Who Is The Right Or Wrong?

In the film, Do the Right Thing, director Spike Lee presents the audience with the theme of racism. The title represents the everyday choices that we as Americans of various ethnicities, cultures, and race. Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing allows the viewers to decide for themselves the right thing to do about racism. Everyone has the choice to be accepting of cultures, or people different from them. The film portrays how an Italian American named Sal has a neighborhood pizzeria in Bedford-Stuyvesant, New York. The neighborhood is primarily African American, but there is a diverse amount of other cultures made up of, Hispanics, European Americans, also there is a store owned by Koreans. This film displays the discrimination between the races and how this can lead to violence.

It is through this thesis that Freeman has created a groundbreaking piece of publication that has an effect of changing the way people think on the generations existing in both the revolutionary and the relative post-revolutionary periods. By utilizing captivating illustrations of how a code of honor was considered as a foundation stone in defining the characters of key leaders and the values of their virtues and reputation in dealing with different issues as they arise. This has effectively addressed the understanding that individuals’ behaviors can be well-explained by utilizing a code of honor that define the values and measures expected to be observed by everyone. Another significant thing that has effectively come out of this thesis is how the current leaders and the society as a whole are finding it hard to build their values on a strong foundation; one that can be compared to the code of honor as exhibited in the historical orientation of America (Freeman,

Honor - we often hear this word thrown around in daily conversation. Whether talking about respected members of the community or characters in novels and films, the word honor is used repeatedly. What does honor really mean, though? The answer to that question is certainly not simple, as the definition of honor differs from person to person. This idea of the various types of honor can be shown through comparing the protagonist, John Proctor, in the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller, to Will Kane in the movie “High Noon”, directed by Frank Zinnemann. Proctor struggles with trying to find his definition of honor as it changes from being held accountable by society’s standards to his own private moral of truth.

In order to create an environment that fosters the use of moral responsibility, the Midshipman Regulations spell out what is right and wrong with the use of the honor code which states a midshipman will not lie, cheat, or steal. However, one is not forced to abide by the honor code; the midshipmen are just expected to follow the honor code on their own. The other academies have a second part in their honor code which reads, “… nor tolerate those who do.” The simple addition of those five words takes away the moral responsibility from the regiment and turns the honor code into another rule that the midshipmen have to follow. Following rules like a sheep does not allow one to exercise moral responsibility. Dahl addresses the topic of moral responsibility and interjects, “If you are subject to collective decisions, as certainly you are and if the democratic process maximizes your opportunity to live under laws of your own choosing, then … it also enables you to act as a morally responsible person” (104). Dahl’s point is that one is morally responsible in a democracy due to the fact that one has the choice of which laws they follow. When one is present with a choice between right and wrong, one is making a moral decision to either break or follow the rules. Both the Midshipman Regulations and Dahl’s vision construct a society where one

In Iris Murdoch’s ‘Morality and Religion”, she discusses the balance between the conscious morality of human nature and the connection between a supernatural being of religious beliefs. Murdoch writes on the topic of virtue, if there can only be one true concept of it, or if there are multiple ideas or beliefs that create it. Murdoch then goes to discuss the difference between virtue and duty, which ultimately comes down to three types: virtue ethics, duty ethics, and pragmatic ethics. When she speaks of morality, she questions if good behavior has any part of religious idealism or if a nonreligious being could foster just as good behavior. Then leading into the feeling of guilt and if morality relates to it. Finishing her passage in the thought of whether religion is moral in nature and if high morality is essentially religion.

Most humans create a facade which they hide behind. A person will create an identity that fits their expected role in their family, community, and society. All of these factors play into the human ideal because no one expectation of an ideal human matches another, but people still want to meet the expectations of the people around them. One common thread comes from even under the mask that all humans wear. Within The Odyssey by Homer, The Republic by Plato, and The Holy Bible, honor is able to play a role into a human’s life in many different ways; it is what pushes people into becoming the leader, teacher, and follower of what is believed in, and honor is what creates an ideal human.

