What would a Saint do with the Ring of Gyges?

I believe that morality is just being obedient to God and his requests. The Bible teaches us to be moral because the obedience to God glorifies him who created us and obedience is accepted by God as worship (Romans 12:1). As humans and as Christians, we must strive to meet God’s standards or mortality in all that we do in our everyday lives to ensure we please him.

Morals are relative to cultures and individuals. The same activity can have different moral values depending on a particular society, culture or persons. For instance, many people in the Western world consider killing to be bad. But are all instances of killing bad? Is it morally right to kill a killer? For one with objectivism beliefs, all killings are bad versus one with relativism beliefs would say “let us look at the entire

1. Even with the fact that cultural values are very important in determining a person's understanding of morality, it is only safe to assume that all people have a general system of laws that they use with the purpose of differentiating between moral acts and immoral acts. In order to determine what this difference actually is, one would need to focus on the nature of his or her acts and to the consequences that these respective activities have on others. If others are negatively affected as a result of one's behavior, the respective person is responsible for being immoral.

A counter-example is that Wolf’s criteria of a moral saint could be adjusted to requiring only one of the two conditions to satisfy the moral saint ideal, the condition that their actions must be for the collective welfare of others. This makes it possible to argue that moral saints can commit non-moral acts if they lead to a greater good for the collective in the future, such as investing money into the stock market to generate a larger donation to a charity later. However, even then the moral saint is limited in what they can do, as the second condition still requires them to act only for the welfare of the collective, which limits the variety of what they can pursue in general, including being unable to learn a skill, pick up a hobby or read a book that will not improve the welfare of the collective in some form in the future or in the present.

Morality in its basic definition, is the knowledge between what is right and what is wrong. In Joan Didion’s essay, “On Morality,” she uses examples to show how morality is used to justify actions and decisions by people. She explains that morality can have a profound effect on the decisions that people chose to make. I think that morality is an idea that is different for every individual based on morals and background.

Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct. My interpretation of this is the distinction of right and wrong. Everyone has a personal morals, whether it’s through a group, organization, or just the way their parents brought them up. Morals help create an organized society, they are like unwritten laws. There are so many morals out there the government could not make them all laws, so although morals help govern the world they are not actual laws. Without morals the world would be nothing but chaos. Being honest, fair and just, making the world a better place, respecting others, and being open minded are just a few examples.

Morality exists throughout all cultures and religions of the world in some shape or form. In

Who has determined these set of morals and that they are the right way of living? People are going to do what makes them happy. If believing in morals and having faith make a person feel better and in turn they live a happy life.

In her critical analysis of ‘Moral Saints’, Susan Wolf examines the concept of a moral saint in order to understand what exactly a moral saint would be like and why such an agent would be an unattractive individual. More so, she raises questions about the significance of this contradictory figure for moral philosophy. Looking first at the idea of moral sainthood from the ethics of common sense, Susan Wolf then considers what relations these have to the conclusions that can be drawn from both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories. Having found these relations, Susan Wolf then speculates on the implications of these considerations for moral philosophy (Wolf, 1982, 419-420). As part of my essay, I aim to explore Susan Wolf’s argument of the ‘undesirable and unattractive’ life of a moral saint, and why she speculates such a view. Looking first at the distinguishing figures of the Loving Saint and the Rational Saint to which she bases her underlying characteristics on, I then look into Susan Wolf’s arguments in relation to Utilitarian and Kantian theories and how she speculates their undesirable notions that lead to the idea of moral sainthood. Having explored these speculations, I them aim to conclude on how Susan Wolf’s argument of the ‘unattractive’ moral saint is misunderstood, as she primarily bases her argument based on the idea of moral judgement.

To understand the term immoral, it is first important to understand the meaning of the word moral, from which the word is derived. From the traditional point of view, the term morals refers to “accepted principles that determine what is right and wrong behavior in general” (McGregor 262). From this, we can understand Immoral to imply the intentional breach of these generally accepted principles of right and wrong. An

Referring to morality from an individual point of view, each person has strong beliefs about what is wrong and what is right. Moreover, morals differ from person to person and may be due to difference in culture. Morality also results from basic human emotions i.e. love, hate, honesty, greed, sins etc (Psychology Today).

Many things can contribute to what you think is morally right or wrong. Religion, for example, may create a barrier on to what extent you do something. Some religions set rules, or guidelines on which they limit what people do. Cultures, as well, contribute to people’s decisions. Many times our values and ethics disagree with different people who hold different

The morals of one is directly connected to his/her group. The person is seeking approval of the group and does specific things that are approved of the group. What is right is what the group or social community says is right.

The definition of morality or what constitutes proper morals is a difficult task and may be explained differently 100 times if one were to ask 100 people. Generally speaking, being moral is conforming to the standards of good or right. This vague definition is open for many interpretations. As mentioned, morality is not recognized internationally or is scrutinized as a weakness by the realist community, at least not openly so. Morality has played a role in international affairs and war for centuries.

questions asked by our own society. What I am trying to say is that every society