Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morality what does it mean
New testament concept of morality
Morality what does it mean
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Upon reading the Shantung Compound, one can note professor Gilkey’s contrasting views between the daily life of the compound and his own stance on life. He begins to contemplate on the idea of morality and examines the contradicting behavior of those around him. This is primarily due to his experience of food parcels and a shortage of supplies. It can be argued that materialism damages our ability to act morally. The underlying reason for this argument is the notion of “self” and its relationship to materialism. It begins with a selfish desire to make sure one’s needs are met without considering the predicament others are in. The absence of morality facilitates a life without meaning. The consequence of such a life is that everything becomes …show more content…
Gilkey argues, “Such a theory of moral action as a means merely to personal holiness completely ignores the fact that moral action has to do primarily with the relations between persons in a community.” When one eliminates his or her duty to society and focuses entirely on what he or she desires, the individual is only able to live at the expense of others. An example of this is being rich and not having to worry about food; however, many refuse to give up their life of luxury to help the poor. Although these individuals may give a small donation, they look for ways to enhance their lifestyle. They may buy the trendiest clothes or the latest car. They are only living for themselves and lose their sense of purpose or meaning in …show more content…
Gilkey states, “What is economic or social security when all is insecure? What is fame when the cheering crowds have taken to the hills? What is social prestige in a society which lives huddled in caves and subway stations?” If the primary focus of human beings is to get rich and obtain all material possessions, then the time for self-evaluation is minimal. One cannot grow in their moral character and reflect on goodness while he or she is preoccupied with other things. Similarly, being moral requires human beings to act through relationship because one’s actions could affect the other
John Stapleford’s book, Bulls, Bears, and Golden Calves, provides a thorough overview with a Christian perspective of economic and ethical analysis. He reviews the moral challenges of macro, micro, and international economic issues. Stapleford covers a variety of important public policy issues such as self-interest, economic efficiency, and private property rights. He begins the book by laying a foundation of ethical thought and an analytical framework. Stapleford provides a Biblical perspective on the practical issues facing our current society. For example, there are three billion people in the world who live on less than $2 a day (Stapleford, 2009). The wealthy Americans continue to get richer. The greed and lawlessness of America’s corporate boardrooms is increasing. Legalized gambling continues to increase every year. The expansion of pornography and its accessibility to America’s younger generations has become a rapidly growing epidemic (Stapleford, 2009). This text is grounded solidly in biblical principles. A number of the problems he discusses are not specifically addressed in the Bible, but one of the author's strengths is to develop a Christian rationale for contemporary issues, based on biblical principles. An example of this skill is found in his forceful chapter on "False Hope . . . The Boom in Legalized Gambling" (Stapleford, 2009).
185). I was shown early on that doing for others is satisfying. Unfortunately I believe this is a dying virtue. Every year our 4-H club has a brat and hamburger fundraiser for our club at the local grocery store. I encourage the children to go and ask patrons if they can help them with their groceries. We encourage community service and have several projects yearly to encourage stronger moral acts and virtues among our members. Kyte states, “A family, a business, or a community that is concerned about ethics would be well advised to focus first on building a culture of good relationships by focusing on character” (2012, p. 211). That character building is what we need to build in our children and in ourselves.
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
"An attempt to trace the defects of human society back to the defects of human nature. The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectable."
Does it have a specific contribution to make to our understanding of moral experience? Is there a price to be paid for its different perspective, and if so, is the price worth paying?” This opening statement gives us a taste of his thoughts about VE already. Louden goes to raise his objections. I will consider the objections he raises under the headings in his article, those being ‘Agents vs Acts’ , ‘Who is Virtuous’ , ‘Style over Substance’ , and ‘Utopianism’ .
In the article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer expresses his displeasure with people not preventing bad things from happening, even when it is within their power. Spending money on buying extravagant goods instead of giving it to the needy seems to be a foreign concept to him. He questions how human beings can be so inhumane to ignore other’s sufferings. Singer is an utilitarian and believes in lending aid to the underprivileged. Through his paper, Singer argues that well-to-do people are morally obligated to help the impoverished. He also writes about the objections made on his viewpoints and responds to them with solutions.
