Morality And The Constitution Of The United States

Working in healthcare requires an overall ethical compass to keep the law and order. As a healthcare professional, I rely on Consequential ethics, Normative ethics, and Applied ethics to influence my morality. Consequential ethics, one of the theories that center around achieving the greatest good for most of those involved states that the overall benefits should outweigh the risks. Healthcare is an industry that is patient centered. Organizations such as The Joint Commission apply these ethical standards when surveying facilities and hospitals to give accreditation or penalty. The importance of this theory stems from the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence or do no harm. If a facility is understaffed and has poorly educated workers

The 1920’s was an age of dramatic social and political change, and most people knew this time as ‘the roaring twenties’. Most Americans lived in the cities rather than on farms and this was due to the nation’s total wealth was more than doubled and this economical growth took many Americans into the consumer society. Consumerism is the theory that it is economically attractive to encourage the attainment of goods and services in ever-increasing amounts. As money was something that everyone was willing to spend people would lose morality and not spend their money wisely. The prohibition of alcohol, adultery and wealth played a big part in the 1920’s which effected the importance of morality.

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.

Morality and contract law look like two separate concepts, however, if we consider deeply, we will discover the relationship between them. Morality and legality are features of law. Consulting the fact that contract law should consider the acceptance of both sides, it will involve more problems about morality. If we attempt to understand the linkage, we should interpretation correlate notions of morality and contract law. What I intend to demonstrate is to hold the understanding of the purpose of contract law constant while analyzing varying understandings of morality. Firstly, I intend to solve what is the purpose of contract law. We must note that there exist two kinds of morality after a scrutiny of this question. Hence, being taken into account, we should critique magnanimous morality and mundane morality. Thirdly, we will construe the relationship between morality and contract law. As a final point, we will ponder the limits of contract law.

James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.

The Moral Law is not something any person on earth or any society has created, but rather something man feels pressing upon them. Some may argue that parents and the education system teach morality, however, these factors vary

I realize you cannot legislate morality. I agree with that 100 percent. Yes, saying things like "Thou shall be moral" is foolish, but other things can be done. We have to get back to our roots and become more civil and moral. Throughout recent history our society has continually loosened its moral bonds until we have arrived at the 'everything goes' attitudes of today. This loosening simply has to be reversed. Let me say that this will be a difficult task, but our society MUST put common sense and civility forefront of today's efforts nationwide. It will be harder to fight then any war. We must have an awakening or things will continue to go downhill. Would you agree on that?

Never before has a legal case caused me so much moral conflict within; a runaway slave in the state of Indiana so close to freedom yet faced with the impending possibility of being returned back to servitude stands before me in the Court. As a moral human being, I want nothing more than to ignore the law and allow the runaway to live out his days as a free man. But as a judge dedicated to serving my country through the Court, I cannot ignore that the law is binding and that the Fugitive Slave clause of the federal Constitution urges me to sentence the runaway slave to return to the party in which he escaped. Regardless of my abolitionist beliefs, as a circuit court judge in the state of Indiana I am implored to take a positivist stance and firmly stand by my decision to return the slave to the state in which he fled from.

    The founders of America believed that a popular government and its laws necessarily rested upon an underlying moral order that preceded both the state and man-made law. They referred to this transcendent moral order in the Declaration of Independence as "self evident truths" and "the laws of nature and of nature's god" (Barr pg. 211). For a republic to work, the founders thought, the people had to internally guided by commonly shared moral values. The founders viewed themselves as launching a great experiment: Could a free people retain a moral culture that would promote the self-discipline and virtues needed to restrain corruption? "We are still, in many ways, 'the shining city on the

What is the difficulty of “legislating morality?” How does that apply to accounting ethics? As I read the verses in this week’s discussion forum I begin to realize that it is difficult to establish a law if there is no moral component to it before it was made a law. Laws are driven by an array of moral interest such as to protect life, property, or liberty. This also means that just because a person obeys the laws of man doesn’t actually make them a good person they may be living a sinful life according to God’s word. In the Bible verse Deuteronomy 25: 13-15 talks about that as Christians we must be fair and consistent in every area of life. Also, we shouldn’t be judging others by one set of standards and then judge ourselves by a different,

