...just because you can does not mean that you should. Why should human be moral or immoral? Is it because it is morally good to do the right thing all the time, or is it because it is one’s self-interest to gain from the benefits of one’s action? Would it be fine to be immoral in order to gain advantage over other people as the society we live in is very unfair and unjust? Immanuel Kant an influential thinker in the history of Western philosophy says that “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplish-because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end (pg.505).” Thus if...
Words: 447 - Pages: 2
...In moral theology, an act is the knowing choice of a human person. Each knowing choice is an act, and each act is subject to the eternal moral law. Some acts are moral, and other acts are immoral. An immoral act is a sinful act. Sin is a knowingly chosen immoral act. The morality of any act is based on three fonts (or sources): (1) The intention or purpose for which the act is done, (2) the inherent moral meaning of the act as determined by its moral object, (3) the circumstances of the act, especially the consequences. To be moral, each and every act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be good, the moral object must be good, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences. If any one font is bad, the act is immoral. If an act is immoral due to a bad intention, the same type of act may be moral with a good intention. If an act is immoral due to the circumstances, the same type of act may be moral in different circumstances. But when an act has an evil moral object, the act is inherently immoral, in other words, the act is evil, in and of itself, apart from intention and circumstances. Every intrinsically evil act has an inherent moral meaning (the moral species) which is contrary to the moral law of God. Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances because the moral species (the type of act in terms of morality) is inherently unjust. Pope John Paul II: "But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting...
Words: 2755 - Pages: 12
...wrongness. He does not exercise virtues, because he still does not possess a virtuous character when he performs his corrupt actions, selling overpriced products to innocent people. As a result of his self-driven impulses, John would not be classified as virtuous or moral at...
Words: 1081 - Pages: 5
...The moral status of homosexual is still on the line: whether it is moral or immoral. In this reaction paper, I will discuss my stand regarding the moral status of homosexual. Let me first define the word moral. Based on Merriam Dictionary, moral is defined as these: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior; based on what you think is right and good. So this suggests that morality is both subjective and objective just like values. According to an article I’ve read on the internet, homosexuality is not immoral. There were major ethnical theories presented, but I will focus on just one theory, which is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that morality should be guided by the results of an action. If an action leads to good results, then it is a good act, but if an action leads to bad results, then it is a bad act. This theory will tell us that homosexuality will be morally right if its consequences lead to happiness, and wrong if it ends in unhappiness. Now, the question is this: does being homosexual lead to happiness or pain? Before I answer that question, let me first discuss the possible causes of homosexuality. According to Craig Biddle, an author of books regarding morality and principles, there are three elements that causes homosexuality. Two of which are biological and environmental. Science is still inconclusive what makes some people homosexual, but it is believed that there some genes that makes them such. Most scientists would agree that...
Words: 1003 - Pages: 5
...justice the definition that comes to mind is: the administration of a just action because of an unjust or immoral act being done by a human or group of humans. The issue of proper punishment has also been discussed in those conversations with Socrates and his peers. There must be a punishment for immoral or unjust actions committed by any human otherwise everything in our world would turn into complete chaos. In Socrates’s time people believed heavily in the afterlife and that his or her actions on Earth determined the quality of that life. The gods played a huge role in deciding the fates of everyone depending on how one lived while one was alive. If one lived an unjust and reckless life then it will show because the gods in one’s afterlife will punish him or her. Socrates states, “…bad people are wretched because they are in need of punishment, and that in paying the penalty they are benefited by that god.” There is a problem with waiting until the afterlife for people to be punished because then there would be no order in society. Bad people who are actually bad can get away with living well in the afterlife because during their Earthly life they gained enough wealth to pay the gods to give them a good afterlife. Meanwhile the good people of the world who did a bad thing maybe once or twice will be wrongly punished in the afterlife. In order for everyone to get what he or she deserves, they need to be punished while they are still alive. The way the societies keep everything...
Words: 1240 - Pages: 5
...Mount. It is known as the Golden Rule – “Treat others the way you would have them treat you: this sums up the law and the prophets.” (Mt 7:12) • This is message is concerned with action, with positive effort on behalf of others. Contrast this with the teaching of a famous Jewish rabbi of Jesus’ day. When asked to sum up the teaching of the law and the prophets, the rabbi responded: “Avoid doing to others what you do not wish them to do to you.” Whereas the message of Jesus is to get involved as the Father has gotten involved with humanity, the rabbi cautions a more conservative approach. The rabbi wants us merely to keep from harming others. Jesus wants us to act, not just react. • Jesus further puts his own special seal on this maxim by stating the two greatest commandments: love God and love one another. To love someone is to seek to do good to them, and certainly, at the very least, to avoid doing them evil. • What is Christian Moral Life? • Misconceptions 1. Reduced to avoidance of sin 2. Reduced to a series of don’ts and dire punishment if we fail • What is Christian Moral Life? • Positive and Fuller Meaning 1. Moral theology should start with God and God’s love - JP II (Veritatis Splendor) : The moral life is a response to the many gratuitous initiatives taken by God out of God’s love - God always acts first: the moral life begins with God’s grace; we respond in freedom to our experience of God - If the moral life is a response to God, then...
