Gandhi argues that the golden rule of conduct is mutual tolerance, because of everyone's varying thoughts and views of the subject. Gandhi also argues although conscience is a good guide that everyone's conscience is not the same and it should not be used to interfere with someone else's way of thinking. I think that Gandhi is arguing from a view of ethical objectivism because, objectivism is the belief that there is a reality, objects and facts, that varies from each independent of the mind. Ethical Objectivism means that there is only one correct perception of reality, and takes primacy over consciousness. Because of the existence of consciousness, and the function of consciousness is related to the grasp of existence, the underlying objective
reality can be perceived in different ways. I believe a ethical subjectivist would argue that there is no objective moral property and that ethical statements are arbitrary ,because they do not express the truth. Moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes of observers, and any ethical statement only implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Although they also believe that tolerance should be expressed an ethical subjectivist would claim Gandhi is basing his thought of morality instead of common sense.
“ First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” (Mahatma Gandhi). Gandhi was born in 1869 in Porbandar. Throughout his life Gandhi helped those in need. He was taught that everyone and everything is holy. He married at the custom age of 19 and went to London to study law. The thing that helped Gandhi promote nonviolence is that he worked his entire life saying that violence didn’t change the way people acted. He lived his life saying that an eye for an eye only made the whole world blind. Gandhi’s nonviolent movement worked because he had something to prove and everyone else in the world agreed with him.
To all humans, the most important and influential thing is arguably your own morals. It decides the things you do, the things you say, and controls your overall desires and goals. Morals come from many places, such as nature versus nurture. Many of your morals come from your parents, be it because you learned what they taught, good or bad, or dislike what they taught so you chose the opposite, the rest is already consciously and basically instinctual. This is a very simple way to explain something very complex. In Appendix A, George Washington’s “Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation” there is a list of basic morals and behaviors that he believes everyone should be aware of and it is a very interesting read, especially if some of them you may have never considered. While the list can be outdated at times because of the progression of society and culture, a lot of these rules are still very important. In appendix B, there are a list of ‘cognitive bias’ or things that happen subconsciously that effect the way we view things or act. These two sets of information offer a very interesting perspective, especially when applied to each other. From these lists, I have picked a total of 15 rules that I believe to be the most important in becoming a self-aware individual who is
From the beginning of humankind, people have constantly had to deal with inner battles. Many of these issues cease to exist as time goes on, while new ones arise to take their place. There is one issue, however, that has remained consistent throughout time – morality. For centuries, humans have fought against the outside world and themselves to keep their morals properly aligned. The issue of morality is so dominant that it is still plays a vital role in today’s society. This can be seen in wars, law systems, codes of conduct, and religious texts. An example of a religious text where this can be seen is in pages 185 - 188 of the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna, also referred to as “The Blessed One”, guides Arjuna through his inner struggles between
There have been several famous legal cases where an individual commits a crime decades ago before it was revealed. The question here is whether the person who committed the crime long ago should still be punished even though he/she has been clean ever since the wrongdoing. Some people would say that it depends on the severity of the crime; some would say you should pay for your crime no matter what you have committed. The matter of whether a person should be punished for what he/she has done long time ago arises in the Law and Order episode “White Rabbit”. In this episode, Susan Forest was found twenty-three years after she took part in a robbery intended as a protest against the Vietnam War. During the robbery, a policeman was killed and the case here is whether Susan should be punished for a crime she participated long time ago. According to rule and idea of Categorical Imperative given by Immanuel Kant in his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Susan should be sentenced for the crime she did no matter how long ago it happened or how upstanding of a member she is in the society.
Everyone has some kind of doubt about morality. When we make a moral judgement we believe this has to have some objective background to make it true and Mackie argues that this is false. Basically, when we are making a claim we are in error which is why his theory is called the “error theory”. (Class notes, pg.16)Mackie believes that there are two important arguments to prove to you that there is no such thing as ethical objectivism.
