Morality and Politics

In today’s society, education has shifted the way in how one thinks, making a basis were they acquire everyone in a classroom to grasp the knowledge being presented to them at the same pace. Those that are unsuccessful to comprehend in the way that was instructed to them are viewed upon as the most needed and deficient. Having a structured way in how one should apprehend certain information, sets barriers in the process of thinking. It prevents the mind to think of other solutions, and to stick to the certain idea.

Summary: In chapter 1 of Moral Politics talks about that politics is about your own world view. The political division between republican and democrat is based on morality. Morality is based on the type of family backgrounds you have or family model you have such as strict father and nurturing father. And these models explain what “common sense” you have in mind, which you may not even aware of. Chapter two talks about the personal worldview problem for american politics, it will bring the questions that either you're more conservative or liberal. Both sides have their own views. It talks about why do conservatives think that morality should be their agenda. Liberals also have a paradoxical position even they also hold a moral position on

John, also known as John the Savage, is the son of Linda and his father, who are both members of Utopia. He was born and raised on the Savage Reservation. John is an outsider both on the Reservation - where the natives still practise marriage, natural birth, family life and religion - and the apparently civilised Brave New World: a totalitarian welfare-state based on principles of stability and happiness, even if it`s a happiness of a superficial and bland nature.

There are many ethical dilemmas that occur daily in our hospitals across the world. Not everyone agrees with standards and policies that are required in hospitals or even with the law. If not everyone obeys the law, ethical cases form. In Springfield, Missouri, a holistic nurse got fired for fighting against Cox South hospital policies. Carla Brock has been a nurse at Cox South hospital and not only refused the flu shot, but also refused to wear a mask. She refused due to religious beliefs, she gets short of breath while wearing the mask, and she feels the mask is meant to intimidate and humiliate those who refuse the shot. The ethical question in this case study is to decide if Carla should have been fired for not wearing a mask after refusing the flu shot and what are other potential proposals. The four-way method will separate out what are the truths, consequences, fairness, and character, of this ethical case study.

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

suggests that on a global scale, unique societies fail to share the same evaluative language when

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.

Furthering on this Tyran (2004) found that when a person is presented with a voting option in a referendum where the result would be of financial cost to themselves, but would be morally right, specifically relevant to the Harm / Care and Fairness / Reciprocity foundations, voters tended to vote for the morally right option. This demonstrates that the connection between moral

2. Morality is not static because morals refer to personal believes of right and wrong, as well as what one ought and ought not to do. Due to morality having a more personal connotation to it, it would be require not to be static. Each person deals with their own set of challenges and challenges change and adapt over time. Since challenges and individuals change over time, one might have to think that a person’s concept of morality would have to be just as dynamic in order to still complete its function.

Ayn Rand once said, “There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” In the society of today and of Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, morality is the right and immorality is the wrong, but what is the evil then? The evil in both societies is the importance of money to the people and the people who step on others to climb the financial ladder. In Atlas Shrugged, one is introduced to many characters that are evil and support a corrupt government system; ; but perhaps the most obvious villain in the novel is James Taggart, president of Taggart Transcontinental Railroad.Taggart’s rival and foil character in Atlas Shrugged is Francisco d’Anconia, owner of d’Anconia Copper. Although both men have money, one is trying to monopolize his industry James Taggart, James Taggart, while the other is trying

The basis of morality has been major area of discussion for philosophers for many years. In The Leviathan, Hobbes argues that desire and aversion determine what is good, evil, right or wrong, believing in a subjective self-interest based view on morality. In The Grounding of Metaphysics of Morals, Kant takes a rational approach, arguing that it is reason that plays a role in determining the same, thus having an objective view on morality. In my opinion, Hobbes’ account has greater validity than Kant’s in the fact that I believe it is human passion that dictates morality.

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)

Morality refers to the concept of proper human action in terms of "right and wrong," also referred to as "good and evil. According to Hobbes (1994:11), morality is simply a declaration of rules and beliefs that are considered absolute guides for human behaviour. According to Hare (1981:27), “Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions, are right or wrong.” Moral values and graciousness, in the past, were prominent in most teenagers. Every individual has capacity for growth. But a seed cannot grow without nurturing. And farmers don’t get to neglect their crops. So moral values has to be inculcated from infancy. Many years

The society in which Americans live in today, is in certain aspects far more complex than it ever was for our ancestors. This new complexity is seen on both a micro and macro level and everything that falls in between. Perhaps American society is inherently more complex due to the fact that most if not every societal problem that is encountered, tends to gear towards a political nature in the method of solving. It seems that Americans no longer abide by the do it yourself mentality, and as times goes by we as a people look to the government leaders to solve our problems when they are beyond our capabilities, not realizing that in doing so we also bestow the power upon them to make decisions for society as a whole. When you have an issue

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