Summary Of King Arthur's Greater Moral Evil Rule

This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.

The Dark ages also know as the Middle ages were a time when medieval literature started. What is medieval literature? It is a broad subject about all the written works available in Europe. The humorous film Monty python recreates the Arthurian stories. This film made a mockery of the circumstances during Middle Ages told through the story of King Arthur( Morte d’Arthur) and framed by a modern-day murder investigation. All of the knights were sent on a quest to find the Holy Grail facing a bunch of obstacles mentally and physically. Arthur, king of the Britains lead his knights through a persistent Black Knight, Three-headed giant, an old man guarding the bridge of death, a shrubbery challenge, the Castle Anthrax which is a house of virgins, rude frenchman and a killer rabbit. Throughout the film and story of Morte d’Arthur we see themes and codes of chivalry being mocked. We see examples of loyalty, bravery, knowledge, modesty, and honesty, which are all expectations of knightly behavior. The knight's loyalty and bravery are constantly being tested on their quest to find the Holy Grail. It is their duty as knights to continue on their journey and to follow the chivalric code, but can they do it?

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

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.

Singer also touches on whether our moral responsibilities must be restricted to distance and/or nearness. The

We believe that Gilligan’s distinction between a morality of care and a morality of justice is a distinction held in the minds of all human beings… However, these two senses of the word moral do not represent two different moral orientations existing at the same level of generality and validity. We see justice as both rational and implying an attitude of empathy. It is for this reason that we make the following proposal: i.e. that there is a dimension along which various moral dilemmas and orientations can be placed. Personal moral dilemmas and orientations of specials obligation, as we have just discussed them, represent one end of this dimension and the standard hypothetical justice dilemmas and justice orientation represent the other end (Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer,

Louis Vaughn states that the purpose of morality is not to describe how things are, but to “prescribe how things should be” (2). In Philosophy, moral relativism and moral objectivism are two conflicting but somewhat overlapping school of thought. These beliefs govern the way an individual acts; they also decide the ethical guidelines from which the law is written. In this essay we will delineate the differences between the two sects of belief.

In our daily life we hope that there is an innermost balance of morality, evidently determining how we act and react to various situations. However, it is not always clear what that reasoning is, if the sense of morality in each of us is actually a social inventive to do the right

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

In Singer’s own words inspired by F.H. Bradley’s views on morality, “we can never get people to act morally by providing reasons of self-interest, because if they accept what we say and act on the reasons given, they will be only acting self-interestedly, not morally” (Singer 323).

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

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.

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.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.