Is It Moral Or Moral?

They see good in their actions and feel like they have good intentions. But the thing with morality is knowing the consequences of what they intend to do. People may lie to themselves to justify their own actions. When it comes to doing selfish and self-less acts we have to remind ourselves that they both have the word "self" in them. Whether you value your life or value your morals or both, you will value one more than the other when it comes down to the last few seconds of your life when you are forced with a choice. As in to run and possibly die, or play hero and save the lives of your fellow friends. It all comes down to making the choice

In order for an action to have moral worth, one must act in accordance with duty, but contrary to some immediate inclination. For instance, if the shopkeeper was near bankruptcy, but could collect insurance money by burning down his failing store, the action from duty would be to resist the temptation of arson for personal gain. By rejecting this temptation, despite his desperate situation, the shopkeeper acts from duty and not out of selfishness in any way. There are better examples of acting from duty, but this one matched the shopkeeper

According to Kant, we can control the will and meaning behind our actions. The morality of an action should be assessed by what the motivation of the action is. The moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but in the intention from which the act is done. This is due to the fact that , for Kant, what the motive behind your

One innate characteristic of the Nature of Man is selfishness. For example, in the book “Night” by Eliezer Wiesel, one event that occurred that relates to the theme is when Eliezer witnesses a young man murder his own father. In this particular scenario from the book, the man murders his own father over a loaf of bread, which he obviously benefits from. This shows that humans are selfish and will even be disloyal to their own family if they see that they will benefit in a way. Another example of selfishness is from the movie “The Schindler’s List” when the great Oskar Schindler, who saved an estimated of 1200 Jews, takes advantage of the relocation of Jews into ghettos which leads him to inhabit their home and property. However, although I recognize that Oskar Schindler is an honorable person for his courageous acts during WW II, that doesn't overlook the fact

In the study of philosophy, it is evident that there are notions that agree and disagree with each other. When we narrow down philosophical time periods, it is even more interesting to see how ideas conflict in such a short period of time. As we observe the period between Georg Hegel and Friedrich Nietzsche, we are approached with an array of beliefs as religious philosophy is combined with non-religious philosophy. The undeniable aspect is that each concept can be adequately compared. In studying Georg Hegel, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Friedrich Nietzsche, it is evident that each takes a supreme stance on morality. Therefore, I propose the question, “Is it morally permissible to commit suicide”? By analyzing each philosophical approach to this question, each philosopher’s notion on the concept will be revealed.

The first virtue, honesty, is essential to a life free of selfish morality. Having an honest motivation for one’s actions is what defines the morality of the action itself. To do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing is what makes it right. If an action is performed by virtue of the fact that it is what is perceived as moral rather than what is personally moral to the individual it becomes a false morality or selfish altruism. Bertrand Russell gives a perfect example of this in his literary work, “The Happy Life” when he expounds that saving a drowning child for the sake of a direct impulse to help versus a calculated desire to be seen as virtuous denotes two contrasting moral values (Source 1).The person who saves a

Altruism is defined as the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others. Why would someone think that certain actions are moral? There are two answers. First, altruism is naturally positive but on the contrary there are situations that decisions are made with morally bad tendencies and motivations, in circumstantial selfishness. Secondly, altruism is good because of its affirmative effects. The outcome of altruism does not only effect the person to whom the altruism is intended for, but it has its indirect ramification on society. There is truth to both of these answers. We all have experiences of acting out of an impartial concern for the health of a friend or loved one. These experiences that we have had seem to be an unambiguous instance of moral virtue. It seems likely that if our society had more acts of altruism, our world would be a better place to live than if there were no altruism at all.

Steve Wilkens presents the ethical dilemma of stealing in chapter 7 It’s Your Duty, Kantian Ethics in his book Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics. Wilkens concludes that Kant’s ethical system is made up on the grounds of reason, stating that all rational things should be accepted universally. The rational statement, stealing is wrong and must be outlawed, should be accepted universally. Additionally, the rational statements, that man should obey the laws of the land, protect the land, protect his family, protect his property and serve his community, because it is his “ethical duty”, as stated by Immanuel Kant, should be universally acceptable.

Moral responsibility incorporates a general duty imposed upon every member of the society to act in accordance with a moral code of conduct that is important to them as an individual, to the social community they belong to and to the humanity as an entity. This shows that, contrary to criminal law, there is no such thing as a defined moral code of conduct as it will differ from each individual therefore

Are we naturally moral creatures? Do we always act towards the common good of others? I am positive that we do not, and in fact, as much as society wants to, we go against our morals and lead with our ‘feelings’. These feelings may feel right, but it doesn’t mean they will lead you in the right path to fulfil your ultimate end, true happiness. Hitler was a passionate man driven by feelings, but what he felt and did during the World War Two era was not for the sake of the common good, and was not morally right. In today’s society we often struggle between what is legally right and what is

Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming

However, if morality is so important, are the motives behind acting morally really all that significant? According to psychological egoism “every human action is motivated by self interest” (Rachels 64). As humans we are incapable of acting unselfishly. So what makes anyone think we could behave morally for altruistic reasons?

All human societies and communities have basic ethical principles that constitute certain moral codes. People formulated these principles and rules many centuries ago; they are fundamentals that structure human behavior and as such are included in all major religious and ethical systems. One of these basic rules is “do not steal”, something children are taught from their very early age. In our rapidly developing and dramatically changing contemporary world, ethical issues and problems are becoming ever more important and urgent. Maintaining basic ethical principles in a variety of settings and conditions requires more than accepting major moral values; it calls for courage, commitment, character, and strong

Or, consider the envious individual who tries to get you to feel guilty for your hard-earned success. "You are lucky to have done so well," the envious person says. "Now you have a duty to share some of your success with others." Ce rtainly, a selfish person wants to share his success with those he genuinely cares about—his family, friends, or children (greater values). But why should he make sacrifices to individuals he does not know or care about (lesser values)?

Ethics can be dangerous to your career. The danger may come not from your own ethics but from the ethics of people around you and the organization of which you are a part. Employees have various moral decisions to make. Many of these decisions should be made on the basis of our moral obligations, but sometimes the morally preferable action could require courage and be performed beyond the call of duty. One defense against involvement in wrongdoing is vocalizing when there are unethical practices being made. While being prepared for organizational challenges that will inevitably test your personal values, moral beliefs, and commitment may be doing the right thing, is it ethical when one’s job is on the line?