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.
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.
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 onlineBut 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.