A World Without Morality By Sezlyn Petersen Essay

Over the last several decades, long established taboo, including the right to abortion, the right to death, and LGBTQIA+ rights have become much more acceptable throughout the United States. Consequently, it seems like basic moral norms are up to the interpretation of current and societal ideals. Moral relativism is the belief that the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ exist only by comparison to a society’s moral code. It is an enticing moral theory in a world where so little seems absolute. Paul Boghossian, author of “The Maze of Moral Relativism” too believes that this idea of relativism is gaining popularity and importance in contemporary culture. However, he not only believes that moral relativism is not true, but an illogical or ‘incoherent’ moral theory. Moral relativism, he claims, cannot exist because there is no middle ground between ‘moral absolutism,’ the idea that moral facts are true across all cultures and time, and ‘moral nihilism,’ the rejection of all morality as people understand it, including the ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Boghossian’s argument is able to logically destroy moral relativism, leaving little option other than to accept that absolute morality exists somewhere.

According to the definition of the Moral Compass text, moral compass is the reflective, international adoption of values and behaviors as a framework for realizing the good in oneself, in others, and in the social and material environment. My own moral compass is constructed mainly by my parents and the eastern social values and principles of relationships, which are largely influenced by the thoughts and ideas of Buddhism, Taoism and the Confucianism. Among them, Confucianism affects my country’s social values and furthermore my parents and my moral compass the most. In the contrast of Western culture, Confucianism puts a huge emphasis on the relationships between individuals in family, school,

In Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel Brave New World, John (referred to as “the savage”) is the voice of freedom in a society ruled by an inexorable pursuit of superficial happiness. In the dystopian setting, the world controllers maintain public satisfaction “but at a very high price—the sacrifice of freedom, individuality, truth, beauty, a sense of purpose, and the concept of God” (Neilson). John’s unorthodox beliefs about monogamy, God, drugs, and freedom clash with that of the overwhelming majority of people in the totalitarian London utopia. This barrier is rooted in John’s natural moral development as opposed to the artificial conditioning of the rest of society and it leads to John’s complete isolation from the people of London.

In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.

John, also known as John the Savage, is the son of Linda and his father, who are both members of Utopia. He was born and raised on the Savage Reservation. John is an outsider both on the Reservation - where the natives still practise marriage, natural birth, family life and religion - and the apparently civilised Brave New World: a totalitarian welfare-state based on principles of stability and happiness, even if it`s a happiness of a superficial and bland nature.

Published in 1866, Crime and Punishment showcases the struggles of a young man attempting to find his place within society as he deals with the immoral judgement and guilt that overcame him when he murdered an older lady. Succeeding that book in 1932 Brave New World also mirrors the attempts of a man trying to find his place within a society that’s full of scientific advancement, unnatural births, hierarchy within social classes, and the use of drugs to serve as a type of happiness and religion. Both of these philosophical novels render a scene of society within their time period and, albeit in different time periods, both have similar underlying scenarios of attempting to find morals and ethical decisions. Brave New World and Crime and Punishment

James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.

Over the course of this school year, the resurfacing topic of controversy is morality. Through the memoirs of Elie Wiesel, the darkness of humanity reveals itself. The sad truth this tells is that humans are callous or immoral to fellow man on an individual, national, and even global scale, leading to events that go down in history as atrocities. The international debate this raises, is whether nations, like America, should institute a policy of 'humanitarian military intervention' which is when an independent government fails to deliver human rights to the governed, other countries without permission can intervene with military force. Morality is the focus of the international debate regarding this foreign policy, because that underlying motivation

    The founders of America believed that a popular government and its laws necessarily rested upon an underlying moral order that preceded both the state and man-made law. They referred to this transcendent moral order in the Declaration of Independence as "self evident truths" and "the laws of nature and of nature's god" (Barr pg. 211). For a republic to work, the founders thought, the people had to internally guided by commonly shared moral values. The founders viewed themselves as launching a great experiment: Could a free people retain a moral culture that would promote the self-discipline and virtues needed to restrain corruption? "We are still, in many ways, 'the shining city on the

Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46).

The ethical theory of moral absolutism has raised many arguments since Plato produced the Theory of the Forms. Philosophers have argued over it for centuries; whether it is correct, whether we should be absolutists or relativists or whether we bypass both of these theories and decide our actions based on virtuous people.

1. Consequentialist moral theories see the moral rightness or wrongness of actions as a function of their results. If the consequences are sufficiently good, the action is right; if they are sufficiently bad, the action is wrong. However, nonconsequentialist theories see other factors as also relevant to the determination of right and wrong.

In chapter one of James Rachels’s What is Morality, he argues that at the very minimum, morality is using reason to guide one 's decisions, while keeping in mind the interests of those who will be affected by one’s choice, without giving more weight to one individual over another. He supports this thesis by describing a couple of morally ambiguous situations regarding humanity and life.

In his influential book, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, J.L Mackie begins with the bold claim that “[t]here are no objective values.” Mackie holds that moral judgements are beliefs and that moral statements are propositions, meaning that they are capable of being true or false. However, for Mackie, all such propositions are false, and thus one is in error about what they are actually claiming. In this paper I will summarize two of Mackie’s arguments for why we should accept error theory: the argument from relativity and the argument from queerness. I will then explain two possible positions error theory leaves us with respect to morality —abolitionism and fictionalism —followed by some objections to both. While these positions have certain benefits, their strict forms, I will argue, are ultimately unsatisfying with the addendum that fictionalism seems the more tenable.

government to make us believe that we were the good side while they were the bad