Why Be Moral Essay

Meaning 28.01.2020
That at least is my view on what free will is; see my essay on the topic. As long as this capacity for deliberation and our bodily movements are unencumbered, we are free to act. And this freedom of action is what explains why we are morally responsible. I maintain that it is our unencumbered capacity for deliberation that indeed makes us morally responsible. Ask yourself if this makes sense: The thing that makes it appropriate to credit us with good actions and to blame us for bad ones is precisely the fact that we had the ability, and the opportunity, to think our actions through and to act on the results. If you were an unthinking zombie, under the influence of mind-altering drugs, or literally insane, then your rational, deliberative capacity would not be in charge; then nothing would really be your fault, which is what the courts do generally say. Now let us return to the results of the previous section. Why not take the human capacity for action as a whole, and say that it serves as another biological function? When we make big decisions in life—concerning career, marriage, family, and much more—we do better if we act out of at least some deliberation. Very well, then: a wise decision would be one that best satisfies our capacity for deliberation. But of course, that is vague and not very useful. We have these in common with dumb animals. Just as the lower values are associated with the satisfaction and good functioning of our bodies, the higher values would be those associated with the satisfaction and good functioning of our minds such as emotion, cogitation, and yes, deliberation. Two of the most important higher values are truth and beauty or, perhaps, appreciation or knowledge of these. They are not the only two, but they are two of the more fundamental, in the sense that you might have difficulty giving an adequate theory of the veritable cornucopia of things we human value without them. It seems to me you can better explain the value of the sense of your own worth as in self-righteousness or pride , just to take an example, if you can first explain the value of any knowledge whatsoever. Similarly, there are countless varieties of aesthetic reactions to the world and to human creations—delight, excitement, profundity, etc. And truth and beauty satisfy a fundamental capacity that we all have: judgment. Let me take a step back, though, because I imagine this is going by very fast and becoming off-putting. I agree. These things are all deeply important. Why be moral? This question is meant as a challenge to justify other-regarding behavior. But the fact is that we, like all living beings, are built for moral action, which we might briefly gloss as life-affirming action. That is just how people and, indeed, animals are. To do what we ought, to do what is right, is to take that action that preserves and secures life. That is what organisms just do. I know this will sound glib, especially to philosophers, so I want to develop the point enough so that it becomes at least minimally plausible. The point is that right action is, in a certain way, simply normal. If we are decent ourselves, we look upon evil with incomprehension. How could he or she? But I claim to the contrary that morality is part of the normal and natural order. To explain why I mean by this perhaps puzzling claim, look at the many remarkable instances of inter-species altruism. The latter words are linked to a rather heartwarming video of animals of one species helping and rescuing animals of other species; I recommend watching. Such instances give me pause. Why do the animals do this? Well, it seems obvious to a child: it is the nice thing to do. So should we agree with the childish view that animals just naturally want to be nice? Surely it is not that simple? Ethologists biologists who study animal behavior and ethicists philosophers who study right human behavior alike are quite aware of and much taken with animal altruism. One biological theory has it that this behavior constitutes reciprocal altruism, i. Reciprocal altruism, then, is supposed to be an evolutionarily adaptive behavior, despite the plethora of evidence of cross-species concern. Ethicists, too, when they take up the question of the justification of altruism, often look for explanations in terms of some benefit to oneself. We need not seek for selfish motives for other-regarding behavior. I think we animals generally and naturally value life where we find it; we are built to be life-preservers. Those helping animals do not seem to love only their own kind. They seem to care and have deep concern for friends of all species. The simplest explanation of this is that animals, and human beings must be included here, quite naturally care about life, period. But what, for example, about all the vicious people and animals in the world? Would people be able to travel by automobiles, buses and other vehicles on the roadways if there were no traffic regulations? The answer should be obvious to all rational members of the human species. Without basic rules, no matter how much some would like to avoid them or break them, there would be chaos. The fact that some people break the rules is quite clearly and obviously not sufficient to do away with the rules. The rules are needed for transportation to take place. Why are moral rules needed? For example, why do humans need rules about keeping promises, telling the truth and private property? Aside from rejecting definition D5, I think that the same bifurcation between two conceptual reference frames mentioned above in connection with D3 would apply to it. In other words, assuming that there is such a thing as "the absolutely right moral rules," in that case people could be divided into two groups. There would be people who feel that the rules of morality are necessarily ultimate and to discover those rules and then follow them has to be one's top priority if one has any conception of morality at all. To take anything else as superseding the moral rules is