How Nurturing Shapes the Hero
The topic of human morality has been debated by great thinkers throughout human history. “And human nature too is like the water: it doesn’t chose between good and evil any more than water chooses between east and west.” (Austin 79) In fact, it can be argued that what constitutes an immutable form of good vs. evil has been at the source of debates in both religious morality and a broader philosophical understanding of what these forms represent. Furthermore, morality has been fluid over time, changing to reflect the cultural mores of society; given enough time, even perception of previously taboo practices has changed in response to changes in culture as well as the proliferation and recession of religion. As
…show more content…
Proponents of an absolute definition of morals suggest that there is a defined right and wrong and that acting in a way that is virtuous or immoral, respectively, determines one’s fate in the afterlife. This is not universal, as the behaviors deemed as moral depend on religious custom, and both the benefits and penalties of adhering to them require a shared belief. One such scholar, Immanuel Kant believed “the moral law must carry with it absolute necessity” (Kant 2). A contemporary Christian viewpoint is that a practicing Christian is inherently sinful and must find salvation through belief, this presupposes that man is immoral from birth.
While this a working definition of morality for those who share his beliefs, as he states “we can reasonably hope to find true happiness only after death, as a reward granted by God” (Lenoir 16). Kant’s philosophical stance depends on religious belief in both God and an afterlife as key conceptual features of morality. In Kant’s view, God has defined morals through scripture, and adherence to God’s moral authority secures the benefits of acting morally in the form of “true happiness” and continuity beyond the veil of death. Therefore, Kant’s moral concept does not explain morality at the least for polytheists, but also those who seek to act morally but are
The progression of morality as it relates to the influence of family, religion and society varies between Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Our contemporary society has been influenced tremendously in many different areas by these different societies.
There were advances being made on the level of impact religion had on society, on account of the need for unity within the people. We see religion and individuality separate and come back together at certain points of time, fluctuating with the constant changes in lifestyle of the inhabitants. Historically, it can be observed that there have been changes in the mindsets of the human race and circumstances that call for a revision of the set definition of any one previously coined phrase or word. For instance, the term “gay” has developed over centuries, surviving a number of different time periods and associated meanings. Sin and virtue can, and do, oscillate with the change in the people whose minds are being held captive to their
To many individuals, morality and religion are two related but distinct ideas. To be specific, morality consists of principles set by societal norms concerning the distinction between right and wrong and good and bad behaviour among persons. Alternatively, religion involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality or a superhuman controlling power, God. In many societies in the past and present, the idea of God is used to help reinforce moral codes as valuable and vital through rituals and methods of presenting the teachings of God. By many, religion is used to instil fear
Questions about morality are at the very center of heated debates and discussions surrounding the topic of religion. This theme, the potential interlinking between religion and morality, is explored by Plato in his work Euthyphro. The foundational question that Plato asks is how is something determined to be good or moral: through independent reasoning or by divine prescription. I believe that the only rational position to take on the issue is to conclude that morality must be separate from religion. This position, however, spawns many questions about what role religion does have in life. Ultimately, I believe that having an independent morality standard does change the way religion is used, but religion is still an
The strengths and contributions in Kant’s theory include: 1) he marks a distinction between duty and inclination to make clear that morality is more than personal preference, 2) counters the “utilitarian presumption that the punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit” (no discrimination), 3) gives humans intrinsic worth as the rational high point of creation. The distinction between moral and inclination is that moral actions have to be nether self contradictory and universal. An example of duty is the prima face duties, such as fidelity, gratitude, and justice, proposed by W.D. Ross. One noteworthy strength of Kant’s theory is that it is good for both believers and non-believers of God and it opposes human lives as a means to the end. A morally good man needs to have good will and fulfils his duty. Kant’s ethical theory is based on duty as we ought to act morally as to do our duty- to obey the moral law. There is simply no room for feelings, inclination, love or occasion when related to moral decisions. Kant’s emphasis on our duty is similar and can be treated as compatible with the Ten Commandments in Christianity as its believers’ moral duty is to obey the Ten Commandments. Kant’s theory of ethics rejects utilitarianism, the “doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority,” which grants more fairness towards the
In his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant explores the issues of human morality, and attempts to “seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality” (Kant 60). Despite acknowledging that human beings will still most likely act morally, whether or not they have a clear understanding of moral principles, Kant explains that a clearer understanding of moral principles can allow individuals to fulfill their moral obligations, and keep their motivations pure.
The nature of morality is believed to have been heavily impacted by the enduring history of religion, yet philosophical conflict has arisen of over differing interpretations of Socrates question of whether ‘our moral virtues were designed as good by an omnipotent God, or whether they are good because God recognizes them as good.’
Morality has been a subject of many philosophical discussions that has prompted varied responses from different philosophers. One of the most famous approaches to morality is that of Immanuel Kant in his writing Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant in this work argues that the reason for doing a particular action or the drive to do good things is a fundamental basis of defining moral quality in a person. To him, an action could be considered morally right only if the motivation behind doing that action was out of ‘goodwill’. When he defines these moral rules, he characterizes them in the form of imperatives – the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. While hypothetical imperatives deal with motivations and actions that
Individuals consider morality sacred because of the assumption of an existing transcendental basis for the morals ranging from tradition, reason to God or any other thing. The society has an assumption of “evil,” “bad” or “good” to have a similar meaning at all times but Nietzsche uses the genealogical process to indicate the evolution of these terms, thereby shattering the impression that the moral concepts of the present are true or a continuity from the past. It is therefore evident that Nietzsche precipitates for a valueless culture that dissents the highly regarded traditional meanings of things and attempts to enlighten individuals to adopt a new system of reasoning
Religion is the driving force in the lives of many people. It is what influences and sometimes determines a person’s values. Almost every law, tradition or societal trend can be traced back to its roots in religion. In some cases, predominantly in the Middle East, religion becomes a way of life for many people. It is often an overlooked, yet very powerful, subject, with some people even willing to die in the name of it. It explains questions that philosophers and biologists have yet to find an answer to, such as the meaning of life and how the world was created. Some estimate that there are roughly 4,200 established religions and over 300 million worshipped gods. In America today, it seems as if there is a deterioration in the morals
Religion is an institution that has existed alongside humans for millennia and whose influence ranges from promoting altruism to beginning holy wars. In today’s age, an awareness of individualism and inalienable natural rights have created a complicated situation for religion, which directs the deepest concept of human existence, the soul. Especially in a political context, the line between what is tolerable and what is not is sometimes unclear. Nonetheless, religious tolerance should place no restrictions on peaceful expressions of faith—even if the ideas are marginalized or controversial—and these expressions include ceremonies, dress, and opinions. Sadly, other religious actions provide reasons for
Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different
The belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's troubles - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. This paper will look at different examples of how a god could be a bad thing and show that humans can create rules and morals all on their own. It will also touch upon the fact that doing good for the wrong reasons can also be a bad thing for the person.
Throughout the development of philosophy and human examination as a species, one problem has always seemed to be at the root of all the questioning. Philosophies exist that justify even the most extreme of governmental styles and world attitudes, from draconian governments which attempt to keep order at all costs, to carefree ruling styles which seem to suggest we should just let people self-govern. Many of these different justifications take their root in differing conceptions of our human nature. Put simply, this entire debate reduces to the single question of whether we as humans are intrinsically good, bad, or somewhere in the gray area in the middle. One side of the debate is epitomized by a line from the song “Demons”: “No matter what we breed, we still are made of greed”(Imagine Dragons). Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, the novel A Separate Peace, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s works in a Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men and The Social Contract illustrate the gamut of views on the matter of mankind’s inherent nature.
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