Words: 1729 - Pages: 7
...TELEOLOGY and DEONTOLOGY You ever heard the saying “the ends justify the means”? What exactly does this mean? Well it means just because you do something bad as long as the result is good the action can be forgiven. If one man kills another man he is a murderer. But what if the man he killed, killed others? Or done worse crimes? Was he a rapist? Possibly, and if he is then was his actions justified? The saying does say if the result is good the action is justified but how good of a result does it have to be? If you rob a bank and give the money to the less fortunate is that justified? How about killing one to save the lives of many? Let’s use teleology and deontology to help us figure this out. First let’s define what deontology and teleology mean. The word deontology comes from the Greek roots deon, which means duty, and logos, which means science. Which means deontology is the "science of duty." Deontology focuses on independent moral rules or duties. In order to make the correct moral choices, we simply have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules help us regulate those duties. The word teleology comes from the Greek roots telos, which means end, and logos, which means science. Which means teleology is the "science of ends." Teleology focuses on the consequences which our actions might have. When we make choices which result in the correct consequences, then we are acting morally. When we make choices which result in the incorrect consequences, then...
Words: 672 - Pages: 3
...Throughout the day, each and every person makes decisions based upon what they believe and want to do. It may be a good gesture or a gesture just looking out for them. The question arises is their a right and wrong choice. But ethics are and immortality hand in hand. Are they the both though and same thing, are can they be oppositely done? Immorality and ethics in today’s society are two different things. Due to the differences you can have both. The differences are shown through society, judgment, and belief. Through society ethics and immortality show their difference. Society shows that ethics is based upon the society itself rather then the individual. Ethics is what society goes based on. The rules that are place in the United States are a set of ethics that each individual must follow. There can be different ethics for different groups of people. For instance in the business world today there are business ethics, which is another set of ethics for a different group of people. Even though these ethics are set in place people still do not follow them and has to do with immorality of the individual. In addition to society showing how ethics and immorality are immoral, the judgment of each individual shows the difference and how one can be ethical and immoral. Each individual has their own mind and in which they make their own judgments and decisions. For instance in a state like Texas it is legal to shot somebody that is on your property and then ask questions later,...
Words: 386 - Pages: 2
...spotlight as a corporate bad guy because it made the decision to release what is considered vital information on several large businesses that could adversely affect those said businesses. Reportedly, the information on Wikileaks is not just assumed authentic but is actually authentic and has been vetted so that the innocent are protected. With this being said, Wikileaks reportedly has in its possession a hard drive possibly belonging to an executive with Bank of America and plans to release the information contained on the hard drive to “take down” the bank and expose an “ecosystem of corruption” (Schwartz, 2011). In today’s world, freedom of press and freedom of speech is something that is held in the highest regard and is supported fully. The question is when does this freedom go too far and cross the line of moral acceptance. In addition, does the information in question violate the privacy of those involved and is it something that is just being used to draw attention to a particular person or organization. It is possible that by releasing confidential information about a large corporation, or how an organization operates for that matter, could damage that business beyond repair, and force it to close its doors forever. Is it morally right for other corporations to target a “whistleblower” company such as Wikileaks just because they pose a possible threat? Background What exactly is Wikileaks and why does its developer consider it his business to help society today?...
Words: 1940 - Pages: 8
...opposite of what they believe and respect. What proves and right do you have to say that doing this is moral or immoral. Just like James Rachel’s brief statement “Different cultures have different moral codes.”(p. 175). Some people may disagree about something, and some may agree about something. That does not mean one is right and another one is wrong. Everyone thinks differently just because members of a different culture think it is bad, that does not mean it is bad. From my own experience, since I am from another country (Laos) I see many things that are different from America. How Laotian...
