The Moral Code Of Human Culture

In “Speciesism and Moral Status”, Peter Singers argument is that when it comes to the value of life, we should not discriminate in regards to species, and cognitive ability should play some role in moral status. In comparison to humans with “profound mental disabilities” (Singer 569), the use of the gorilla Koko’s higher IQ score, not needing constant supervision, or border collies being able to provide useful work to society, serves as a strong logos appeal regarding the relationship between cognitive ability and moral status. Singer is effectively able to support his claims by continuously referencing respected philosophers and individuals such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and even Pope John Paul II. Validity and integrity are very much solidified in Singers article with the use of counter arguments as well as alternate views to his own arguments. The structure and information Singer provides is clear and organized, and does not leave his audience confused due to the strong use of factual, relevant support of his argument.

I believe that the best approach to political culture is the moralistic culture because it best reflects the common ideologies of the United States, benefits the common interest of the people, and is a selfless means of government. The United States is based off of a common belief that all people are created equal and therefore should have equal opportunity. Moralistic culture focuses on the common good of the people, where as the individualistic approach is every man for themselves. In the individualistic approach the government is solely focused on the minimal amount of help it can give to its citizens. Moralistic government is the most beneficial form of government for the people. The politicians focus on what is best for state as a whole,

With this said I put this question to you. What gives us the right, as animals, to brutally abuse and kill other animals in the name of science and the selfish preservation of our own species? Especially when there are alternative methods available to us that don’t require the death of innocent animals.

Speciesism is a prejudice for or against a certain species. It is the belief that all and only human beings have moral status. Peter Singer, in “All Animals are Equal”, points out that people are contradicting themselves when they make the argument that non-human animals do not deserve the same rights as humans just because animals do not have the same intellectual abilities as us. Singer points out that humans come with different moral capacities and intellectual abilities, such as humans with irreparable brain damage and infant humans, so if people were to argue that animals don’t deserve the same equality as humans because they are basing it on actual equality, then humans who lack certain abilities and characteristics would also not deserve the same equality.

Speciesism suggests that it is not okay to be discriminative against animals just because they do not have the same superior abilities that humans might. To continue, people do not think that highly intelligent people are superior to ones that have low IQs. We place each other on the same scale of superiority, as for example, someone who is not as intelligent can still become extremely wealthy, while a person with a high IQ may not.

Chimpanzees have been proven to be capable of empathy, altruism, and self-awareness. Elephants mourn their deceased family members. There are many instances in cases of diminished human intelligence, such as severe brain damage or mental handicaps, in which animals exhibit higher levels of intelligence and moral capabilities than humans. Singer is adamant that speciesism is baseless because there are no consistent characteristics with which determination of superiority, in any sense of the word, is possible. Hence speciesism is completely irrational.

Morally, morals, standards, are they the same for all people. Are these words interchangeable or not? Does morally change overtime or just our perspective of morally. Are most societies based on a morally standard that gotten corrupted over time, or is society not based on morals but people add morals to society? How do you tell what is moral and just and what is normal and you was taught to believe?

Right and wrong are subjective. Each culture has its own definition and distinction between right and wrong; i.e. what they consider to be good and evil. What Americans define as morals here often greatly varies with other societies. America was not officially established until 1787. America is a very young country and society in the grand scheme of things; our view points are considered radical by some countries and we are by no means setting a moral standard for the other nations. This essay will work to define morals: America’s definition, Nazi Germany and Japan’s moral code, and moral’s place in the Middle East. The dictionary’s definition of moral reads, “principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.” (“Moral” Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 07-03-2016) Though it is seen on TV and heard throughout every state in the US, the morals of America are not slipping. Nor are other nations hedonistic, they simply abide by a different moral standard. Take for instance the dress of Americans during the Colonial time period when woman were covered completely aside from hands and faces, to now when woman wear short shorts and stomach exposing spaghetti strap shirts. The Colonial period also brewed such injustices as the Salem Witch Trials and situations that inspired books such as The Scarlet Letter. However in America today it is completely acceptable to go to gentlemen’s clubs and magic is a well versed illusion primarily

