Moral Spheres In Daughter's Keeper

The articles “Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’” and “Is Morality Innate and Universal?” support the idea of a universal moral code across all human cultures.

To approach the subject of Morality, one must first gird himself well, for the road is a difficult one. The perennial questions often revolve around what is Right and what is Wrong, so an explanation here is difficult at best, and futile, at worst.

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.

In our daily life we hope that there is an innermost balance of morality, evidently determining how we act and react to various situations. However, it is not always clear what that reasoning is, if the sense of morality in each of us is actually a social inventive to do the right

The question of ethical behavior is an age-old conundrum. The prevailing issue with ethics is that it is extremely difficult to measure. A person’s moral fabric is largely based on their particular personality traits, as well as, their psychological state and environmental influences. Many believe that ethics are tied to a person’s conscience, and that good morals are often facilitated by a strong religious background. Furthermore, a person’s moral development can be linked to their economic situation and cultural differences. Interestingly, even while examining the status of one’s moral code is challenging; everyone seems to have their own unique array of ethics.

Humanity is taught to be moral, to do good and avoid evil. However those lessons become foolish when we ask what is morality, the thing that we are told to achieve. For many morality is doing what is good and doing good is moral. This roundabout answer may be satisfactory to some that only look at the surface of the issue, however once the digging begins the grad question of morality comes into question. While this question has been looked an infinite number of times without being universally solved certain patterns have been made in the conclusions great thinkers and scholars come to regarding morality. One of these particular ideas involves a rationalist perspective that rationality defines morality or that moral failings imply rational

The main goal of this chapter is to elucidate the explanatory target of this thesis. Empirical research on morality is abundant, but discussions about the nature of its explanatory target are often vague or completely absent. Building upon Sinnott-Armstrong and Wheatley’s (2012, 2013) ideas, I would like to argue that neither moral judgments nor moral norms are unified explanatory targets. In particular, I will argue that there is no property or set of properties that unifies all the members of the class of moral judgments or the class of moral norms—a negative thesis that I call the ‘disunity thesis’. I will explain why this issue matters (or should matter) for people working on the empirical research of morality, and I will put forward some

When an individual is proposed with a moral dilemma they will often seek the advice of others rather than acting solely upon their immediate cultural, familial, and cognitive predispositions; suggesting that judgments are also made about the moral judgments of others (Rest, Cooper, Coder, Masanz & Anderson, 1974).

This view which emphasizes the importance of social and cultural influences on morality is predominate in the field of social psychology, where moral reasoning is approached as a post hoc construction generated after a judgment has been reached (Haidt, 2001). Nevertheless, the question remains- how and where does moral judgement work? To answer this question, like psychologist, one must assess moral judgement and reasoning through its relevance in past, present, and future

Morality recognizes freedom within humanity (the ability to make free decisions over against a sense of determinism) and seeks to “extend freedom’s realm to infinity and make everything subservient to it” (23). Morality’s primary domain is action and its principle concern is determining those deeds that must be performed and proscribed.

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

Morals are a person’s principles of right or wrong in actions. In today’s society, moral values, rules, decisions and choices affects the decisions made by individuals, defines the action to do something wrong. In this paper I will address the consideration of the moral action that will guide our moral choices through my argument of homosexuality. My conclusion is that moral actions require the ability to do something morally wrong. I will argue that the person based on his/her moral actions and decisions have an ability to do something morally wrong and I will use my example of homosexuality.

Morality is an ever changing variable in human society. It has morphed throughout time, and every society’s morals define their century. Morality itself is how an individual views an action with regard to whether it is morally good, morally bad, or somewhere in the middle. Individuals can determine whether they think something is good or bad, but this freedom is easily manipulated. Outside forces can use different propaganda techniques to nudge an individual to think something is good, or bad.

Even though such moral principles traced their origin to rational arguments, they appeared to be difficult to apply to specific situations. In fact, moral experiences are often those of inner conflicts to which we can hardly find solutions by calculating how much of a single value is within a certain choice. Our ordinary experience is not that of simple additive puzzles. For this reason, the pretension of describing what falls under the right and under the wrong with a unique principle seems in some cases too demanding. It appears rational to believe that there may, on the contrary, exist a plurality of values involved in moral choices. This view is

Moral emotions and intuition come first and directly cause moral judgment (Shweder & Haidt, 1993). Researchers use personal moral dilemmas in order to test the association between moral emotions and moral judgment. Personal moral dilemmas and judgments concern the appropriateness of personal moral violations (Greene et al., 2004). The footbridge dilemma is an example of a personal dilemma (Thomson, 1986). A trolley is racing down a track towards five workmen on the track who will be killed if nothing is done to the trolley. You and a large stranger are standing in between the trolley and the five workmen. The only way to save the five people is to push the stranger next to you onto the track to stop the oncoming trolley but he will die in the process. Most people would not push the stranger onto the track (Greene et al., 2001). Not pushing the stranger is a deontological response (do not kill innocents), whereas pushing the stranger is a utilitarian response (greatest good for greatest number). In Choe and Min’s study (2011), it was concluded that disgust propensity had a negative correlation to utilitarian judgment, while trait anger had correlated positively to utilitarian judgment. They had a variety of personal moral scenarios that were randomised and given to the participants, who were asked to choose an emotion that they felt. In order to have a better understanding