Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction ethical decision making and moral judgment
Moral code and culture
Moral decision making
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
J. Mackie in his essay, “The Subjectivity of Values”, geared his audience towards the idea that not all people’s moral values are necessarily the same. Not every person has the same value for certain circumstances, objects or other things which moral values can be applied to. Mackie explains moral values somewhat like this; that they are not necessarily based on behavior alone but that behavior can have some affect within certain values. Not all people that act similar necessarily will have the same values. I see Mackie trying to explain his view as many similar people have similar interests, but at the same time there is always those people who are similar by action but different by mentality and ethics. That is where Mackie drew the difference between the idea people were getting that he was solely basing his ideas off …show more content…
In the end I see Mackie saying that there are no morally good people, however that is only because there is no such thing as morally good or bad people. Mackie’s argument from queerness comes in two set points. The first point being the metaphysical argument, is that objective values would be radically different from anything in our experience; “if there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe. ” And the second point is stated as an epistemological argument, is that there would be no way to know these queer things without a special, non-empirical means of knowing them (intuition). Through this argument it seems as though Mackie is telling us that objective moral facts should create urge in ourselves to do whatever it is we are urged to do, yet morality cannot make us do anything itself and therefore leads to Mackie to seem to conclude with the idea that there are indeed no such thing as moral
Bruce Barron is a well-known Christian author of many books on the Christian faith, as well as the author of the essay, “PUTTING WOMEN IN THEIR PLACE: 1 TIMOTHY 2 AND EVANGELICAL VIEWS OF WOMEN IN CHURCH LEADERSHIP”. Barron starts off his essay giving some background on the current battle going on in churches today and how various denominations are deciding to go in different paths when it comes to a woman’s role in the church.
In the article “Moral Disagreements”, Kwame Anthony Appiah discusses how disagreements occur when value based questions are asked. Appiah states the relevance of this topic by mentioning that individuals do not have to go to distances in order to be engaged in a moral discussion. Due to technology the world is more connected than ever, brining everyone together regardless of location. This results in the display of various cultures, believes and values. It is important to keep in mind that “if we are to encourage cosmopolitan engagement, moral conversations between people across societies, we must expect disagreements.” According to Appiah it is crucial to understand that every society is unique. There are similarities across societies
In Tobias Wolff’s 1985 short story “The Rich Brother,” we are introduced to two brothers. According to Wolf, you cannot even tell that they are brothers because of their physical differences, but as the story goes into more detail we can tell that they are different in every aspect. One of the major differences is that one is wealthy and the other is always in need of financial assistance. The older brother, Pete, is a successful real estate agent while his younger brother, Donald, works as a painter whenever he can. The two brothers are very different in their belief about what is valuable. Pete is a man that has worked hard and values what he has acquired. His brother Donald, on the other hand, values sharing whatever he has. Even if giving everything he has leaves him with nothing.
Though individuals live by and react similarly to various situations, not all people have the same morals. I can relate to instances where I have supported a belief, regardless of the criticisms that arise, all because my choice is based upon personal morals. The same can be said regarding Debra J. Dickerson as she expresses in her novel, An American Story. In Carol Gilligan’s “Concepts of Self and Morality,” she states, “The moral person is one who helps others; goodness in service, meeting one’s obligations and responsibilities to others, if possible without sacrificing oneself” (170). After considering this statement, I strongly feel that Gilligan’s proposal lacks the depth to accurately characterize the moral person, but I am able to accept the argument raised by Joan Didion. Her essay entitled, “On Morality,” clearly provides a more compelling and acceptable statement in describing the moral person by saying, “I followed my own conscience, I did what I thought was right” (181). Joan Didion’s proposal is precise and acceptable. It is obvious that as long as people follow what they believe is the right thing to do, and approach the situation maturely, their actions can be considered examples of morality, and they can then be considered moral human beings.
Ogien defines “character broadly speaking, [as] a certain way of acting or feeling that is consistent, that is, stable over time and unvarying from one situation to the next” (Ogien 123). For Aristotle, “virtue, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean…relative to us, this being determined by…that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine…and acquired by repetition” (Aristotle 124, 129). Mark Timmons, a moral philosopher, also makes a slight distinction between character and virtue by defining virtue as “(1) a relatively fixed trait of character (2) typically involving dispositions to think, feel, and act in certain ways in certain circumstance, and (3) is a primary basis for judging the overall moral goodness or worth of persons” (Timmons 212). Additionally, bioethicists Tom Beauchamp and James Childress define virtue in terms of “a trait of character that is socially valuable and a moral virtue [as] a trait of character that is morally valuable” (Beauchamp 31). My reason for going through the ways in which different philosophers have defined virtue is to (1) show that Ogien critiques virtue ethics without correctly representing the term virtue in the theory or defining virtue at all and (2) to show that among moral philosophers (at least read for this week) there is commonality in defining virtue in some way or another as a fixed character. (3) Just because a person possesses a certain character trait that does not mean that that person is virtuous and (4) in regard to the Milgram experiments, there is no way to determine the virtuous character of the subjects involved based solely on this one experiment alone. Virtuous character requires consistency of a particular character trait. Virtue is not a one-time act or an act on occasion. From the point-of-view of virtue ethics, we can only “take as a sign of states of character the pleasure or
Journalist Jon Krakauer reassembles the fact of life of a young man who leaves his family and society to find true himself. Krakauer intends to reveal Christopher McCandless’s character and nature by interacting people who influenced him. The more people were attached to him, get to know more about him in depth; those who know him from outside often refered him as careless. In the book Into the Wild Krakauer presents McCandless as modest and caring person whereas other may see him as thoughtless.
