Analysis Of Morality By J. L. Mackie

Masters and slaves are constantly discussed throughout Nietzsche’s work, but the connection between them is discussed best in his book On the Genealogy of Morality. The first of the three essays outlines two alternate structures for the creation of values, which is credited to masters and the other to slaves.

Chapter 4 of “The Elements Of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels opens up by raising a question. Does morality hinge on religion and does religion then turn contingent to morality? In 1995, Judge Roy Moore was sued for having the Ten Commandments out in plain view on his desk. The American Civil liberties Union was called to act upon this infringement. The union stated that Judge Moore violated the first amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Despite the controversy with the ACLU,

pg. 733, para 1: Murdoch’s purpose is to question the relationship of morality to religion, and

I would like to mention that mine or anyone’s intuition would have to be our own free will, realized by ourselves for it to move forward. In my opinion, and for me, moral compasses have taken precedent. I have developed it through my life experiences, which are the guiding principles that help me make decisions, bring positive responses, actions, and the way I conduct myself with others. Also, how I am able to overcome obstacles in life.

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.

In The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien looks back on the Vietnam War and how the line between right and wrong in personal and societal morals can be lost when a war is morally unclear. Specifically, in the chapter “On the Rainy River,” O’Brien’s personal morality is tested when he must decide whether to flee to Canada to escape the draft or stay and fight in the war. Similarly, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn examines the effect American social values have on Huck Finn’s decisions about his own life and the slave Jim. Both Twain’s and O’Brien’s works reflect the American culture of their day. Each story offers an example of how the “story-truth” the characters describe can be different from the “happening-truth,” and how

Using two articles “On the Origin of Good and Evil” by Richard Taylor and “Why Morality Is Not Relative” by James Rachels from the book Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, author, Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn, this essay will first try to identify what each of two articles says about the nature of good and evil, and is everything on morality is relative. Taylor from the article “On the Origin of Good and Evil”, states that morality is not inspirational, but a natural reality which that mean that we are conative being, and if there are no desires, there are no values and no good or evil. His argument takes place on purposeful and cognizant living being, like ourselves, who reacts to the world in good and bad ways that relate directly to our needs. The six topics Taylor illustrated in the article are men as conative beings, which he talked about men are rational or cognitive beings that men have needs, desires, and goals, they have certain wants and generally go about trying to satisfy them in various ways; conation as the precondition of good and evil, which it is about any distinction between good and evil, and between right and wrong can be made; the emergence of good and evil, the emergence of right and wrong, that if there no good and no evil, there is nothing but bare facts of this kind or that; the emergence of right and wrong, which he explained about ethical notions as right and wrong or for moral obligation as long as we imagined a world

The argument against the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God.

This leads to the conclusion, if you accept the premises then you accept the existence of the greatest being possible, God.

Now the problem here is that if there is a God, then why does evil exist? Here the question it self begins to doubt that if evil exist, then God is not an all powerful perfect being. These are the arguments given:

Crimes are committed on a daily basis by people who are aware of the illegality of their actions and the effect on the victim. Equipped with this knowledge, criminals still make the decision to cross the line of law and morality, crossing the divide between right and wrong. The idea of right and wrong is one of the main concepts society is built on, everyone is aware of it. The perception of this concept, however, is changed by experiences in life, and decisions made in life are based on these perceptions. The distinction between right and wrong will conclude the direction in which one’s moral compass points. An individual’s personal experiences throughout life will transform their ideas of right and wrong, changing

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).

What does it take to behave morally and ethically? Do all people know what morality is and how it can be measured? Certainly, every single person has his or her own set of moral ideas and concepts of right and wrong. Consequently, various people may understand morality differently. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, morality is conformity to ideals of right human conduct. [1] In this research paper I would like to prove that morality can be seen differently for a different person under the same circumstances. I have based my research on a story "A&P" written by John Updike. Though “A&P” is a short story, it definitely has a very deep message. Personally, I believe that John Updike’s writing speaks about moral concepts and decency.

If one were to believe in a human soul, then the value of a human life is incalculable. Gould stated that acts of kindness often go unnoticed and proceeded to site warm food that was brought to the firemen of the September 11th attacks as an example. The casualties of the September 11th attacks total to nearly three thousand deaths and six thousand injuries (“Statistic”); a few warm apple betties cannot and will not balance out one life, let alone the September 11th massacre. The optimistic belief that the negatives of the world are compensated by the positives are therefore rebutted once examining the true worth of the negative action.

Now that Mackie has shown that Adequate Solutions will not prove to be sufficient solutions for the problem of evil, he moves to the next section, 'Fallicious Solutions.' This section is where the solutions to the problem of evil will prove applicable but fallacious through argument. Mackie explains that he will be trying to consider whether or not it is possible to arrive at an adequate solution by