Moral realism

In Peter Singer’s article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he proposes the question: “What are the moral implications of a situation like the one in Bengal (230)?” In order to answer this question Singer presents at least two arguments which involve what one ought to do and the moral consequences of not acting or pursuing our moral obligations. His first and central conclusion is that we “ought” to behave in such a way as to decrease suffering and death as a result of lack of food, shelter and medical

everyone in affluent societies as “vessels” to constantly do moral good, and ignores freedoms of choice. Furthermore, as we are preoccupied to donate, we will not have the means of progressing ourselves. Partiality should be given to ourselves, as each person has the right to conceive their own destiny. People should not be required to set their goals aside and devote their existence to increase aggregate welfare. Singer uses the concept of moral duty to justify placing a burden on people in affluent societies

attention in several ways. First are the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr “It is our moral responsibly to resist unjust law” (Doing the Right Thing Group Bible study by Charles Colson, Brit Hume - Trailer, 2012). I have always thought that just because something was a law did not make it morally right. I firmly believe as the speakers in the Colson video pointed out that the government should operate under moral law. Another thing that really stuck with me was Dr. Ravi’s talk with an Islamic leader

(which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the

therefore is his moral antithesis. Banquo continues to hold a much clearer grip on life and real quality as a man in comparison to Macbeth, hence, Macbeth is forced to kill him if he is to follow through with his plan and go down a dark road. Macbeth's solution of killing his current problem finalizes his actions of immorality as well as his foil found in Banquo. Even after his death, Banquo is able to keep his integrity and use it to punish, or even remind, Macbeth of his moral supremacy. Banquo

should never be regulated under any circumstance especially in the name of protecting someone’s psychology, feelings, or insecurities like Altman prescribes. In the end, I will conclude that we should not agree with Altman despite his well intentioned moral convictions to push for hate speech regulation. Although hate speech is a horrible act, people must learn to overcome and persevere through difficult situations and not leave it to the

enthralled people. The cowboy hero had a few distinguished qualities, he was a self-appointed vigilante, he had a very strict moral code, he

or death situation. In the “Train Problem,” a runaway train traverses toward five unknowing workers. A bystander named Alex has the ability to flip a switch that will save the lives of the five but will kill a different lone worker. The switch is a moral dilemma: whether Alex acts or not, lives will be lost. In this essay I argue that Alex should flip the switch and address possible refutes against my argument. This logically is the best answer for this situation. If we look at this problem from a

and to make the guilty innocent, and that 's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” The media reaches out to all places and affects everyone. It changes how we think and what we do. In the novel White Noise, Don Delillo uses Babette’s moral ambiguity, conveyed through her decisions and actions, to reveal the influence that media has on the internal conflict between one’s self interest and morality. Within everyone, there exists a constant friction between one’s self interest and morality

models. As discussed in chapter three (sections 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2), SF and NP models indicate Lakoff’s prediction about conservatives and progressives way of thinking. Lakoff predicts that if political actors of both parties adopt either SF or NP moral standpoint, accordingly this will affect the politicians’ framing of ideas, issues and will shape the policy they adopt. For Lakoff (1996) the SF and the NP models represent internalized cognitive way of thinking and ultimately acting. They are cognitive