to simply be amoral. For that group of people, the question "Why be moral? On the other hand, there would be another group of people who concede that there is an absolutely right set of moral rules but who do not regard them as necessarily ultimate or top priority in one's overall system of values. And for that group of people, our title question would not be meaningless. It is in terms of such a bifurcation between two different conceptual frames of reference that I would pursue our title question if its interpretation by means of definition D5 were at all defensible. But that is not defensible, and so I shall not pursue that line of investigation further. D6: Why be loving towards others? It is not necessary to define "being moral" in terms of rule-following. Definition D6 illustrates a quite different approach. According to D6, to be moral is to be loving i. So, taken in that way, our title question becomes the question "Why be loving towards others? Whereas rule-following is a set of actions and therefore subject to the will, it is unclear whether there is anything subject to the will in the case of being loving in the relevant sense. If you are not unselfish and altruistic, then can you make yourself to be that? It does not seem possible to me. It may be that some people can influence their own emotions and attitudes to some extent, but the amount of control that the average person has here does not seem sufficient to warrant a voluntaristic outlook. The question "Why be loving? For that reason, the question has a false presupposition namely, that unloving people can make themselves loving and is therefore a meaningless question. It makes no sense to ask "Why be moral? That is the case with D2, D5, and D6. But in the case of the other definitions, D1, D3, and D4, it is possible to understand the question and even to answer it. For example, one might say, "One should be moral for the sake of expediency. This answer could be given just as well by a nontheist as by a theist. Let us apply this result to a specific instance. Take the case of rape as an example of an immoral act. The question could be posed: why should people not rape? The Bible is unsatisfactory on this point. It says that any betrothed virgin who is raped within a town or city is equally culpable for not screaming for help and is to be executed, along with the rapist Deut. If the rape occurs out in the country, then she may be excused, but if she is a virgin not already betrothed, she must marry her attacker Deut. There is no biblical injunction whatever against the rape of a non-virgin who is neither married nor betrothed. Rape is viewed in the Bible as a kind of property crime against the man who owns the woman, which is either her husband or future husband for one who is betrothed or father. We take the immediate pleasure. Most people think that happiness is unique to each person. Aristotle believed that there is only one true conception and that it holds the same for all humans. Power is not an attribute to happiness because it would preclude some people from being happy if they are ruled. Aristotle believed as our for fathers that everyone has an ultimate right to the pursuit of happiness. He believed that this pursuit must be cooperative, not competitive. To Greeks, these gods and goddesses would be able to control everything. Each god or goddess had his or her own distinct personality and territory Essay - Should people have the moral right to end their lives if they so please. No one like to be left alone and sad. From the perspective of the early 21st century, the Enlightenment contention that reason alone can provide reliable knowledge about the world, and that there is no limit to that knowledge, is no longer tenable. As Popper understood, science itself does not accept this claim. Twentieth century physics and mathematics has taught us that it is axiomatic that there will always be knowledge that is true, to which reason has no access. We are condemned by our finite intelligence to lives lived in the midst of rationally inaccessible mystery. But this does not mean that our moral lives need be lived without anchors. The other anchor is also, apparently, a fact of our psychological existence as homo sapiens. Some of the strongest academic support for the existence of an intrinsic moral sense has come from the American linguist, social critic and philosopher Noam Chomsky, whose hypothesis of the existence of an innate grammar in humans that permits them to learn language has been widely though not universally accepted. In his famous review of B. Rather than explaining phenomena it examines, as it claims to do, it merely names them. It was similarly absurd to claim that behaviourist stimulus-response-style training, rather than native endowment, was the key to language development. Children of varying intelligence and cultures acquire language at much the same rate, Chomsky observed, despite the fact that few of them are systematically taught, or rewarded. Furthermore, children use grammar in ways that suggest they are following rules, rather that merely imitating what they hear. Nor could even the richest learning environment account for the apparently unlimited variety of wholly novel sentences small children are able to devise on their own, and understand. Chomsky has concluded that if it is the case that the human mind is in a sense hard-wired with basic grammatical information, it is likely that it is also equipped, at birth, with other fundamental structures of thought through which it interprets the world. Among these, Chomsky believes, may be an ethical sense. But the main thing to take away from this discussion is that philosophers generally believe that each individual has the right to rationally come up with a set of ethics to live by, and that it is healthy to do so. Being moral benefits us in many ways. Socially, it allows us to fit into groups better and to be in concord with others. Psychologically, acting moral keeps our reputation solid and maintains a clear conscience.

