Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sociological Perspective Explaining Deviance
Human morality essay
Human morality essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sociological Perspective Explaining Deviance
Most situations regarding moral rightness, such as those for preserving life and dignity, are very human and easily agreed upon within the environment in which they are born. Greg Koukl’s idea morality and evil is disguised by the sentiment that his ideas are also humanistic and easily agreed upon, but if one were to disagree, he claims it would do nothing more than “put a rock in [the] shoe” of the one who was in disagreement. Seeming to have no idea of sociological deviance, he presents that any deviant behavior away from his personal moral code, and those like it, is “evil” and in “aversion to God”. Even Koukl’s use of usually weak circular logic arguments are weakened by the constant contradictions to his own statements.
At the beginning of the presentation, I was interested in what Mr. Koukl had to say. He seemed to be logical enough, though his statements were vague and simplistic, but I shrugged it off knowing he must be building up to his real argument. The points he made more at the beginning were more directed toward humanity’s plight against evil, “‘How could an omniscient God allow evil in the world?’ The statement only applies when the issue is personal.” Initially I agreed with Koukl’s logic, people are more concerned with their own wellbeing due to the fact that we know more about ourselves than others. If we are to curse someone for the faults in our life, why not curse God? But soon after, this is where we took a turn for the worse. Koukl then goes on to state that Eastern religions don’t believe in the concept of evil, blanketing the entire scope of eastern philosophy under being estranged from God because of “their” idea that evil is just an illusion. For me, this obvious lack of research on his part was enou...
... middle of paper ...
...ing a child’s sprit in hopes they will be happy in the time they have left. To say Russell had no traction in his views was also out of line. Russell had enough moral fiber to face the problem of a dying child head on instead of hiding behind the guise of God and “His” will.
After hearing Koukl’s argument about reconciling evil, I’m beginning to think that true evil is ignorance. Not the privation of a God’s goodness, not the lack of “morality” or denying God, but ignorance to the thoughts feelings and beliefs of others; not only ignorance, but the casting aside and chastising of those values also. I won’t say all of Koukl’s arguments were wrong, to do so would sink to his level, but perhaps it would be in the best interest of his soul to stop being close minded to anything not related to God, lest it become more obvious how ill prepared his arguments really are.
Finally, in Beckwith’s fourth point, he evaluates the absurd consequences that follow moral relativist’s arguments. In his final critique, Beckwith uses typical philosophical examples that Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, and it is wrong to torture babies. Beckwith argues that for anyone to deny these universal claims is seen as absurd, yet it concludes with moral objectivism that there are in fact universally valid moral positions no matter the culture from which those individuals
In the article “Moral Disagreement”, Kwame Anthony Appiah discusses the issue of morality. He uses his cultural background to bring examples of what is the morality of right and wrong. Appiah’s argument is that right and wrong will vary from culture to culture. Even if someone understands a culture completely, they will always have something that they will disagree about. Morality is constantly evolving and changing, and there will always be someone who will argue against a moral concept being right. The following is a rhetorical analysis of Appiah’s credibility, tone, and audience.
Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the
Mere Christianity is divided into four books or sections that build and expand off of the prior. The first book is entitled “Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe” and he examines the common understanding among all men of a universal moral law hardwired in the minds of men. He begins this examination with a presentation of man’s concept of right and wrong. The simplest understanding among all men is the concept of fairness. This fair play points to a law and can be seen in the reactions of mankind to justice and injustice. He contrasts this moral law, the Law of Human Nature, with the law of nature found in the world. The mind of the moral relativist denies such standards yet fail to recognize their call for fairness as a fatal flaw in their reasoning.
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
The problem of evil arguably the most personal and haunting question in apologetics. No heart is untouched by the sting of another’s words and the ultimate display of evil, death. For some, like Elie Wiesel in his autobiography Night, the full scope of human evil is unbearably clear as they are faced with the full measure of human evil. This reality of evil often leads to two responses: “since there is evil, there cannot be a god” or “if there is a god, he cannot be loving or powerful, or worse, he enjoys evil.” By exploring the nature of evil, developing loving, Christian responses, and historical evils like the persecution of the Jews, the problem of evil and the hope depicted in scripture comes into focus.
Morality is not something that should be easy to comprehend, and philosophers such as Mackie and McDowell are taking the wrong approach when trying to describe morality in natural terms. People need to understand that morality is something supernatural that we don’t have the capacity to comprehend. However, this does not mean that all moral judgments are false. There is a right choice in every scenario, however the variety of scenarios in this world is so grand that one cannot judge it by one code of
On The Genealogy of Morals, Essay I refers to the second stage of human morality—the emergence of the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" as categories o...
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
In Western society and culture, religion and morality have often intertwined and they have reflected their values onto each other. Today it is sometimes impossible to make a distinction between the two, since their influence has transcended generations. In modern Western culture, religion and society preach conformity. In order to be a “good” person, one must conform to the values imposed by the church1 and state.
Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory both had a tough time explaining why culture and God had the rights to state what is considered moral behavior. Especially when you lay your trust on God to guide you on what is moral or not, you face dangerous risks because there is a possibility that God is just a make-believe person up in the sky. Hence, humans who follow God’s words can misinterpret his meanings and cause immoral behavior in society. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism appeals to an authority that is present on this in this world, society and cultures. Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal. Despite the differences between The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism, they both are theories that just fall short of their
In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way. This essay shows that Stocker’s challenge may also hold against versions of Virtue Ethics, such as that put forth by Rosalind Hursthouse in her article "Virtue Theory and Abortion." The second objective of this discussion is to examine criticisms of Stocker made by Kurt Baier in his article "Radical Virtue Ethics." This essay demonstrates that in the end Baier’s objections are not convincing.
Kreeft, Peter. (1988).“The Problem of Evil.” Chapter 7 in Fundamentals of the Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
All people worldwide go through the process of moral reasoning, which has been defined as "a cognitive process by which individuals make decisions about moral issues and justify these decisions, regardless of the context of the issue" (Gardiner, 1998, p.176). But not all of these people come to the s...
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.