your religion (or non-religion), and numerous other aspects that make up your personality. Those listed traits and further attributions give you the basis of what you are going to feel morally to many issues such as: homosexuality, abortion, murder, stealing, etc. While many of us feel that we are always precise when making a judgment, this paper will show that no matter how hard we try; the above statement will always be true.