Is human nature inherently selfless or selfish? Although a seemingly simple concept, the aforementioned question has long been a profoundly controversial topic. While many claim that humans are intrinsically compassionate and inclined to help those in need, others argue that people instinctively prioritize their own individual security over other people’s welfares. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s literary works, “Young Goodman Brown” and The Scarlett Letter, as well as F. Scott Fitzgerald’s renowned novel, The Great Gatsby, all reference the idea that people impulsively pursue perfection, as determined by their community’s values. While different communities establish different standards for perfection, society as whole romanticizes the idea of perfection and subsequently people strive to create the illusion of a perfect life. How an individual represents the values idealized by a given community determines his/her reputation in that community. Although people may appear to wholesomely follow the values idolized by their community, in reality, human nature is inherently flawed, making it impossible for people to achieve perfection.
...ticipation correlate directly with the correct practice of “self-interest rightly understood” and we accept both Michael Sandel’s thesis about the rise of the “voluntarist self” and Robert Putnam’s thesis describing the decline of American social and political capital—then a gloomy picture emerges about the sustainability of virtue in the hands of enlightened self-interest alone. Without guidance in a wide expanse of interstitial space, it is easy to slip through the cracks.
...ife. No one in this world is a higher status than others morally. According to Singer, “progress sometimes requires drastic revisions”, that we should see ourselves in the same moral value just like everyone else. An example given to counteract his argument was about slavery. Slavery has occurred a long time ago, and today people have learned that slavery is morally wrong, that no matter the color of our skin, or any physical appearance, people are equal. People will always show ignorance to the things that they are yet to fully understand. However, as times go by people will realize and be aware of the moral right things, that in the previous example of the “Shallow Pond” and “The envelope”, personal satisfaction and pleasure will always be sacrificed in order to do the right thing and my own goals, and interests would need to be abandoned.
Society today is split in many different ways: the smart and the dumb, the pretty and the ugly, the popular and the awkward, and of course the rich and the poor. This key difference has led to many areas of conflict among the population. The rich and the poor often have different views on issues, and have different problems within their lives. Moral decay and materialism are two issues prevalent among the wealthy, while things such as socio-economic class conflict and the American dream may be more important to those without money. Ethics and responsibilities are an area of thought for both classes, with noblesse oblige leaning more towards the wealthy.
has to be a recognition of a duty to a higher being, not to just social
To act morally means one must think and act in such a way that always considers, supports, and attempts to improve general welfare; furthermore, such thoughts and actions must occur because of moral intentions, not just because one has to. Also, pre-defined rules exist for the common good and these rules help with moral judgment. Such rules would include “no killing”, “no stealing”, and “no lying”. These don’t exist to provide an advantage or cause disadvantage—they exist simply for the good of every individual. To have morality means one must always adhere to these rules no matter the consequences, who is affected, or how it happens, because they only ensure the most good for everyone. However, one’s own standards for morality must also remain considerate of that of others’.
In our discussion I focused upon applying the concepts of choice, imperatives, human worth, and external human conditions to an analysis of twenty first century societies: Tibet and China. We began by listing indicators of freedom of choice in the movie that were distinctly Kantian or Utilitarian. For instance, the captains initial strategy for keeping the lifeboat moving towards land was to save everyone, not even considering the hardships of having ill and injured people aboard. However, there was a socialite on the boat who repeatedly placed her worth above others and entertained the idea of killing off or throwing off other people. She displayed expediency, the quality of being practical despite immorality. We then compared this to the
Morality can be based on consciousness and various perspectives but morals, regardless of distinct cultures, have a core fundamental of comprehending what is right and wrong. By this, we are held to an obligation to assist those in need. This means that we should feel obligated to do whatever it is within our might to aid situations that need assistance.
wanting to give more than what they have. moral character of the rich and the poor and