Essay on Subjective or Objective Morality on Campus

In an organized religion debate, Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes contended many issues on religion and morality. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, believed that "morality can be maintained without religion." He also stated that it must be maintained without religion because times have changed. He said that if religion is not separated from state it could have severe damage, such as the Crusades and the Holocaust. Dershowitz believes that there is a difference between morality and religion. When people are moral without religion, they are being virtuous on their own, not because they are afraid of God. He stated that religion should not consist of a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Alan Keyes, a former

in an ethics class. This is to show how many of young students from high schools and universities lack a sense of common morality. Hence, it is clear that there is a “ moral shift” among the education

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.

     What is a moral? This is a question that has plagued philosophers for many years. Is it possible

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

Is morality relative? Ruth Benedict and James Rachels have opposing views on this conroversial question. Benedict, "a foremost American anthropologist who taught at Columbia University" (Pojman 370) believes that morality is relative to one's culture and that one's behavior which is deemed moral or immoral is dependent upon cultural norms. Her argument is as such:

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

Philosophy 111 Andrew Irvine September 25, 2014 Divine Command Theory Dan Glaser - 20540143 Divine Command Theory is the idea that morality is grounded in God’s nature, such that something (i.e., a choice, behaviour, action, etc.) is morally good because it was commanded by God. Something that is considered morally evil, is such because God forbids it from being done. For example, the bible teaches us to love our neighbours and be generous and is there for considered morally good actions because God commands it upon us. Likewise, it is considered morally evil to steal and murder because God forbids it.

Morals, values and ethics define who we are and what we believe. Culture, religion, and many other things affect our beliefs. One uses various types off ethics when surrounded by different groups. Knowing between right and wrong is a good foundation to practicing good ethics and morals. These things make morals, ethics, and values important in society.

While the problem of cheating has persisted in higher education, the perceived seriousness of cheating continues to change (McCabe & Trevino, 1996; Stephens, Young, & Calabrese, 2007). Notably, students with higher moral development levels view cheating more seriously than those with lower moral development levels (Leming, 1978; Semerci, 2006). While the process of going to college promotes students' moral development (King & Mayhew, 2002) and higher moral development levels correlate to lower incidences of cheating (Leming, 1978), determining the relationship between the two is necessary. Prior research has demonstrated a positive relationship between higher moral development levels and lower cheating incidences; however, most data is more than 30 years old (Leming, 1978).

Results of the analysis show that on average. Half of the students do cheat in some form (males appear to have a higher tendency to cheat than females.)To check this, the dean would do well to make the examination process stricter. The hypothesis results however show some encouraging news. The cheating episodes appear to be less at this university than at other institutions. The dean may therefore make an attempt to create awareness against cheating so that students can become more

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,

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

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

Is there a contradiction between our demand that our children be honest and moral persons and our demand that they be successful? Present the argument that there is a contradiction, and see if you can answer it.