Relative Moral Controversy

One of the most powerful gifts given to humans is the power of choice. The right to exercise this power can sometimes be conflicting by religious, political, cultural and/or interpersonal dilemmas. With these dilemmas, people use their moral compass (conscience) as guidance to decide what is right or wrong. The ethical controversy of moral absolutism continues to spark the interest of many social scientists and philosophers, as it did over the years. Thus, this paper will show that moral absolutes exist, despite cultural differences and subjective beliefs.

There are no definite boundaries, standards or definition to determine whether an action is considered moral. The same action under different circumstance or environment may result in different beliefs whether it’s moral or immoral. Something that's moral doesn't necessarily means it's ethical either. What makes a moral action moral is that the person performing the action did it with good intention and foresees a positive outcome. Even though, the action may have been unethical or puts another person at risk. Referring to Julie’s post about stealing medicine to save a life which could result in taking away someone else's life. In an ideal world, a life is a life, no one’s life is more precious or valuable than someone else’s life. But we are

Ethics, or moral philosophy, as a field of intellectual inquiry developed in the west for well over two thousand years with minimal input from women. Women's voices have been virtually absent from western ethics until this century. The absence of female voices has meant that the moral concerns of men have preoccupied traditional western ethics, the moral perspectives of men have shaped its methods and concepts, and male biases against women have gone virtually unchallenged within it. Feminist ethics explores the fundamental effect of this imbalance on moral philosophy and seeks to rectify it. So the questions we face are: Do women have a distinct moral perspective? How if at all is gender

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.

This paper compares and contrast codes of ethics as addressed by the American Counseling Association and the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC). The main difference that one sees is that the AACC is bases its ethical codes primarily on biblical principles. According to the AACC¸ “the code is a comprehensive, detailed, and integrative synthesis of biblical, clinical, systemic, ethical, and legal formation” (AACC Code of Ethics, 2004). Whereas the ACA code of ethics focus on many of the same themes but without the Christian perspective. The three elements that share a great deal of similarities but also some differences are in the areas of fees, confidentiality, and conflict of interest.

Throughout history, people have made decisions based upon their past experiences and their moral insight. These decisions change the lives of others and result in the least possible damage because of the moral “gut feeling”. Many people have opinions that change over time and the choices that people would make but deep down inside they know it’s not the right decision. In Arthur Miller’s historical fiction novel The Crucible, many characters have opinions and decisions they would make but influential characters and events change throughout the book. This results in them choosing the right moral decision that minimizes the damage to others and is the best moral choice.

In 11th Century, The Spanish Empire sent men to conquer the Americas and they discovered natives in the area. As a result of their interactions with the natives, a debate as to how they should treat or interact with the natives got to a boiling point, and was settled in a debate in Valladolid in 1550, with two men defending either side of the world’s first debate on morality. One of these men was Bartolomé de las Casas, a Dominican Catholic friar who spent some time with the American Natives, and debated to defend them against any harsh rule or handling by the hands of the Spanish. On the other end was Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, an Aristotelian philosopher, argued for the enslavement of these natives due to the superiority of the Spanish over them. They both held strong convictions about their arguments, however Las Casas argument was made more effectively because he was more rational in his argument. Alternatively, Sepúlveda chose an exaggerated appeal to emotions as his approach for the argument he was making.

Me: Yes, the Catholic Church believes that deep down your mother is still there, since she is still in fact a person. Now the doctors claim that your mom is what is know as brain dead, meaning she can never wake up but the church believes that your mother is very much alive in her state. There is a very small chance that your mom can wake up but because of the extent of her injuries I do not think that likelihood is very high. Yet there is a small chance that by the grace of God your mother will be spared from this affliction and will wake up.

When faced with ethical dilemmas, medical practitioners should be guided by the ethical precepts of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice. These ethical precepts are of absolute importance in which ethical problems, faced in medicine, are taught to professionals and medical students alike (Christen, Ineichen & Tanner, 2014). Where conflicting obligations and responsibilities are faced, these codes will also provide some sort of framework in making informed choices (Turner, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to briefly explain what these four precepts are, and to apply them to the disciplines of psychotherapy, public health and scientific research to demonstrate how important and vital it is to adhere to them. I will also apply

Have you dealt money and morality? Well the play A Raisin in the Sun talks about a family and their issues. The father passes away and his family gets his insurance money. In the play walter, the oldest son, deals with money and morality. Walter shows that money is life, he put the family money at risk, and he just care about himself.

How should we live? Since the dawn of our species, we have struggled to answer this question. For many, they adopt the lifestyle imposed by their society and heritage. Though there have always been individuals who carve their own path, societal attitudes have shifted toward autonomy over the past century causing many to reflect and answer this question for themselves. This is all well and good, however, this reflection has brought greater attention to moral conundrums that should be resolved prior to committing oneself to a new lifestyle. Ethics as a philosophical discipline attempts to outline and justify a way of life. Moreover, a good ethical theory includes with it methods of evaluating moral dilemmas. This means they must assert a basis for morality, and why we should pursue actions conducive to said

A moral issue that is facing society in the 21th century is terrorism to narrow that board topic down I will concentrate on the United States of America. And our battle against terrorism and terrorist organizations who bring a threat to the citizens of our country. The title might be America: The War on Terror. Furthermore, I will primarily focuses on five attack of terrorism on the American people. Those attack are 9/11, Beltway Sniper Attacks of 2002, Attempted Bombing of Time Square, Boston Marathon Bombing, and Chattanooga Recruiting Center Shootings. The sources for those are The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and CNN. I will also focus on how terrorist attacks have impacted life in America. For instance, 9/11

Controversy and literature have long been intertwined. Most art of any kind that seeks notoriety and not simple mediocrity aims for controversial status in hopes of more exposure. Oscar Wilde alluded to this but extended it even further in a quote from one of his most famous works, “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written." Such equivalences between morality and simple controversy are problematic. Moreover, I could not disagree more with the first part of Wilde’s statement.

Some people believe our life is based off of morals, a belief of right/justification or wrong/ unjust. Living this way perceives their ways of the world by doing what they feel is good or bad or what is lead by their conscience regardless of religion. Others believe in religion, a feeling or act of faith, from God or “gods” ( Merriam-Webster). These acts motivated by faith and God/ “gods” provide a comprehension between choices, a choice given to all for all based off of a religious belief. In analyzing this presentation, it will show what the writer of this topic is trying to point out to the intended audience or its purpose, while conveying to the readers what morality and religion is.

Everyday we are tested as individuals to make the right choice. How we view ourselves as individuals and how others view us are directly correlated to our moral decision-making. But morals are somewhat misleading. What might be a wrong decision for one person might be a solution to another. So how do we define morals? Do we follow Gods’ moral rules because to do so would increase out likelihood of obtaining salvation in the afterlife? Or is it simpler than that. Is God going to deny our entrance into heaven because we have run a stop sign here and there? No. I believe our moral values are much simpler than that. I believe that our moral decision-making comes from our upbringing of what is right or wrong. Our parents and