They also argue that humans are just superior to other animals because of our intellectual abilities so they should not have the same considerations of interests. It might be true that most humans are smarter than other species but that does not make it right to make other animals purposely suffer for our own enjoyment. Stating that all humans are smarter than any animal is false. For example, Singer quoted ““A chimpanzee, dog, or pig, for instance, will have a higher degree of self-awareness and a greater capacity for meaningful relations with others than a severely retarded infant or someone in a state of advanced senility.” Here, Singer provides evidence against the argument stating that animals can be smarter than humans but that does not make it okay for an infant to be treated to the same suffering and injustice of a non-human animal. This further proves that the real reason for not extending moral consideration to non-human animals is not due to their intelligence but because of humans believing that they are superior to other animals, which is

Philosophy has many different topics that are debatable and have been argued throughout its long history. Cultural relativism is a very interesting and controversial topic in the philosophical/ religious world. To further understand cultural relativism one must first learn the definition. Cultural relativism is the view that Different cultures have different moral codes and values, therefore culture is subjective and arbitrary. When given a closer look at cultural relativism we come to the conclusion that it is not as plausible as it first appears and that certain moral values are needed in creating a sustainable and thriving society (57).In This paper I will begin with a short analyst briefly stating the beliefs of a cultural relativist, explaining their values and examining their views on cultural morals and codes. Then moving on to analyzing the Argument of cultural differences which discusses the view that there is no universal “right” or “wrong” when examining cultures moral views; a cultures morals and values are simply a matter of opinion. Lastly I will confirm that every culture has a diminutive amount moral views and values.

Since the foundation of morality, people have always lived their life by code. A code that suggests what is both right, and wrong. This code has been passed down countless ways, from mother to son, father to daughter and brother to sister. Each differing, but still accounting for the right idea, and the wrong idea. They are the foundation of a persons position on a certain issue. Each of the world’s religions possess their own set of moral teachings. They are an important aspect of each religion because they define the different moral values upheld by them. Judaism and buddhism are two of the many religion’s which share generally similar moral teachings on a number of moral issues, including; abortion, homosexuality and life after death.

Government and leadership have always been codependent with the citizenry. Leaders need people to govern, and citizens will willingly give up some of their own powers and freedoms for the privilege of having a leader to take them out of a chaotic, tension-filled state of nature. Because of this important relationship, it follows that, in a civil state, one cannot exist without the support of the other. For this arrangement to benefit each party, the individuals that make up both the citizenry and the government, have a personal responsibility to adhere to a moral code. In modern day, many governments violate the rights of man, and abuse the power that comes with leadership, rendering the government inadequate and reducing society back to an uncertain, disordered state of nature. To create and maintain a most-effective government, it is imperative that the leadership considers its own expectations for its citizenry, and abides by those expectations through morality in character, law making, and exertion of power.

21st century is considered as the era of information technology. Technology has helped people in many areas in life; particularly the thrive of networking has brings people from over the world together. As such, nowadays, multinational is seemed as a trend (from as small as a group of friends, to as big as a company, and country). In today world, you can easily get jobs in countries others than your origin. As a consequence, many big organisations has developed to be a multinational brands; particular like McDonald and Marriott. These two brands have many years of experience in finding a way to adapt to the surround environment where their franchises are located. On a smaller scale, within their own company,

The Bhagavad Gita is a sacred Hindu text that serves to illustrate many of the morals and ethics of Hindu culture, by way of the exchange between Arjuna and Krishna. One of the things Krishna tells Arjuna is that the war he is fighting in is righteous. Is this to say that all wars are righteous, that those of the warrior caste will know if a war is righteous, or that they have to guess and then suffer the consequences if they’re wrong? The first two seem naïve and oversimplified from the modern perspective, and the third seems unjust because regardless of caste, Hindus are said to be capable of fulfilling their dharma. Krishna also assumes that people know their purpose in life, which may have been the case at the time the text was written, but is no longer true. While in Arjuna’s day people were born into certain castes, today people are descended from a combination of what would have been considered castes, and often switch between castes within a lifetime. Regardless, Krishna’s argument for why Arjuna should fight seems relatively sound in that specific situation, but can be twisted to condone what many consider to be evil actions in others. Nonetheless, Krishna seems confident in the fact that it is a universal truth for everyone to know his or her dharma, and that he or she needs to follow it to achieve moksha. Although Krishna makes a strong argument for Arjuna’s specific case, it can be seen to condone evil, raising the questions that if all wars are righteous, and

Morality defines us , human beings, by setting the principle for what is right or wrong. The aura surrounding morality delineates our values and our ability to make critical decisions. Moral codes are the values that shape us as unique people and they are values that one stands by. Without it, we would have outlawed thoughts and order in the world dissipates. Like others, moral codes play a substantial role in my life and they dictate the decisions I make in everyday life.