The Moral Judgment On Human Behavior

How can we truly make good moral decisions? Ethics is supposed to provide us with moral principles or universal rules that tell us what to do, a rational basis for morality. When making ethical decisions, a thorny dilemma arises when one moral principle conflicts with another. Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practical method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. As the headlines remind us, however, we do not always take the time to consciously consider our choices about how we could and should behave.

The Divine Command theory states that” an act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.” (Lecture Notes pg. 42, slide #2.) This theory says that since God has said that it is something we must do to be good, that we must do it. Many religions believe and live by this saying that “it is the will of God or the Gods”. I truly believe that God has done his work and is still at work and since He did create us, He does know what good and evil is and does have authority to tell us what is good.

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 divine command theory is put forth for people who believe in God. The theory implies that good actions are morally worthy as a result of their being commanded by God. God, for these individuals, include people from the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith. Individuals, because of these propositions, believe that it is their moral obligation to abide to God 's commands; which is, what is morally right is what God desires. This theory states the idea of objectivity between what’s right and wrong. If God makes

Moral relativism explains plenty of cultural differences. It allows different societies to have different standards of rightness and validates them. John Ladd details, “[as a result,] whether or not it is right for individuals to act a certain way depends on the society to which they belong” (31). He concludes that there is no absolute or universal moral standard by which all men abide by. By combining the diversity thesis (each culture is different) and the dependency thesis (people act differently dependent of

When we make a decision, we determine whether something is morally or immoral based on our personal VABES. There may be nothing ethically wrong with the situation but a person may feel that it is goes against their personal morally values based on their personal VABES. Ethics are established based on acceptable behaviors for groups and individuals (Clawson, 2012). People base what they consider to be ethical off of their VABES and understanding of what is right and wrong. A person determines whether an act is ethical based off their values and beliefs that they have developed a for a lifetime. When making any decision the person must have a clear understanding of whether not it is an ethical or non-ethical decision and if it goes against their beliefs. Legality is another important part of decision-making any concerns individuals abiding by laws put in place by society (Clawson, 2012). Whether something is legal or illegal is very important when making a decision. When a person finds it unethical or morally wrong to commit an illegal act is based off their VABES. In any decision, a person must consider whether an act or decision will go against their ethical beliefs. They must also consider whether it is important and matches their personal

The Divine Command theory of ethics is a theory that states that an act is right or wrong and good or bad based on whether or not God commands or prohibits us from doing it. This means that the only thing that makes an action morally wrong is because God says it is. There are two sides to this theory; the restricted and the unrestricted. The restricted theory basically says that an action is obligatory if and only if it is good and God commanded it; the unrestricted theory states that an act is only obligatory if it is commanded by God, it is not obligatory if it is prohibited by God and it is optional if and only if God has not commanded nor prohibited it.

The divine command theory states morality is dependent on God’s commands (Boss 136). Like ethical subjectivists, divine command theorists also do not believe in universal moral standards (Boss 136). Additionally they state God has the ability to change moral rules at any time (Boss 138). For instance, although the ten commandments state thou shalt not kill, a divine command theorist would claim the radical islamic terrorists responsible for 9/11 were morally correct in killing thousands of people because God commanded it then. However, a divine command theorist would also have to believe president George Bush was morally correct by sending over troops to Iraq to kill the terrorists responsible. These conflicting commands bring up one of many

First of all, we will discuss the origin end evolution of Divine Command Theory. There are three central assumptions about the correlation between morality and religion. We may focus on one out of those three assumptions. This assumption points out that somehow there is a direct relation between a divine being and what is morally appropriate. Russ Shafer-Landua explains this argument by claiming: “Morality must be created by someone, and God is by far the best candidate.” (2014 The Fundaments of Ethics p.63) God’s omniscience (all-knowing) is which gives the best credentials for designing a moral code. Also, this assumption claims that without the existence of God there would be a lack of morality, considering that we need some authority to guide us. Our disapproval of certains action do not make things wrong, since as human beings, we have a limited overall vision. Shafer-Landua also shows that due

When an individual is proposed with a moral dilemma they will often seek the advice of others rather than acting solely upon their immediate cultural, familial, and cognitive predispositions; suggesting that judgments are also made about the moral judgments of others (Rest, Cooper, Coder, Masanz & Anderson, 1974).

The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these

This had kept most societies in check and able to live alongside other societies. As an explanation to this fact, Objectivists claim that moral variation is a mere exaggeration as individuals agree on values but tend to differ on life circumstances or factual beliefs that make them behave contrarily. However, relativists claim that such alleged variations in life circumstances and beliefs hardly justify the issues at hand. Relativists argued that variations in life circumstances help in explaining how values become different rather than demonstrating that individuals share

Divine Command Theory is the most correct theory because God dictates what people should and should not do. God laid out rules that people are ought to obey. However, God created people as free agents meaning they do not necessarily have to accept his commandments. They can choose to reject his laws and do whatever they pleased. Divine command theory teaches that things are morally good or bad, simply because of God’s commands.

This doesn't mean our values or ethics are wrong it just means we think differently than others.

Cultural and ethical relativisms are widely used theories that explain differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Morality deals with individual character and the moral rules that are meant to govern and limit one’s character. On the other hand Ethics is somewhat interchangeable with morals, but it actually defines the principles of right conduct, thus to some extent, enlarging its scope to a societal or communal level. Ideally, ethics play a vital role in determining the dos and don’ts when dealing with the society. This essay will discuss what ethical realism is, analyzing why ethical relativism is unsound and unreliable in relation to the relevant evidence and literature, providing valid reason to ascertain why this is the case.