In James Rachels’ Book, The Elements Of Moral Philosophy,

Having morals shape how an individual comprehends and believes, but it is sometimes hard to decide between what is right and what is law. "Zeus did not announce those laws to me. And justice living with the gods below sent no such laws for men. I did not think anything which you proclaimed strong enough to let a mortal override the gods and their unwritten and unchanging laws" (Sophocles lines 508-513). Antigone confronts Creon about how the laws made by man are only temporary, but the laws of the gods are everlasting. "I arranged your corpse and at the grave mound poured out libations. But now,

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,

William Shakespeare once said, “God hath given you one face, and you make yourself another.” Lying is without a doubt never justifiable because lying can lead into even greater conflicts that might never be resolved additionally lying would ruin someone’s reputation; one might argue that lying can be justifiable under one circumstance which is that lying can protect people from danger; however, lying can make someone lose people’s trust.

Conversely, by looking at it from the perspective that morals should not be the basis of decision making, you can see that if we don’t use them, then many people can get hurt as a result. If people make choices without thinking of the consequences or about what is important to them and the people around them, the wrong choice may be made. While morals shouldn’t be the only thing considered, they must be taken into account to ensure the right things are being done. If we only base our actions on morals, then some very important past discoveries may not have been made. If people only consider morals than not only will decisions be biased as each person has different morals, but many things in history may not have been accomplished. For example, the nuclear bomb may not have been invented or people might

It is safe to say that everyone has his or her own personal morals. These morals could be due to a religion, a political opinion or own personal beliefs. Timothy Chappell is a philosopher that takes the “moral theory” into question. But, what is moral theory? Moral theory, according to Chappell, bases everything off of the “Master Factor”, which is one single, simple right or wrong reason in each and every possible scenario and condition. Moral theorists are quick to find this one simple reason, and base everything else on corruption. However, Chappell disagrees. There is not one single thing that truly matters, especially when we take ethics into account, and there is not one single question that comes up for every single scenario. He

Since the beginning of literature itself, many stories have contained decisions that characters make which can completely go against what a society could be considered moral or immoral. For example, when Snow White ate the apple from the Evil Queen after the 7 dwarfs warned her about strangers or when Harry kept making Dumbledore drink the potion even though he it was hurting him because they had to get the Horcrux to defeat Voldemort. i, Robot is another story where many characters are seen making many difficult moral decisions. Some examples include when Powell risked his life to save Speedy and Donovan (Pgs.53-54) and when Dr. Calvin destroyed Herbie out of her own anger and spite. (pgs.133-135)

Growing up, my mom always taught me to always tell the truth, one of the first times that I can remember this was really stressed to me is when I was just a young boy. At the time I was a trouble maker and would always altercate the truth to save myself from getting in trouble. I thought that this was the most ingenious thing because I could get away with anything by just telling these little “white lies”. In history these small lies can make huge impacts on the path that we take to move forward. For example, a native American figure in history that went by the name Acorn Whistler victimized others by lying and finally fell victim to it himself. Now Is lying just something we as humans do to get what we want or is there a deeper ethos behind

The majority of people think lying is inherently wrong, and it is only justified in cases of significant benefit. Fear, manipulation and pride are the three main reasons people choose to lie. Some of the harsher lies are

The controversy over the topic of whether lying is sometimes, always, or never justified is complete nonsense. To say it is always or never acceptable would mean you’re not thinking about the situations in which we lie thoroughly. Simply put, lying can be sometimes acceptable when it brings good intentions.

This paper will compare the usefulness of character-based and consequence-based approaches in making moral decisions. In a character-based approach, the consideration of the moral agent is central in making decisions, and actions are made in order to reflect and strengthen good character. In a consequence-based approach, the consideration of the outcome is central in making moral decisions, and actions are judged based on the outcome. Usefulness will be defined in terms of three aspects: consistency, convenience and assurance, with assurance being defined as the confidence that the decision made is correct. Through the comparison of the two approaches, it becomes clear that a character-based approach is more useful in making a decision.

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 the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.

German philosopher Kant was first to introduce the Kantian ethics; hence, the named after him. According to Professor Elizabeth Anscombe, Immanuel Kant was Unitarianism’s rival; he believed actions that are taboo should be completely prohibited at all times. For instance, murder should be prohibited. Even though nowadays a person cannot be punished if death is involved as a self defense, from Kant’s perspective this is still prohibited, although sometimes these actions bring more happiness to the big majority of people than sorrow. Kant stated that before acting, one should ask his/her self: am I acting rationally and in a way that everyone will act as I purpose to act? Is my action going to respect the moral law or just my own purpose? If the answer to those questions is a no, the action must be abandoned. Kant’s theory is an example of the deontological theory that was developed in the age of enlightenment. According to Elizabeth, these theories say that “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.”( Anscombe, 2001) Kant said that morality is built based on what he called “Hypothetical Imperatives”, but rather principles called “Categorical Imperatives” he referred to it as the supreme principle of morality. (Texas A&M University, n.d.) Cavico and Mujtaba reported on their book that Kant stated that morality

Many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of followings one’s feelings. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion. Being ethical is not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are ethical. But standards of behaviour in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is good example of a morally corrupt society. What then, 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