The essay here, "I have the opportunity to get away with an immoral act why profit from it. Apart from God's commandments, is moral any other reason why I shouldn't do it. The easiest and most obvious answer is guilt. why

  • Poem analysis essay on the white mans burden
  • Which texas colleges require sat with essay
  • Which font size is biggest for essays
  • Which statement from the essay correctly integrates the following information

If cause and effect essay why bullying commit this crime you will feel guilty.

There is also the essay of karma. What you put out into the moral does inevitably come back to you.

Why be moral essay

Let us briefly ethos in argument essay first at the issue of religion. Religion is a powerful essay to behave morally. The fear of "Hell," why its essays in non-Christian religions is moral the main reason most people behave morally.

Again, however, we are left with the unanswered question: what is it that enables him to recognize these absolutes? It seems to me that a partial solution to this puzzle can be found in the moral impulse, which is both a necessary and sufficient condition for proving the existence of moral absolutes, that is, values that are applicable in all cases, at all times, in all places. Or, alternatively, values that are recognizable from all social, cultural and temporal perspectives. The very fact of the existence of the moral impulse certainly denies the validity of moral relativism as a coherent philosophy. Even terrorists, who make a career of killing the innocent, consistently justify their actions with the argument that their victims only appear to be innocent, and are actually complicit at some level in objectionable policies of the offending group or state. Alternatively, or sometimes in the same breath, they claim that the taking of innocent life was necessary to advance some greater normative good. These are of course moral arguments, that implicitly recognize the sanctity of innocent life. When it is not possible, strive to sustain this ideal to the degree possible, by choosing those actions that will best restore and preserve moral spheres in which everyone can be treated as an end. This is the entire law: all the rest is commentary. Or scientific research might claim to show that one race is intellectually superior to another. We must then ask, should racism thus be exempt from moral criticism? It cannot determined by biology—that would be contradictory. As Nagel says, moral thought cannot be escaped in reductionism. Therefore, we need a set of morals in order to operate within a social circle and a social environment. Acting immoral usually results in being excluded from social activities or being shunned by a society based on laws and cultural norms. Besides acting moral having a sociological need, it also has a psychological basis. In each society there are authorities on these matters and there are collections of such rules. Many books are sold each year to prospective brides who want to observe the proper rules of decorum and etiquette. There are newspapers that have regular features with questions and answers concerning these matters. Etiquette deals with matters such as when do you place the napkin on your lap when you sit at a dining table? How long do you wait on HOLD on a telephone call with someone with call waiting? Should you use a cell phone at the dining table? You see, the reasons we should be moral are deep, profound, and even sublime; to plumb these depths, we much examine the fundamental problem of ethics. And this cannot be reduced to explanations of the wrongness of thievery or cleverly deciding what you would do with magic rings. I think I know why we should be moral. I have a plausible theory, anyway. I invite you to critically evaluate it. But unlike most philosophers, I do not stop at theorizing. Ethics does, after all, have both theoretical and practical parts. I will tell you, as I have told people for many years, that philosophy has consequences and that we should be living according to principle. If you accept this answer, then you bear a burden to put it into practice in whatever way you know how. For this, mere rational deliberation can certainly help, but is rarely sufficient on its own. This is why so many turn to religion, i. What is that? It is, in short, the problem of value: What is good? What things ultimately have value? You can explain the value of money in terms of what it will buy, but what is the thing that has value in itself, not as a means to anything else? This problem exercises philosophers a great deal. It is famously thorny. Variants on hedonism—the view that the ultimately valuable thing is pleasure—is one common answer. One main problem with that answer is that there are things that seem extremely valuable but which do not, on first glance, have anything to do with pleasure. One such thing is human lives—or do we stay alive merely for pleasure? Another thing is knowledge. A third is happiness or well-being. Do we seek such broad things as happiness, well-being, or flourishing, merely in order to maximize our pleasure? I would think it would be the other way around. Pleasure has just one role to play, that is all. There is a commonly-cited problem with hedonism that, I think, is particularly fruitful to examine: Whose pleasure is it that matters? Your own? Taken quite consistently, such a view could have disastrous consequences. Suppose mass murder is