How Nurturing Shapes The Hero

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

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.

Morals are infrequently conflated or mistook for different methods for settling on decisions, including religion, law or ethical quality. Numerous religions advance moral choice making yet don't generally address the full scope of moral decisions that we always come across. Religions might likewise advocate or deny certain practices which may not be viewed as the correct area of morals, for example, dietary confinements or sexual practices (K.A. Francis, Demand Media, 2014). A decent arrangement of law ought to be moral, however, the law sets up a point of reference in attempting to direct all inclusive rules and is subsequently not ready to react to individual connections.

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

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.’

Kant does not provide an answer for when our morals

Morality is a concept that most people feel they have a good grasp on; however, when confronted on what exactly is morality, many fail to give an adequate description on what it is and why it is important. There are philosophers who have taken on this task, and as expected disagree, with valid arguments, what morality is and why it is important. Morality is explained by three philosophers as: a cultural tool that his subject specified with importance only to the culture being applied, by using the Utilitarianism theory to explain what moral is and its importance as a tool for serving the greatest majority, and that morality is determined by one’s motive because it follows one’s duty to society. Respectively, Rachels, Mill, and Kant differ with

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.

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 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

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

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