Morality only exists if we believe in God; therefore if God doesn’t exist there is no morality. There have been so many evil acts committed in the name of God that it is difficult to maintain that a belief in God equates to morality. There are situations that happen every day where decisions are made based off of human rights that contradict the word of God. Morality comes from within, it is an understanding of right versus wrong and the ability to choose what is right. Knowing all this a belief in God is not a requirement for a person to be moral. (Mosser, 2011)

Morals are norms of behaviour that the society acknowledges. Religion sets rules and customs for its followers. These religious rules influence the legislative system. If religion plays a role in government policies, it would also influence laws. For example, religious beliefs and morals influence abortion laws in many parts of the world. It is still looked upon as morally wrong on the basis of religious ideas to undergo an abortion procedure. Phillip Montague points that “legal and political debate and decision making should be governed by standard criteria for assessing reasons and reasoning, and when religious considerations fail to satisfy such criteria, they should not be allowed to influence matters of law and public policy” (Montague 17). He further states that these matters consist of abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia along with numerous subjects of social justice such as welfare policies. Montague claims that in comparison with secular reasons, “religious reasons fail by a wide margin to deal adequately with the complexity of such issues” (Montague 17). For instance, a person who argues that homosexuality is morally wrong for the reason that it opposes the divine law would be referring to religious grounds to support his argument and not secular. Individuals should not be arguing for restrictive laws or policies if they do not have secular grounds to support them. They should only put across views that are

The idea of human dignity has been remarked and articulated in a number of the jurisprudence works of the mid-twentieth American legal philosopher, Lon L. Fuller. The Morality of Law, for instance, provides a valuable snapshot of Fuller’s preliminary sense of what his idea on human dignity might entail. In the core of his argument of legal morality, Fuller proposes that any neglect of eight principles of legality, which constitutes the internal morality of law, is not just only render the rational ground to obey the law and destroy the trusteeship between lawgiver and subject, but it further condemns and humiliates the dignity of person or human being as a free and responsible agent, self-determining center of action, and that they possess inherent dignity. In other important text, Fuller explicitly announces that the value of human dignity, over other extra-legal values, that must embodied within the structure of legal order. After he offers a long discussion of human capacity of action and communication under the forms of order, he writes: “ there is, therefore, in an ordered system of law, formulated and administered conscientiously, a certain built-in respect for human dignity, and I think it is reasonable to suppose that this respect will tend to carry over into the substantive ends of law.” Thirdly, in his draft essay Means and Ends, which can be considered both as an introductory of Fuller’s eunmoics theory of social order and Fuller’s reflection on the

To be moral simply means to do what is right; however, doing what is right is easier said than done. Perhaps if one was a child, one would, to the best of their abilities, follow what his parents demand of him, this would constitute them as doing what is right. Now let us say that the child is an orphan, or does not believe what his parents say is right, should following them still be considered moral, or is it even up to him to decide? Perhaps the child has evolved past parenting all together and therefore needs no more guidance. Defining what is considered moral has now become much more complex. Sam Harris presents the same basic argument of morality in his book Letter to a Christian Nation, by applying it not to a child and his parents,

Many people ask why morals should be able to prevail over people's desires. This is a valid question, one that must be answered if morals are to be defended. Morals must not only be reasonable for people to follow, but they must also have good reasons for people to follow them, otherwise people would not bother adhering to them. These reasons should motivate people to follow these rules. They must appeal to their perceived interests, but if these rules are to apply to all people, they cannot serve the interests of just a few people. Moral rules are not for imposing your own values and tastes on other people! As Narveson puts it, "[w]hat matters for morals is that its rules are individually reasonable for people to accept and to follow, so long as others do too" (MM, 16).