what gives you the greatest joy in life. But if it is not only personal pleasure that matters, how wide should our circle of concern be? Our family, our acquaintances, our countrymen, all of humanity, all sentient beings, or all living organisms? We will get to these questions further down. Enough preliminaries. Let me give you my theory. See what you think. The thing that has ultimate value, for anything that is alive, is life itself. There is an excellent reason why this should be so and even, on reflection, inevitable: only living things are capable of having interests, i. Mountains and lakes do have not have interests. A mountain becomes neither better nor worse off if it wears away, nor is it better for the lake if it evaporates or grows. You might say that certain transformations become less beautiful or useful to us, or to plants and animals, but then we are talking about the interests of living things, not of mountains and lakes. The mountains and lakes do not care. Inanimate objects have no interests. So far, I have established only that living things have interests, not that life is itself the thing of ultimate value. Some clarifications are in order if we are to make sense of this challenge. But this argument rests on an equivocation. Clearly the amoralist is not asking why he morally ought to be moral. Rather, he is asking for extra-moral justification, or grounds for thinking that the demands of morality provide genuine reasons for action. This is a coherent request. One might hold that morality is merely a matter of acting on the best reasons, whatever those reasons might be. Or one might hold that morality is whatever an individual considers to be of overriding importance. By mere definitional stipulation, the amoralist is rendered inconceivable by the latter approach, and incoherent by the former. If we are to take the amoralist seriously, we must reject these conceptions of morality. We should instead define morality in terms of a particular form and content. Self-interested reasons One traditional moralist strategy is to argue that moral action is prudent. Since the amoralist is understood to be egoistic, the success of this strategy would rationally compel him to be moral. He will wake up every morning plagued with the thought that he ended the life of Guilt is an intensely strong emotion, capable of driving people to desperate means. Take example the novel Crime and Punishment. No one like to be left alone and sad. It may appear right in the eyes of this person who is living such condition in his life. The man claims that he has lived long enough and is tired. If one believes in God's son, one will inherit the kingdom of heaven, and that's all there is to it. Associated with this outlook is the idea that to focus on behavior is incorrect. That's what the Pharisees did, and Jesus called them "hypocrites". What is important is not rule-following but sincere acceptance of Jesus as one's savior. Certainly that would count against this entire appeal to D2 to try to answer our title question. In still other passages the Bible says that our salvation is all predestined anyway. According to Calvinists, if God has picked you to be saved, you're O. The Bible is not even consistent on the matter of whether or not everyone will get into heaven. Although it is usually taken to be negative on that matter, there are a few passages that support universalism. Anyway, there is no clear Biblical support for the idea, implicit in the appeal to D2 under consideration, that following God's moral rules will get you into heaven. A final difficulty with the appeal to heavenly reward is that it subjugates morality to a kind of expediency. It is ultimately selfish and therefore objectionable in the same way that D1's "expediency approach" was objectionable, at least to some people. There is a genuine failure in both approaches to make morality the ultimate value and to internalize the moral rules that they claim we ought to follow. Could there be some other answer to our title question that appeals to D2? Instead of saying that one should follow God's moral rules in order to get into heaven, how about saying that one should follow them simply because God is our creator and we ought to always try to do what our creator wants us to do. In many ways, this is preferable. At least it avoids the problems connected with the idea of salvation in the afterlife. Of course, it still succumbs to the objections to D2 itself, including our failure to locate a referent for the expression "God's moral rules. First, why believe that God is our creator? Not all theists make that claim. People at least slightly familiar with science maintain that humans evolved from other primates by purely natural causes and are not the special creation of God. A second problem is why should a creature try to do what its creator wants it to do? That in itself is a kind of moral rule, and it is unclear what could possibly justify it. Suppose one's creator were evil and issued immoral commands. Wouldn't the right thing to do in that case be to disobey the commands? We can imagine a kind of Nuremberg trial for created beings that concluded that they should have disobeyed their creator. The principle that creatures should always obey their creator, no matter what, seems not to have any rational basis. The answer to our question "Why be moral? I hope to have shown that this answer suffers from insuperable difficulties.

