Political Morality Essay

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

1. The Mayor of a large city was given a free membership in an exclusive golf club by people who have received several city contracts. He also accepted gifts from organizations that have not done business with the City but might in the future. The gifts ranged from $200 tickets to professional sports events to designer watches and jewelry.

Morality is not just a societal consequence – a method for keeping societies in balance. Nor is morality handed down only in religious contexts. If it were, there would be no questions with opposing answers. What is morally right for one in a specific situation, is not always morally right for another facing the same situation. After all, one must be able live with one’s own decisions/actions regardless of whether or not society agrees with that decision/action. One person faced with a terminal and excruciating illness might feel it morally right to end his or her own life; while another could never dream of taking his or her own life regardless of the situation. Utilitarians believe “Any action or social policy is morally

Morals are infrequently conflated or mistook for different methods for settling on decisions, including religion, law or ethical quality. Numerous religions advance moral choice making yet don't generally address the full scope of moral decisions that we always come across. Religions might likewise advocate or deny certain practices which may not be viewed as the correct area of morals, for example, dietary confinements or sexual practices (K.A. Francis, Demand Media, 2014). A decent arrangement of law ought to be moral, however, the law sets up a point of reference in attempting to direct all inclusive rules and is subsequently not ready to react to individual connections.

These are the morals that are the base of our American laws, the ones that our nation was founded on. Although most people believe that the death penalty is a harsh punishment, some felonies are too grave to pardon and the only way we can respond to these actions is the death penalty. Since the United States was founded the death penalty has served as a consequence for severe crimes. Before America got its independence from the British, the American colonies started to separate themselves from one another. Slowly they adopted most of the British laws as their own, modifying them to their liking. Capital punishment had been a part of British law for centuries and the colonists used the death penalty to punish what they considered the most serious crimes. The death penalty is an important aspect of American society, it is justifiable for extremely heinous crimes and serves as a deterrent for all future killers.

     Socrates engages in conversations with people claiming to be experts, usual in ethical matters. By asking simple questions, Socrates gradually reveals that these people were in fact very confused and did not actually know anything about the matters about which they claimed to be an expert. Morality is the ethical matter that is brought up in Plato’s Republic. Socrates argues the response of Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus on what morality is.

Webster's English Dictionary defines "morality" as: the conformity to ideals of right human conduct. With this in mind, I wonder who determines right human conduct? Religion aside, there is no literary context that strictly states the rights and wrongs of human behavior. So who decides? Who determines what we ought morally to do and what we are obligated to do as a society? An Australian philosopher, Peter Singer attempts to draw the line between obligation and charity with the moral incentives to providing food for the starved in East Bengal. Although he presents many sound arguments, the reality of his utopian world is that it cannot exist. In the following expository, I will justify my reasoning

The first moral system I choose to analyze this situation with is the divine command theory. The divine command theory is the theory that relies heavily on religion and might even be one of the oldest documented moral systems out there. The morality relies on if it was commanded by the divine. It’s a relatively easy system to follow because if you need to figure out what to do, all you need to do is check the rule book or the teachings of the divine to find your answer. In the divine command theory, when referring to Christianity, it is said that humans should dominate nature. They think of nature as below them, which includes animals, plants, and other natural resources. This value is demonstrated a lot in the U.S. because most of the population is considered to be religious.

When considering death penalty on moral grounds, this sort of punishment is wrong because there is no individual who has the right to ultimately decide who dies or lives. This is according to one of the Ten Commandments from the Bible which states that no one should kill. However, most people argue that when an individual takes away another person’s life, they lose the right to live.

Unification of state and church has decreased significantly over the last couple centuries but is still around in today’s society through laws, failed attempts at trying to keep the church out of school, and through US currency. As much as people do not want to admit that laws come from the Bible, no one knows who decided that killing people is wrong. The Ten Commandments are ten standards that Christians believe God set for people on earth, and in order to proceed to heaven after death, people must follow all ten of the commandments. Each species follow their own customs, for example, female praying mantises eat male praying mantises which is normal for praying mantises.

It is extremely difficult to choose just one ethical issue to reflect on. In society there has always been and will continue to be a multitude of controversial issues to challenge us. What criteria should we use to distinguish right from wrong and where should we search for moral insight, guidance and authority? The New Testament scholar Richard Hays classified our sources as Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. 1. Neil Messer’s text says, “If we are to regard Scripture as a source of moral authority, we shall need to understand these writings in their own contexts.” Richard Hays defines tradition as “the Church’s time-honored practices of worship, services and critical reflection”. Alasdair MacIntyre’s view of reason called the “Enlightenment project” in ethics meant the attempt to justify moral judgements and provide criteria for moral decision making based solely on reasoned argument, without appealing to tradition, received wisdom or external sources of authority, such as the Bible or God’s law. The source of experience can mean a variety of different things from the role of the individual’s conscience in moral decision-making and action to inner conviction in the hearts and minds of believers and Christian

In our society today, the word morality is taken as derogatory. Society views it as being bound by rules and regulations with no freedom or happiness. A great example of this view is the 10 commandments given to Moses by God as a guide for the Israelites to get into the promised land. While the commandments are laws, their goal is not to enslave us, but rather guide us into true freedom and happiness, leading us to God who is our ultimate end. An example of one of the commandments is the fifth, ‘you shall not kill’. It brings out our true freedom as it frees us from making the hard decision of whether or not someone’s life is worth saving.

When it comes to the issue of whether or not morality should be driven by religion, it is all a matter of opinion. For those who define themselves as being religious, they may be quick to say their morality is strongly shaped and influenced by their religious affiliation. For those who choose not to follow a religion, they are unable to have a religion claim the basis of their morality. Within the United States of America, the country highly praises itself as being the place for not only religious freedom, but for secularism within the government. Church and state are separate and should not align with each other in terms of governmental policies, when it comes to the federal government. In the reading, “Pope Francis on the Death Penalty,”

Two great dictators of the first half of the 20th century, Mussolini and Hitler, won the political consent of their people, i.e, Italians and Germans, above all, by pandering to an abstract idea - the sense of history. Even as we move on into the 21st century, as a wave of fundamentalism engulfs many parts of the world, it strikes me hard as I observe that political consent is won by not promising a future to a people, but by reminding them of a perfect past which the populace can only imagine and will cherish in so doing. At the level of corporeal performativity, it seems (and history is evident), people will protect this imaginary sense of history at all costs {IS IT POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS THE CONCEPT OF ‘HISTORICAL IMAGINARY’ HERE?}. The conclusion

The Bible states the government is God’s servant working for our good and it has the right to punish those who do wrong, which includes administering the death penalty. Romans 13:3-5 (GW) “The government is God’s servant working for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid. The government has the right to carry out the death sentence. It is God’s servant, an avenger to execute God’s anger on anyone who does what is wrong,” and Genesis 9:6 (NIV) “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” According to the Old Testament, the death penalty is morally ok; the Old Testament specifies 36 capital offences including crimes such as murder, blasphemy, magic and idolatry. However, the biblical stance on this is highly contested with the opponents of capital