Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Other opinions about ethics in war
Morality vs. religion
Other opinions about ethics in war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Other opinions about ethics in war
Morality is the set of principles concerning the distinction between what is right and what is wrong. All moralities are relative, depending on the circumstances immoral act can be committed for a moral good, certain moralities apply to one set of people and not another because of religion, culture, etc. A simple example of a relative moral is lying; During their childhood, Children are taught that lying is wrong—immoral— but as they gain more life experiences some learn that lying isn’t always wrong, in some situations it helps more than telling the truth, the morality and immorality of lying it is relative to certain situations that different people experience. Since morality is relative, the line between what is right and wrong is blurred; …show more content…
In her book, Terror in the Name of God, Jessica Stern writes about religious terrorism, how terrorist organizations form by using charismatic leaders, opportunistic and ambitious people who recruit the oppressed by using religion as justification and motivation for their acts. In March of 1998, Stern met with religious terrorist Kenny Noble, an American who belonged to a cult in the 80s, and had her first extended conversation with a religious terrorist, “Although I had been studying and working on terrorism for many years by that time, none of what I had read or heard prepared me for that conversation, which was about faith at least as much as it was about violence.” (Stern XIV). Stern pointed out that there was small difference between what Nobel’s cult wanted and what big name terrorist groups like Al Qaeda wanted; they targeted the same institutions, had the same enemy, the only difference was religion. Noble explained how all who refused the word of the lord (liberals, jews, etc.) were enemies and they they would have to be taken care of, “‘They were the enemy. And so they would have to die. . . . We wanted peace, but if purging had to precede peace, then let the purge begin.’” (Stern XV) Terrorist groups believe that their killings are moral because it is to protect the greater good of the world when it comes to their beliefs. Of course where Nobel thought he was in the moral lane to commit such heinous acts, people who didn’t follow his beliefs and his faith saw him as a terrorist with no morals, everything that has to do with morality is relative depending on the individual. Stern talked about how Lesbians in South African faced abuse and violence just because they didn’t fit social expectations of how woman should act and look. Where as in certain counties
When we think of terrorist, we might think of radical Islamic individuals or groups who would take pride in killing anyone who is not Muslim. Even more, there are antagonistically people who want nothing more but to destroy the lives of innocence people because of their belief system. Take an individual like Theodore Kaczynski for instance; he was a former University of California at Berkeley math professor. Otherwise known as the “Unabomber,” he was indeed a terrorist because he used explosives that killed three people and wounded eighteen others in a span of almost two decades. Even more, his brother David Kaczynski was responsible for his capture.
I never really grasped a straight forward definition of morality given by the speaker. Morality to me is a person’s code of conduct that they live their life by. It is a person’s beliefs that make them feel if something is right or wrong.
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
Morality is a key within all principles that it balances wrong and right behavior and the goodness or badness of any human character. Morality is essential; it has guided the evolution of humanity. It is to be judged differently by all human being. Plato and Thrasymachus had different opinion when it came to the notion of justice. Thrasymachus focused on obedience and Plato defined in two analogs.
As for morality, there exist several explanations for what morality is.For some it is the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. For others it is the particular system of values and principles of conduct.
What is morality? Merriam-Webster dictionary states that morality is/are the beliefs about what right behavior is and what wrong behavior is
Over many years people have seemed to develop their thinking concerning morality based on resulting in interactions with individuals and social institutions. Different societies have their own cultures that have different ideas about how humans are to behave. Societies
Morality is making the distinction between doing what is beneficial or doing what is detrimental. Everything in this world is connected and depends on a sense of morality. “We care for people, billions of organisms, and myriads of habitats they support, because we now appreciate that we draw our life from each other, and that we are all mutually implicated in each other’s fate” (Wirzba 88). Our lives are ultimately connected with the state and well-being of other individuals. We discern the fate of ourselves when we care about the fate of others. If we choose to disregard the needs of our settings, we are living immorally in regard to our surroundings and ourselves.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Some people believe what is morally right is liked by people because it is morally right, and others believe morality is determined by what society likes. In order to say which option is correct, it is necessary to distinguish them from each other. The first possibility suggests that moral values are universal and, that actions are unarguably either righteous or unrighteous. Additionally, it implies that humans don 't choose what is moral or immoral. Accordingly, morality is a predetermined law that humans follow simply because it is innately right. On the other hand, the second possibility suggests that people decide what is morally right or wrong. This means morality only exists within the constrains of society and the mind. In other words, the only reason something is right or wrong is because a person or group thinks it is
However the Qur’an never once states that killing innocent people over political debates and the rights of women in these third world countries is acceptable. But as you can see regardless of this the Taliban took a murderous approach in order to make a stand against what they believe in, using what they believe were their rights given to them by the readings in the Qur’an. Although this is an extreme case it goes to show the extreme lengths people are willing to go to in order to gain power by shutting others off. Which further shows that Religion can be a helpful cover and be a powerful motivator for the evil- hearted. Most importantly the fact that religions effects on society can be so broad, really says more about human psychology than it does about religion. As quoted by David Hart,” Religious conviction often provides the sole compelling reason for refusing to kill... Or for seeking peace... the truth is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables but killing is a human
Before diving head first into the issues surrounding morals and morality, it is important to have a clear idea of exactly what morals and morality are. First, morals are a set of rules that tell us which actions are permissible and which actions should be denounced by all people. These rules are not a matter of pure personal opinion, feeling or taste. Jan Narveson states in Moral Matters: "[w]hen you have an opinion about morals, it isn't just an opinion about what you, in particular, are to do. For it is also an opinion about what everybody else should do" (MM, 12). Second, these are rules that govern over everybody, not a single individual, or group, or society. If morals did not apply to everybody, what would be the point of acting morally? Most people might act morally, an...
Morality involves what we ought to do regarding right and wrong and/or good and bad based on our values, virtues and principles (Gray, JW). Something is moral if it is the right thing to do or rational thing to do based on the facts presented in a situation. Objectivity is the state or quality of being true even outside of one’s individual biases, interpretations, and feelings (Wikipedia). Objective decisions are ones that are not based on personal feelings or opinions, but instead it is based on the circumstances and facts presented when considering a particular decision. I shall argue that morality that is case-by-case or situational can still be objective without universal or general rules.
In other to evaluate the nature of a culture/society, morals and ethics are needed. What exactly is “morals”? Merriam-Webster defines “morals” as concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior, basically what one think is right or good. Ethics, on the other hand is the discipline relating to right and wrong, moral duty and obligation, and moral principles and values. They both can have a similar definition but they both have their distinctions. "Ethics" is a universal or philosophical system of moral principles and values, while “morality" is the relative standards or values of any social group or person.
Morality is set of principles guiding us to evaluate that what is right or wrong, and it builds the personal character, reasonable behavior and choices of a person as well as helps people to justify decisions, goals, and actions all through the life. The fabric of any society is held together by the standards of morality that we maintain and practice. The values our personal set is the belief about what is important, unimportant, right, wrong, good, and bad which have the same value with morality. When we are confronted by choices, opinions, or moral dilemmas, the decisions we make will indicate what values we hold. Morality gives worthiness and respect to life. Moral values are a kind of standard that teach us good virtues such as honesty,