While it is a very good argument for morality, there are other reasons to avoid acting immorally than religion. One very good reason is guilt.

Why be moral essay

Judah Rosenthal is has decided to have his mistress why to keep her from revealing his what is imagination essay and also his shady financial essays. Already moral guilty about cheating on his wife has driven him to distraction.

In having this women killed, Dr. Rosenthal will be committing himself to living a lie for the rest of his life.

Buying research papers online

But first, I want to get more flesh on the bare-bones theory of value I have articulated so far. It remains mysterious, but like gravitational attraction no less real for its inexplicability. In fact, in some ancient civilizations, religion was as much a part of the law, as water is a basic human necessity. Aside from rejecting definition D5, I think that the same bifurcation between two conceptual reference frames mentioned above in connection with D3 would apply to it. The simple and uncontroversial observation that some behavior is normal does not entail that abnormal behavior does not exist. I am not totally convinced that the pursuit of happiness alone is just cause for morality.

He will wake up every morning plagued with the thought that he ended the life of Why is an intensely why emotion, capable of essay people to desperate essay.

Take example the moral Crime and Punishment. Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikoff, the moral character in the story, experiences madness, why delusions and paranoia, after killing a pawnbroker. He began acting irritable whenever the murder was mentioned, and the weight of his worry eventually drove him to confession.

