Singer expects a radical transformation of societal moral behavior; Arthur argues that this transformation is irrational and open to question of its moral integrity. He contends that our morals codes are intended to reflect the humanness of our person. Arthur reasons that we are not perfect in all our actions, and Singer’s “greater moral evil rule” asks us to be. Making clear his position that no change to the moral structure of society is necessary because it is “morally reasonable”
"He was only a man who had meant well, who had been spurred along the course of thinking by an eccentric necromancer with a weakness for humanity. Justice had been his last attempt-to do nothing which was not just. But it had ended in failure" (White, OAFK 634). The "he" in this passage refers to King Arthur, the main character in T.H. White's The Once and Future King and Book of Merlyn, who failed in his attempt to unite England due to the mistakes made by him and those close to him.
They were not allowed to lay down arms and had to defend the defenseless. Along with seeking wonders, they were not allowed to hurt anyone and had to refrain from attacking each other. They had to fight for and give their lives for their country. They could not break faith and had to practice religion with heroic effort. They had to be honest about their experience whether it be honorable or disgraceful and they had to be hospitable to everyone by ability. The code of the knights of the Round Table was known as Pentecostal oath and was used to swear in every Knight every year at the time of Pentecost. The roundtable was also known as the order of chivalry in king Arthurs court. After some time, every knight considered among the best and the bravest sought admission to the most noble order of the Round Table. (Grosset ,Dunlap & Maolry,King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, pg. 85-90,1919)
Singer also touches on whether our moral responsibilities must be restricted to distance and/or nearness. The
There are many similarities between the two poems on King Arthur's death. One main similarity is Gawain tells Arthur in a dream he is going to die. Another major similarity in the two poems is Bedivere puts King Arthur on the barge to be taken to Avilon to be healed.
Morality, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is the set of principles concerning the distinction of right and wrong or good and bad behavior. While determining the difference between right and wrong may seem simple, morality is a complex idea that can be framed and developed in a number of different ways. The novels I Am Legend by Richard Matheson and R.U.R. by Karel Čapek both examine the different ways in which moral beliefs can be developed and the possible implications of those beliefs. The method for critiquing morality within each of the two novels comes in the form of societal change. Through the establishment of a new societal order, both Matheson and Čapek demonstrate that moral issues can’t be fixed by simply replacing a broken society.
The leading premise claimed by Singer is a simple thought that provides clear direction or suggestion of one’s moral implication: "if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out" (Taylor, 2009). We can assume that no matter one's ethical views, wading into the water is nothing in comparison to the death of a child. The impact of Singer's argument relies on a carefully worded, yet agreeable set of claims that has a range of reasonable objections. Singer emphasizes the use of common sense in making judgments about moral and ethical choices and does this by daring the reader to question their own views of morality.
King Arthur is an outstanding British leader of the 5th and the 6th centuries, son of Uther Pendragon and the Lady Igraine. Arthur is one of the greatest mythical heroes that the world has ever known. Arthur has had a great influence on other people and many of them looked up to him. The coming of Arthur was prophesied years before he was even born. Arthur was born into a world of chaos and disorder, full of love and tragedy. Nowadays, many of the scholars continue to argue whether or not King Arthur was a real person or just a mythological figure. Based on facts however, many believe that Arthur was not a real person; just a legendary British leader in the 5th and 6th centuries. According to history, there wasn't anyone named King Arthur
Arguments are a part of life; one has to face several occasions where he or she has to deal with conflicts, disagreements and disputes to either justify their statements or to win an argument. The topic that I have selected is Peter Singer’s Ethics; one must have heart about his renowned ethical disciplines and moral principles because his work is considered as foundation of modern ethical values.
When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a
In accordance to a potentially tragic situation, Singer believes that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.” For example, if one were to see someone tied to train tracks with an oncoming train, it is in our moral ability to prevent the incident if it is possible. Although if we are aware of an incident yet we are certain we would not make it back alive either, we are not obligated to prevent it. It comes down to the individual of wether or not they are willing to sacrifice their life. There are many questions one may consider as they decide what they will do. Do I love this person enough to die for them? If we are a community, are we expected to love and care for everyone in our community just as much? This, in turn complicates our expectations of what our sense community
Arthur’s criticism of Singer’s view is established in his concept of a social moral code, which is “a system of principles, rules and other standards designed to guide people’s conduct.” (Arthur 501) Arthur explains that our social moral code approves both great moral evil principle and entitlement or right, which is consists of negative and positive right. Many has argued that Arthur’s formulation of positive right concept does not seems to be right. One point here is that the distinction between positive and negative right is not as distinct as Arthur’s assumption. Or there are rights that cannot be easily assigned to negative or positive right. Consider the newborn babies’
Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.
In Morality: An Introduction to Ethics, Bernard Williams aims to question the figure of the amoralist. The amoralist can be characterized as a person who, regardless of acknowledging the world’s claims of moral considerations, does not possess these sensitivities himself. Furthermore, the foundational values of morality, which direct—for the most part—the actions of others, do not influence the amoralist’s judgments similarly. When Williams addresses the amoralist, he wants to show how someone might be able to convince another individual who is insensitive to moral concerns to be swayed in hopes of look at morality as a way of decision-making.
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a
I assert that for a moral system to be necessary and applicable, there must exist a moral agent who possesses both the desire and the ability to choose. By denoting certain actions or ways of being as better, a moral system implies that there are also other potential actions and ways of being that are worse. The individual must choose between them. Without this element of choice, an action has no moral qualification. For example, a computer acts, but it does not choose its action. Consequently, while a computer can be judged better or worse in its ability to carry out an action, it cannot be judged responsible for the action. Rather, the person who uses or creates the computer is in fact responsible, for it is that person who chooses for it to act in a particular way. In a moral system, choice, responsibility, and the viability of judgment are linked inextricably.