The First Proposition of Morality (the distinction between “acting from duty” and acting merely “in accordance with duty” but from a “direct” or “indirect inclination”)

In Ruggiero’s book, Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues, he explains that there are three basic criteria for making ethical decision and aiding in moral actions. A moral action is, “one that demonstrates respect for persons by honoring the relevant obligations and ideals and by producing favorable consequences.” (Ruggiero, 81) The three basic criteria are obligations, the moral ideals and consequences. Ruggiero believes that when making a decision, one should first understand the details. Second, one needs to understand the obligations, the moral ideal and the consequences of his or her action. We will furthermore go into each criterion

Some would say that honor is a thing of the past; a thing long since extinct with the King Arthur and the knights of the round table. In fact, it is not, it is real and can still be seen all around through people all the time. In Charles Dicken’s novel, A Tale of Two Cities, honor and dishonor are main themes that are exemplified and enacted through many characters. To be honorable, or to act in honor, is to act in a way that is not necessarily socially acceptable, but is morally right, noble, and kind. To be dishonorable is to neglect the basic responsibility of treating every human being in the respectful manner they deserve, giving no variance to rank or status. Throughout the book different men show varying degrees of honor and dishonor.

In many cultures, honor and manliness go together. Honor lost was manhood lost. Because honor was such a central aspect of a man’s masculine identity, men would go to great lengths to win honor and not lose respect. In today’s society, honor means being true to a set of personal ideals, or being a person of integrity. Men are often told to “man up”, which means to show strength and courage. There are a few groups in today’s society that still consider honor to be a worthwhile goal. Our military, police departments and fire departments are all considered an honorable profession. Even our criminal gangs have a code of honor that they must live by.

There comes a time when sometimes you feel more right than someone else. Your evidence can be true to prove a point, but also someone else 's can be true too and just have a different approach to it. This may result in a disagreement over who has the best way to do it. The world is filled with different people, which will result in multiple ways to do certain things even if the facts are the same. Sometimes we get into arguments with people over the simplest stuff because of the things we believe or think are morally right based on our culture or facts that we are taught. It’s a part of life and it will happen. To me, facts are the evidence or information given to prove that something is true. It’s how we face reality, by having something

Since, we were little we are taught that we shouldn’t take out silbins crayons, toy, or snack, are lying about it. It is written as the eighth commandment; “You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. … You shall not cheat your neighbor nor rob him." But, what if the case of stealing was a little more serious, what if yours or your familie 's life was in danger? A family is starving, so in desperate times the family steals some food from your neighbor farm. I believe it is not moral wrong to commit that crime or sin, to help nurish your family. At these depresate time you put your moral right to keep your self or family alive. One is bond and require to act in a way to get ones national end. According to Kant, if happiness was our aim, then nature would arrange happiness for us.

1. The obligation to the Other is a moral imperative, it functions on the same level as the “ought” in the resolution.

When we think about moral obligations and their directional structure, this involves the obligations that we have to other people. “Obligations are owed to the benefactor” (Timmons, 2015). This means that a person is obligated to someone who tries to help another person in some way, shape or form. So, let’s say for example I promise you to walk your dog. Since I have promised you this I am not fulfilling my promise because I told you I’d walk your dog, or because I want to keep my promises to you, but I fulfill my promise of walking your dog because you have the right to me walking your dog. As we learned in our reading, you now own my action. You have the right to be angry or upset at me if I fail to perform the act of walking your dog. You are able to demand me to perform that action. I think the directionality has more to do with the relationship that is developed as a result of your promising rather than how good the person you promised feels after you have performed the action.

Life is characterized by many situations that require decision making, especially on ethical and moral grounds. The issue of what makes an action right and wrong has been studied for a very long time and several theories developed to address this issue. Socrates and Aristotle are some of the early philosophers who came up with theories about the rightness or wrongness of our actions. As noted by Warnek (2005), Socrates considered self-knowledge as necessity of life and also, an important ingredient to obtaining success. Socrates stated that every individual needs to attain self-knowledge which is acquired by studying every fact necessary for existence. Socrates believed that by possessing knowledge about what is right, individuals are more likely to do good deeds and that the bad deeds in the society come from those who are ignorant of what is right and wrong. Socrates proposed that, by being aware of the spiritual and mental consequences of wrong actions, no person would even consider engaging in such acts. According to Socrates, any person who is aware of a truly right action will automatically choose it over the wrong one. Aristotle on the other hand stated that all humans have physical, emotional and rational natures. Of the three, Aristotle considered the rational nature as not only being the most important of the three but also uniquely human and fundamental to philosophical self-awareness. Aristotle encouraged moderation