Life is made perfect by possession of all good things. We seek happiness for its own sake. All others are sought for happiness. Aristotle believed to become happy one must have good character and be willing to suffer to obtain the greater good later on. We should seek the good in the long run. We take the immediate pleasure. As a result, we need to be able to govern our behavior in the near term so as not to injure ourselves or our community in the long term. Therefore, we need a set of morals in order to operate within a social circle and a social environment. Acting immoral usually results in being excluded from social activities or being shunned by a society based on laws and cultural norms. Even terrorists, who make a career of killing the innocent, consistently justify their actions with the argument that their victims only appear to be innocent, and are actually complicit at some level in objectionable policies of the offending group or state. Alternatively, or sometimes in the same breath, they claim that the taking of innocent life was necessary to advance some greater normative good. These are of course moral arguments, that implicitly recognize the sanctity of innocent life. When it is not possible, strive to sustain this ideal to the degree possible, by choosing those actions that will best restore and preserve moral spheres in which everyone can be treated as an end. This is the entire law: all the rest is commentary. Or scientific research might claim to show that one race is intellectually superior to another. We must then ask, should racism thus be exempt from moral criticism? It cannot determined by biology—that would be contradictory. As Nagel says, moral thought cannot be escaped in reductionism. Nor can its existence be denied. It remains mysterious, but like gravitational attraction no less real for its inexplicability. The American cosmologist Brian Swimme, bases an ethical theory on the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. Noting that humans are made up of the same constituent material as everything else in the universe and are thus literally one with the universe, he draws a fascinating conclusion: we are the universe thinking. The easiest and most obvious answer is guilt. If you commit this crime you will feel guilty. I do not think you are even considering the same concept of value as I do. I am considering the same concept of value as you do, just at a more basic level. The fact that there is much that is objectively good for you only goes to show that subjectivism is not just wrong, but pernicious and positively harmful. That said, let me concede that we can certainly differ in our opinions about what things are valuable. But when it comes to diet, there is a fact of the matter about what is best for our organism, what will satisfy our needs without having any deleterious effects such as being overweight or underweight, having stomach problems, or having rotting teeth. That is, I think, a perfectly useful distinction. As strange as it might sound to some of us, in our cynical and miseducated age, there are indeed objectively value things for us. Simply reflecting on the obvious fact that adequate heat, clean air, and healthy food are determined by the human organism in relation to its environment, we can easily acknowledge that those things are objectively valuable. They are, really or in fact, good for us. Other species have other and sometimes differing objective values, by the way: what is good for you is not necessarily good for trees or for deep-sea fish. I imagine that some readers will be puzzled at this point. I will indeed broaden my scope some more, and talk about some ethical concepts: right and wrong. This will be necessary to understand at a basic level, if we are to understand why we should be moral, or why we should care about doing the right thing. But first, I want to get more flesh on the bare-bones theory of value I have articulated so far. After all, what is good for us qua human beings is not just that which is good for our bodies. So far, I have not spoken of any unique features of human beings. I have spoken of us by analogy with all different sorts of organisms. But ethics tells us how to live as human beings; moral rules, or ethical principles, depend very crucially indeed on human nature. I say that life itself is what is valuable; but now I will qualify that by saying that, for us humans, it is human life that is valuable, not mere biological flourishing. The effect of adding the qualifier is to acknowledge that human beings have additional features, the flourishing of which is particularly valuable to us. We are not just vegetables or dumb brutes; we do not merely want to survive; we place the highest value in that which allows us to exercise our very human capacities. While philosophers disagree about a lot, a perennial observation throughout the history of philosophy is that human beings are essentially rational. But come to think of it, you might notice, if you are familiar with Aristotle, that my theory here is broadly speaking Aristotelian. Spock, or that we like, prefer, or are good at reasoning. As cognitive scientists enjoy reminding us, most of us are pretty bad at it. We might be better or worse at it, but we all have the capacity at least—whether we exercise it is another matter to deliberate. This means we have a mind, and while a horse might also have a mind, the human mind involves the capacity for such complex and far-sighted deliberations that, we say, we have free will. That at least is my view on what free will is; see my essay on the topic. As long as this capacity for deliberation and our bodily movements are unencumbered, we are free to act. And this freedom of action is what explains why we are morally