Words: 861 - Pages: 4
...‘Abortion is immoral.’ – Do you agree? Abortion is the deliberate termination of a foetus. Some people may argue that it is a foetus; however some may disagree and say that it is a baby. People have different views on abortion, some may say that abortion is immoral – this means that it is wrong in all circumstances or an absolute morality – this also means wrong in all circumstances. However, other people may believe abortion is moral – this means peoples beliefs on what is right or wrong or relative morality – this means it is only right in some circumstances. The law states that abortion is a relative morality because it only allows abortion to continue in certain circumstances, the circumstances are: the mental or physical health of the woman or her existing children will suffer if the pregnancy continues or the child, if born would be physically or mentally handicapped. Alternatively, ‘The Abortion Act’ that began in 1967 may be performed legally if two or more doctors agree. The law on abortion in 1967 had no time limit but under normal circumstances, the pregnancy should not have been passed the 28th week. On the other hand, in the year 1990 another law had been made this was called ‘The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act’. As for the 1967 act except that the time limit was reduced to 24 weeks, this law stated that abortion should only be legal if abnormalities have been detected which are physical or mental you could have an abortion up until birth (after 24 weeks)...
Words: 1012 - Pages: 5
...end/means dilemma is an old and popular scenario. The answer to this question depends on what the type of goals or ends are and what means are being used to achieve them. Moreover, Gandhi, pioneer and a theorist of satyagraha said, “I feel that our progress towards the goal will be in exact proportion to the purity of our means”. Indeed, according to the Gandhian philosophy, the means and ends are like the two sides of the same coin. They are inseparable from each other. That is why, for example, Gandhi struggled whole life against British and never adopted the wrong means. I. Do ends ethically justify their means? Most people use the expression "the ends justify the means" as an excuse...
Words: 1365 - Pages: 6
...correct and this is because morals vary from culture to culture and universalizability does not exist. Morals are supposed to bring good but there are circumstances where a moral action might bring damage. Due to this premise I feel as though it is not always right to do the duty that is expected. I also believe that if a duty is imposed on us, the fulfillment of that duty will not make us any more ethical. To explain my universalizability statement, Immanuel Kant believes that acting immorally is unreasonable because it is inconsistently unfair and unjust towards whomever it may have a negative impact on, even though that person may not know. According to Kant, an action is morally right if its maxim is universalizable. In which a maxim is a “principle of action you give yourself when you are about to do something” (162), and universalizable means that your acts of your maxim would be supported by everyone. According to Russ Shafer-Landau in The Fundamentals of Ethics, Kant believes that, “the morality of our actions has nothing to do with results. It has everything to do with our intentions and reasons for action, those are contained in the principle we live by” (163). Morality relies on people acting out with a good intention, but the action has to be universalizable, and if it is not, we are being inconsistent. Being inconsistent contradicts the reason of the action and therefore the immoral act is irrational. According to Russ Shafer-Landau in The Fundamentals of Ethics, “Kant...
Words: 963 - Pages: 4
...Thought-Piece 2 Relativism, Cultural and Moral People in different cultures, as well as people within a given culture, hold different moral views on particular issues. Some members of our society believe that abortion is immoral, and others believe that it is morally permissible. Thus, it is very important that we distinguish what is often called cultural and moral relativism. Differing views regarding the morality of a given action or practice may be the result of a number of factors. Two societies may basically and ultimately disagree on moral principles, but the disagreement may also be on many other levels. For instance, two societies may adhere to a basic principle: What helps the society flourish is moral and what hinders it is immoral. Differing conditions therefore provide a reason for holding different actions to be moral or immoral. A society’s factual beliefs also affect what it holds to be moral or immoral. Some societies believe what is false. To some extent, this is probably true of all societies. However, most societies are aware that they obtain more and more factual knowledge as they develop and progress in life. Just as a society may be mistaken about the proofs, so it may be mistaken about some of its moral judgements. The saying “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” has limited applicability. One clearly should observe local etiquette and other such customs in countries other than one’s own. So, when in Rome, one should indeed do as the Romans...
Words: 448 - Pages: 2
...“Is morality relative or are there objective moral truths?” Is Morality Subjective or Objective? Every day, we make decisions that affect our lives and others. Sometimes, those decisions are bigger than other times. Those decisions are sometimes made because the choice is to do something right or wrong. We say that a moral person will make the right decision and the immoral person will make the wrong decision. An example of this is that if I was raised in a culture that says killing is wrong. I am a Naga from Northeast India. Just over 100 years ago, we Nagas were headhunters. Killing was more than tolerated – it was expected. Men would raid other villages nearby and kill other men, bringing back heads. Even children’s heads were special trophies. This sounds very bad, even to me, but if I was born over 100 years ago, I would be okay with it. So is killing others right or wrong? Even in enlightened cultures, wars happen and people kill each other. These questions always come up when people talk about morality. In any debate, the arguments tend to take two extreme sides, which means there is not much middle ground left for the discussions. The slippery slope fallacy is often used to talk about morality. According to Richard Nordquist at about.com, the slippery slope fallacy is “A fallacy in which a course of action is objected to on the grounds that once taken it will lead to additional actions until some undesirable consequence results” (para. 1). In other words, we say something...
Words: 2323 - Pages: 10