I would hope that everyone behaves as we wish others to behave, because it shows you have integrity. Self-interest is not unethical; if you do not behave as we wish others to behave that is your personal choice and based on your ethical values. Many would think of “The Golden Rule”. However, it is easier to tell others to live by this rule than to actually put this rule into action. According to a newsletter written by William Scott Green, called Parsing Reciprocity: Questions for the Golden Rule, “The Golden Rule is easier to endorse than to enact. As a general moral principle or as an abstract statement of ethical value, the Golden Rule makes intuitive sense and enjoys wide acceptance across religions and cultures. But the generality and abstraction that enable its broad appeal make the Golden Rule problematic as a directive for practical action. Indeed, on Gert’s analysis, it is possible that the Golden Rule must be read figuratively or very expansively in order to be used, surely a challenge for any basic moral principle. The Golden Rule can be accepted unambiguously but applied only after considerable reflection and qualification.” After reading this article, it confirms to me that it is easier to tell others to behave as we wish others to behave than to actually do it. People will live by “The Golden Rule” only if they choose to in certain situations. My answer to this question does not conflict with my answer to question
Gandhi is a strong believer in hinduism and a bit of Jainism. Within both of these religions there is the idea of Ahimsa. Ahimsa means not to kill, it is also the concept of non-violence and the fact that any violence leads to consequences. This is where Gandhi got his ideas of nonviolence and civil disobedience. When the British Government tries to raise land taxes and increase India’s border tax, Gandhi uses the idea of Ahimsa and civil-disobedience to disobey the British Government, yet not violate and laws in a violent way. “‘Ahimsa’ is another Indian word for which there is no exact English word. Ahimsa means nonkilling, but actually it means much more than that. To live according to the doctrine of ahimsa is to feel only love for all living things.”(Gandhi 99) This quote shows what Ahimsa means and how Gandhi would implement it into his everyday life. As Gandhi mainly believes in hinduism, this shows how his religious beliefs affected him and influenced his belief of Ahimsa. Even though Gandhi himself was a Hindu, he did not agree with all of their ideas. He especially did not agree with the Hindu caste system. In which certain castes were assigned certain roles in society, and assigned certain classes of families. Gandhi believed in equality for everyone, and he wanted to rule out the untouchables, the lowest caste of people in hinduism. “Below the four castes are the Untouchables, or outcastes, who
Sri Aurobindo said that nothing can be taught, the try principle of a teacher is to be a guide and not an instructor. A teacher’s role was
Mahatma Gandhi and Thomas Aquinas were two of the most influential philosophers of their respective times. Aquinas’s theological ideas on politics, ethics, and natural law have influenced have been a great influence western civilization and he is also held in high regard within the Catholic faith tradition, being honored as a saint. Gandhi was an influential leader in the movement for India’s freedom from British rule. He preached a philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience and is held as the inspiration for civil rights leaders and non-violent activists around the world. Both philosophers sought to instruct others on how to live a virtuous life and help contribute towards the common good of all people. However, Aquinas and Gandhi hold different views on how their shared goal is to be met. When comparing the two philosophies, one finds that Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy of natural law is superior to Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha since it allows individuals and countries a way to justifiably defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm.
Dalton, Dennis. “Mahatma Gandhi Selected Political Writings.” Indianapolis, Indiana. 1996. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 125. Text
Morals are the principles that we use to decipher right from wrong, or good from bad. Many people seem to have different morals that they live by because of the different things they believe are acceptable or good to do. This issue brings up the question, are morals unique to each individual person, or is there a standard of true morals for every person to live by? Matt Lawrence’s book, Like a Splinter in Your Mind, says that opposing sides to that question can be split into two broad categories called moral objectivism and moral non-objectivism. The idea that there is a true basic standard of morality for everyone is called moral objectivism. Moral non-objectivism is the view that no morals are objectively true, meaning either morals don’t
Part 1: Evaluate Richard Taylor's view that morality is a matter not of rational principles but of having your heart in the right place. Explore the pros and cons of such a view.
Every day we are confronted with questions of right and wrong. These questions can appear to be very simple (Is it always wrong to lie?), as well as very complicated (Is it ever right to go to war?). Ethics is the study of those questions and suggests various ways we might solve them. Here we will look at three traditional theories that have a long history and that provide a great deal of guidance in struggling with moral problems; we will also see that each theory has its own difficulties. Ethics can offer a great deal of insight into the issues of right and wrong; however, we will also discover that ethics generally won’t provide a simple solution on which everyone can agree (Mosser, 2013).
Martin Luther King once said, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him”. Throughout history, people have committed numerous acts of crime from stealing to fighting, to war. These acts of violence had never done any good to mankind but had continuously harmed mankind. Mahatma Gandhi was a leader who had promoted and inspired people across the world to continue the acts of Ahimsa. Gandhi spread his acts of Ahimsa inspiring the American Civil Rights Movement, Nelson Mandela, and Harper Lee showing that Gandhi’s beliefs of non violence should be continued.
In order to better understand Gandhi’s philosophy, we need to bear in mind that all of his life was striving for independence of India from British colony. Indian independence means that all Indians are controlled by themselves rather than one hundred thousand of British. He used the Sanskrit word swaraj to express his ambition of India’s independence. The original meaning of swaraj is self-governance or self-rule. Gandhi extended this word by denoting “a sovereign kingdom’s freedom from external control”, on the one hand; “being free from illusion and ignorance, free to gain greater self-knowledge and consequent self-mastery,” on the other hand (Dalton 11). The former is called external swaraj (freedom) and the latter is called internal swaraj