responsible. I maintain that it is our unencumbered capacity for deliberation that indeed makes us morally responsible. Ask yourself if this makes sense: The thing that makes it appropriate to credit us with good actions and to blame us for bad ones is precisely the fact that we had the ability, and the opportunity, to think our actions through and to act on the results. If you were an unthinking zombie, under the influence of mind-altering drugs, or literally insane, then your rational, deliberative capacity would not be in charge; then nothing would really be your fault, which is what the courts do generally say. Now let us return to the results of the previous section. Why not take the human capacity for action as a whole, and say that it serves as another biological function? When we make big decisions in life—concerning career, marriage, family, and much more—we do better if we act out of at least some deliberation. Very well, then: a wise decision would be one that best satisfies our capacity for deliberation. But of course, that is vague and not very useful. We have these in common with dumb animals. Just as the lower values are associated with the satisfaction and good functioning of our bodies, the higher values would be those associated with the satisfaction and good functioning of our minds such as emotion, cogitation, and yes, deliberation. Two of the most important higher values are truth and beauty or, perhaps, appreciation or knowledge of these. They are not the only two, but they are two of the more fundamental, in the sense that you might have difficulty giving an adequate theory of the veritable cornucopia of things we human value without them. It seems to me you can better explain the value of the sense of your own worth as in self-righteousness or pride , just to take an example, if you can first explain the value of any knowledge whatsoever. This paper will provide an outline of the definition of euthanasia and associated terms, such as passive and active, involuntary and voluntary, as well as define and demonstrate deontological theory with regard to the topic. It will be demonstrated that the consequences of proposed euthanasia laws, though they have not come to pass, have certainly caused the debate of ethical and legal issues and thus, it is proposed that euthanasia should not yet be legalised Essay example - Should the law reflect the moral or religious values of a community. First, some terms need to be clarified. Violations of such rules may bring social censure. Etiquette deals with rules concerning dress and table manners and deal with politeness. Friendships would not likely break up over violations of these rules as they would for violating rules of morality, e. But they are made up by people to encourage a better life. In each society there are authorities on these matters and there are collections of such rules. One such answer would be to say that people should follow God's moral rules because to do so would increase their likelihood of obtaining salvation in the afterlife i. Before considering this proposed answer, let us look at definition D2 itself. There are many problems with it. First of all, what is God and what reason is there to believe that God exists? This is an enormous problem that confronts D2. In my opinion, it is not a problem that can be overcome, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that there is some intelligible definition of "God" and some acceptable reason to believe that God, defined in the given way, exists. Another problem with D2 has to do with locating some referent for the expression "God's moral rules. I am not aware of any worthwhile argument to the effect that if God exists then he must have moral rules which it is possible for humans to find out about. Some concepts of God e. But even if we assume that God has such rules, there remains the problem of figuring out what they might possibly be. The usual approach is to maintain that the Bible is "God's Word" and that the moral rules contained therein are God's moral rules. But this will not do, for several reasons. First, the Bible contains so many contradictions and factual errors that it seems unlikely, if not impossible, that it is the word of an all-powerful sovereign deity. For example, there are two quite different sets of rules, at Exodus 20 and at Exodus 34, both referred to as "The Ten Commandments. Another inconsistency has to do with whether or not the OT rules have been superseded. And there are other inconsistencies as well, which I shall not pursue here. A third problem with Biblical ethics is that it does not square with our current conceptions of morality. For example, we no longer condone slavery as the Bible does. God is supposed to have ordered female virgins to be taken as war plunder Num. Such ideas are totally foreign to modern morality. Even the Sermon on the Mount presents us with impossible standards. Jesus tells us there to not resist evil, not defend ourselves against violence, and give away everything that anyone might ask of us Matt. Maybe among the extinct tribes of the world there are some who actually tried to live by the Sermon on the Mount. Anyway, our current conceptions of morality have very little to do with what is written in the Bible. I think that most people who advocate Biblical ethics are simply ignorant about the Bible and unaware of what that ethics amounts to. Well, is there some other holy book that might plausibly contain God's moral rules? Certainly I have not located any. Perhaps there isn't any divinely inspired holy book but some manmade source. How about the U.

So even though it seemed as though he would "get away with it," Raskolnikoff's own guilt Another reason, and moral the essay reason, to be why is "Karma", o.