A second and stronger objection to Mackie’s version of the problem of evil is explained to us using the terms 1st and 2nd order goods and evils. 1st order goods/evils are purely physical. Examples are pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. It is claimed by many theists that 1st order evils such as pain and suffering are necessary for 2nd order goods like courage and charity. However there exists what Mackie calls a “fatal objection” to this claim and that is that along with 2nd order goods there must also exist 2nd order evil...
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
He believes that a lot of thing that people value in life, such as clothing and medicine, “are unnatural in some sense” (211). Yet, no one suggests those being immoral. On the other hand, disease and death, for example, “are ‘natural’ in the sense that they occur ‘in nature’” (211). So being unusual isn’t enough to be called as immoral. The arguements of abnormal, offensive or disguesting do not make things “unnatural” either because there are activities such as eating snails or cleaning toilets that disguest people but aren’t listed as immoral. Moreover, arguements such as animal practice and moral innation do not label homoseuality unnatural because after all, what is normal can't in any way, shape or form be characterized. By the end of this section, he concluded that “homosexuality is either perfectly natural or, if unnatural, is not unnatural in a way that makes it immoral”
In order for Corvino to make his position that gay sex is not morally “unnatural”, he must first respond to several arguments. Many natural law theorists believe that sexual organs should only be used for three distinct purposes; reproduction, making a home for children through marriage, and emotional bonds. However, Corvino responds to this by arguing many of the human organs can be used for different functions, therefore we cannot make an argument defending only sexual organs. In his work he refers to this principle of what can be considered natural and unnatural when stating, “If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean” (Corvino 84). He uses this statement to support his claim that gay sex is morally natural by proving that society often claims many “unnaturally” processed goods as being natural. If this is the case then we cannot define a human function as “unnatural” with any moral justification.
"Everybody has good and evil within them. All we're trying to say is that people are not all good or all bad. People are more complicated than you think, and one has to be more knowledgeable about the complexities.." Everybody has good and evil within them. All we're trying to say is that people are not all good or all... N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2014. .
“I’ve now realized for the first time in my life, the vital importance of being Earnest. (713.521-523) Jack’s final line demonstrates his understanding of the secret meaning behind “The Importance of Being Earnest”, by Oscar Wilde. That human beings have the capacity to be both good and evil. This is shown through the character of Jack, other character’s relation to Jack, and even in the theatrical elements of the show.
In “7 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Go to College and 4 Things To Do Instead”, Michael Price explains why students shouldn’t go to college and what they can do instead. Michael Price writes for the Huffington Post and is an entrepreneur, author, and master marketer. This article was published June 17, 2014. Price introduces the article by talking about his personal experience during his first day of college as a freshman. Price had been studying business outside of college, and found that his professors terminology of business was “flat out incorrect and in some cases totally outdated” (Price). He was angry that he was paying to be taught incorrect information. Price then goes on to introduce the seven reasons why people should avoid going to college. These reasons consist of how college
Subjectivism in simplest terms is the belief that moral judgments are simply individual expressions of feeling. Subjectivists believe that there are no objective moral truths; they believe that moral truths are only statements that represent how the proponent feels on a particular issue. Therefore, a subjectivist would focus more on Price’s intentions of com...
It seems as though there is so much more evil than good in the world today. We hear of war and fighting 24/7 but we rarely hear about the good things that happen. Everyone is born with both good and bad within them. We, as humans, must choose which one we want to be. In The Lord of the Flies, Ralph is good while Jack is evil. Ralph represents the good side of us while Jack represents the evil side. Although sometimes it is easier to be evil, it pays off to be good. The novel is a perfect example of how all people are born with both sides. At the beginning, the boys choose the good side, with morals and civilization. But as the story moves on, the boys find it more exciting to be on the bad side. It shows that all the boys are torn between good and bad and there is a very thin line that separates both. We realize that people are born inherently good and bad because in life there are always right and wrong choices, children are born good but are easily influenced to do bad, and it is always harder to do what is right than what is wrong.