Morality Is Wrong Essay

One major argument for the use of the atomic bomb was that it would save thousands, if not, millions of U.S. and Japanese lives. With a U.S. invasion set for November of 1945, it was predicted that nearly a million U.S. soldiers would be lost, and the entire population of Japan’s main inland would suffer causalities. We believed that thousands of civilian lives were worth our own. The sacrifice of these individuals was worth it all. Where does morality come into play? How does one decide what lives matter and which ones do not? I believe that the atomic bomb was inhumane, more so for the long-term environmental, social, and health effects which took place.

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.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” (Mahatma Gandhi). Scientists have been using animals for biomedical research for centuries. They provide a source to get information scientists can not get without harming humans. A lot of debate is spread about whether it is good or bad. Animal experimentation is a controversial topic because it is helpful to humans, but it is also cruel and inhumane.

Over the years, there has been a dispute on whether or not it was a dire necessity to bomb Hiroshima August 6, 1945. The general aspect of morality, corresponding to following the mode of ethics in experimentation, may not justify proceeding to bomb the Japanese city. Paul Fussell, however in “Thank God For Atom The Bomb” desires to put an end to the dispute of the morality of nuclear weapon evolvement in World War Two.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified in the historical context of the Second World War. During this time period, the world abandoned morality in a

Morality must be objectively derived because (1) the concepts of good and morality exist; (2) cultures differ regarding certain moral actions, thus there is the need to discover which is right but cultures are similar regarding the existence of and need for morality; (3) relativism is not logical and does not work, (4) for moral principles to be legitimate and consistent, they must be derived external to human societies. Otherwise morality is merely one person's choice or feeling, not an understanding of truth; and (5) the existence of religion. People recognize a moral aspect to the worship of deity; even if the deity does not exist, we still perceive a need for morality to be decreed by Someone

According to History.com, the atomic bombs killed close to 70,000 people in Hiroshima, another 80,000 in Nagasaki, destroyed houses, and ruined the lives of many, many more. This was the immediate destruction, but a good deal of the devastation wreaked on the cities of Japan came after the initial blast. More people, such as Dr. Fujii and Father Kleinsorge, featured in the book Hiroshima by John Hersey, died of radiation poisoning. Other causes of death were cancers such as Leukemia and bad burns. Babies born after the bombings suffered birth defects, which can cause both mental and physical disabilities for the rest of their lives. All of them can kill you if you can’t find a way to eliminate it first. A bomb 100 times more powerful is a frightening concept. Just imagine the damage it could inflict on the U.S. now and for many years to come. Besides that, is it really a good idea to kill people over a petty argument such as religion or politics? In the book

The 1992 winner of the best movie of the year, Unforgiven, is viewed by many to clash with the society of 1992 involving certain aspects of feminism and racism just to name two. This movie won four academy awards including best picture, best supporting actor, best director, and best editing but it was actually nominated for nine which is pretty phenomenal considering the amount of money it cost to make the film. In this movie, morality is in question throughout the whole film, as well as the power money actually has on people. The plot of Unforgiven focuses on the character William Munny (Clint Eastwood), who gave up his life as a thief, murderer, and villain for the love of a woman and to raise the family they were soon to have. Unlike

Morality is defined as a system or code that we humans use to differentiate between right and wrong. This system could be derived from a number of factors: religion, culture, and upbringing. It is difficult enough to determine what an individual's morals are, but going further to determine how we came to possess those morals is even more ambitious. Still, regardless of its difficulty, this subject consumes many philosophers and psychologists. One such moral psychologists, Jonathan Haidt, is theorizing the possibility of evolution causing ones morality. Haidt is a moral psychologist at the Universtiy of Virgina further believes that complex social structures such as religion and politics as well as our need for social structures affect

Animals have been used for centuries to test new medicine, scientific experiments, and beauty products. Animal testing has been on the rise since it began in the year 384 before Christ (B.C.). At least 115 million animals may be used in experiments worldwide each year (Facts and Figures on Animal Testing). More and more animals are being used in experiments each year. Animal testing must be stopped. Animals are not the same as humans, animal testing is animal cruelty, most drugs pass animal testing but fail in clinical trials, and animal testing is wasteful.

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a fetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and is illegal in many countries. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong, so why is not abortion? People argue that it is not murder if the child is unborn. Abortion is murder since the fetus being destroyed is living, breathing and moving. Why is it that if an infant is destroyed a month before the birth, there is no problem,

Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). People have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics

Animal experimentation by scientists can be cruel and unjust, but at the same time it can provide long term benefits for humanity. Animals used in research and experiments have been going on for 2,000 years and keep is going strong. It is a widely debated about topic all over the world. Some say it is inhuman while others say it’s for the good of human kind. There are many different reasons why people perform experiments and why others total disagree with it.

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,

I can imagine a perfect world. A world where morality is of upmost importance in our dealings with each other, where morals are critically examined, and debated with reason as well as passion. This world would be a pinnacle of human achievement. A pinnacle that we are nowhere near. Why is this? Well, in today's society, morals are often associated with obeying the law, and since laws are legislated by politicians, they are subject to politics. Laws are not right in and of themselves, and morals are not a matter of a majority's opinion. Some matters that are in the domain of charity are done through politics, often citing morality as a reason. Where exactly does charity fit in with morals? With politics? In this paper I will explore the