Does Morality Matter

Morals: A person's standards or beliefs concerning what is and what is not acceptable for them to do. On today's society, many appear to have different “variations” on common, widely-believed morals. Usually, these “variations” are designed and believed based on situations that are both good and bad, according to standards set forth by a society and/or a government. For example, some societies believe that the action of abandoning family is morally unacceptable, whereas other societies believe limiting family growth and expelling excess children is within moral boundaries. Another instance of differing morals is what defines a right or wrong action.

suggests that on a global scale, unique societies fail to share the same evaluative language when

The interesting aspect of morality is how universally objective it is supposed to be,

Labeling what morality is can be fairly difficult due to the mass distinctions between everybody’s individual definitions. Being a moral being, looks different for everybody. Regardless of religion, morals are something anyone can obtain in their lives. Religion or a certain culture is not required to be a moral person, morality can be achieved by each and everyone. While living a moral life, one must have define what morality

Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.

Webster's English Dictionary defines "morality" as: the conformity to ideals of right human conduct. With this in mind, I wonder who determines right human conduct? Religion aside, there is no literary context that strictly states the rights and wrongs of human behavior. So who decides? Who determines what we ought morally to do and what we are obligated to do as a society? An Australian philosopher, Peter Singer attempts to draw the line between obligation and charity with the moral incentives to providing food for the starved in East Bengal. Although he presents many sound arguments, the reality of his utopian world is that it cannot exist. In the following expository, I will justify my reasoning

Many things can contribute to what you think is morally right or wrong. Religion, for example, may create a barrier on to what extent you do something. Some religions set rules, or guidelines on which they limit what people do. Cultures, as well, contribute to people’s decisions. Many times our values and ethics disagree with different people who hold different

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.

Humans are born with an innate ability to have high morality based on the Natural law Theory as opposed to the Divine Command Theory. Our instincts towards morality come from within ourselves. Fundamentally we have seven basic tools that produce our survival and morality so it’s up to us to utilize them to the fullest in a positive manner. Our morality can be supported by outside influence such as our religion but with so many religions and Gods throughout the world, it would be overwhelming to decide which is ultimately making our choices towards good morality. That has to come from within

Where this study and the field in general lack is the knowledge of how these influences effect moral thought and behaviour in conflict in the real world. Graham et al. suggest that implementing a combination of individual and cultural differences as well as the situational determinants may help the two major challenges. The first is predicting when and for whom will moral judgements relate to their displayed moral behaviour, and secondly, predicting a more complete list of morally relevant behaviours (Graham, Meindl, & Beall, 2012). The assumptions that Graham et al. make in their paper unheeded of the cultural differences as Henrich et al. discussed. This prevents the common person from understanding the full implications of a cultural and individual differences and how it can combine with the situational determinants to produce a better and clearer image of what thought processes exactly go into the judgements that are manifested outwardly as moral behaviours, which is why more studies should take place in 'untraditional'

A lot of different cultures do base what is morally right and wrong off of their religion, and if one religion differs in what they value from another, then their idea of what is morally right and wrong can differ. This leads in to my second premise which is that these different beliefs show that there are no universally correct moral standards. In support of this premise, as I have previously stated, different cultures do follow different religions and different religions are formed off of the idea that they do not agree with what another religion believes so they form their own, if they believed the same thing then they would just join. This is seen in history when Martin Luther broke away from the Roman Catholic church because of their corrupt policies and other reasons and formed the Protestant branch of Christianity. This is also proven by the stark differences in today’s religions like Muslim beliefs and Jewish beliefs

Is it feasible to find a method which we can use to evaluate moral decisions and prove whether a person acted morally right or wrong? Philosophers have come up with a number of unique views which attempt to be the universal standard for evaluating these decisions, yet others tend to think that cultural relativism is the only answer to this issue. Cultural relativism is the idea that moral rights and wrongs change based on the culture that you are immersed in. In other words, what is considered to be morally right in one culture may be considered to be morally wrong in another culture. The challenge is devising a method which can be a universal standard. By analyzing some of the greatest views created by philosophers, we can attempt

Some people believe our life is based off of morals, a belief of right/justification or wrong/ unjust. Living this way perceives their ways of the world by doing what they feel is good or bad or what is lead by their conscience regardless of religion. Others believe in religion, a feeling or act of faith, from God or “gods” ( Merriam-Webster). These acts motivated by faith and God/ “gods” provide a comprehension between choices, a choice given to all for all based off of a religious belief. In analyzing this presentation, it will show what the writer of this topic is trying to point out to the intended audience or its purpose, while conveying to the readers what morality and religion is.

Everyday we are tested as individuals to make the right choice. How we view ourselves as individuals and how others view us are directly correlated to our moral decision-making. But morals are somewhat misleading. What might be a wrong decision for one person might be a solution to another. So how do we define morals? Do we follow Gods’ moral rules because to do so would increase out likelihood of obtaining salvation in the afterlife? Or is it simpler than that. Is God going to deny our entrance into heaven because we have run a stop sign here and there? No. I believe our moral values are much simpler than that. I believe that our moral decision-making comes from our upbringing of what is right or wrong. Our parents and

Morality only exists if we believe in God; therefore if God doesn’t exist there is no morality. There have been so many evil acts committed in the name of God that it is difficult to maintain that a belief in God equates to morality. There are situations that happen every day where decisions are made based off of human rights that contradict the word of God. Morality comes from within, it is an understanding of right versus wrong and the ability to choose what is right. Knowing all this a belief in God is not a requirement for a person to be moral. (Mosser, 2011)