Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between religion and morality
Morality and its relation with religion
Morality is relative to what
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The relationship between religion and morality
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies …show more content…
Moral decisions are based on ethics such as divine command theories, ethics of conscience or ethics of our inner voice, ethical egoism, ethics of duty, ethics of respect, ethics of rights, ethics of Justice, virtue ethics and utilitarianism which is an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness, and wrong if it ends in unhappiness. Socrates and his contemporaries were the first to undertake by reasoned analysis and arguments to investigate how one ought to lead one’s life and, on that basis, to reject uncritical reliance on the traditional authorities in these matters. The claim that they are to be regarded as the first moral philosophers rests on their self-conscious appeal to the authority of reason in determining how one ought to lead one’s life, and there attention to devising methods appropriate for the employment of reason in investigating the questions that arose in this connection. No complete writing of any of this first generation of moral philosophers survives. The principal lines of the later debates were shaped by this first generation of moral theorists. Three treatises on ethics survive under Aristotle’s name: Magna Moralia, Eudemian Ethics, and the
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
In our generation, there is so much ability and freedom to do what appeals to each person as an individual. With all this freedom, we often forget to stop before acting, and question if our choices are ethical. What exactly are ethics? Ethics are according to Oxford Dictionary "Moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity." Taken down to its essence, to be an ethical person, one must have morals. What are morals? Again, pulling from Oxford Dictionary "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." With these definitions given, morality becomes subjective. But really
In society today there are many religions and cultures that each in their own way preaches different values. Morality is a subject that is often studied and analyzed to evaluate how people act and why they act in that manner. Being moral refers to “what persons ought to do in order to conform to society’s norms of behavior” (Beauchamp, 1997, p.2). Without morality it would be very difficult to have expectations on how people would act within society. This would in turn impact day to day interactions with strangers as with no morals of how one should act to their neighbor, there would be no mutual trust. If someone questions the conventional customs and laws of their culture and religion, why should they be good? If someone does not want to conform to the norms of their religion, they will have little to no
“The sanctity of the oath” (Keillor 102), the controversial hot topic of this year. This is a subject that has sparked great debates not only to those in Congress, but among the American people as well. Some hold the oath as a promise of civility and humanity. On the other hand, others view the morality the oath is supposed to stand for as unreachable and unattainable. In my opinion Garrison Keillor sums it up in his essay, “The Republicans Were Right, But.” I feel this is a good essay based upon the author’s argument of morality, his use of symbolism, and the entire structure of the essay.
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
In every civilized society you will always find many varying forms of morality and values, especially in the United States of America. In Societies such as these you find a mosaic of differing religions, cultures, political alignments, and socio economic backgrounds which suggests that morality and values are no different. In Friedrich Nietzsche’s book, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses morality and the two categories that you will find at the very basis of all varieties of morality. One category of morality focuses on the “Higher Man” and his superiority to all those under him and his caste. The second system is derived from those of a lower caste that may be used by those in higher castes to further themselves and society. These categories as described by Nietzsche are known as Master Morality and Slave Morality. In this modern time in our culture, morality is becoming a more polarizing topic than ever before. Morality is often times held synonymous with religious practice and faith, although morality is an important part of religion and faith, everyone has some variation of morality no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Friedrich Nietzsche’s theories on morality, Master and Slave Morality, describe to categories of morality which can be found at the very basis of most variations of morality. Master and Slave morality differ completely from each other it is not uncommon to find blends of both categories from one person to another. I believe the Master Morality and Slave Morality theories explain not only religious affiliations but also political alignments and stances on certain social issues in American society. By studying the origins and meanings of Nietzsche’s theories, comparing these theories to c...
Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United
“Decreased moral standards and ethics related to ignorance to accepted social behavior standards”. Morality is defined as an understanding and distinguishing right and wrong and behaving according to socially accepted standards (The Definition of Morality, 2002). People can be inconsiderate and conflictful. From the assessment, it was evident that some people have lack of respect to other’s personal properties and even their own. Abandoned houses and trash on properties suggest social and moral degradations. Some of the contributing factors might be poverty, unemployment, and mental illnesses. Lack of morality might be a problem that affects other states and even countries. However, in some areas of Spokane, it is evident that people
As a cultural relativist, one would believe that morality is culturally bound. This is a subjective idea that believes “different societies have different moral codes” (Rachels,
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
Cultural relativism is the idea that moral and ethical systems varying from culture to culture, are all equally credible and no one system is morally greater than any other. Cultural relativism is based on the concept that there is no “ultimate” standard of good and evil, so the judgement of what is seen as moral, or immoral, is simply a product of one’s society and/or culture. The general consensus of this view is that there is no ethical position that may be considered “right” or “wrong” in terms of society and culture (Cultural Relativism). In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is not an adequate view of morality by providing evidence of its most common logical problems and faulty reasoning.
One of Aristotle’s best-known works was Nicomachean ethics, or better known as virtue ethics. Aristotle explained if an individual were to live a virtuous life, then that individual is living a happy life. Therefore, virtue ethics focuses on happiness and the way to reach the highest level of happiness for an individual. Within Aristotle’s ethical theory, he focuses on three key terms: eudaimonia, arête, and telos. Eudaimonia refers to the highest level of good or happiness an individual can be reached. Additionally, Aristotle states that eudaimonia is acquired through moral goodness as well as reached through the practice of virtue or
The Objectivity and Rationality of Morality According to Kant morality is rational and objective. It is based on
Truth, virtue, morality and sin are subjects of much controversy and debate in Western culture and the Church—these topics become more amplified especially within the confines of our political system. As American society ventures further away from the Christian ideals and principles once implemented at the foundations of our nation, these concepts continue to blur and become less important to the collective mind of our nation. Some may argue that these principles should remain separate from government and the political arena, stating that Christian ideals such as these are “antiquated” or “out of touch” with the direction society is heading; however, one ought to argue that government should never be separate from these ideals and it was the