There are no moral absolutes Essay Example for Free

There are no moral absolutes Essay Moral absolutism is the view that morale standards are unchanging and universal. On the opposite side of the spectrum there is a relativist approach. Relativists believe that moral claims are true or false depending on the moral standpoint. These opposing viewpoints can bring about great societal and political debates even in the modern days. Recent examples include the attempt to legalise euthanasia in the UK and the protest to get rid of abortion laws in the Republic of Ireland. Both of these situations are trying to legalise specific forms of murder. An absolutist in this situation will argue that all killing is wrong therefore current laws are right, whereas a relativist would look at specific standpoints, such as quality of life for euthanasia. In this essay I will attempt to explore both sides of the argument coming to my conclusion that relativism is a superior standpoint and that there are no moral absolutes. Some absolutist people disagree with the above statement about moral absolutes. This is because absolutism is a deontological argument which judges the morality of an action based on the actions appliance to rules. For Christians these rules might link back to the Ten Commandments. One of which is â€Å"thou shalt not murder†, this clearly and undeniably is an unbreakable law in the eyes of an absolutist. Another argument for their being moral absolute is that of a criticism to relativist acts. By Relativist thinking it is quite easy to come to the conclusion that slavery was a perfectly moral thing to do. To an absolutist, slavery did not become immoral when it was abolished, it was simply always immoral and being imposed by immoral governments. Per Contra the relativist approach has been backed by many a philosopher including the famous Empiricist, John Locke. Locke believed that absolutes were an abomination from his religious standpoint. He believed this because Absolutism subjected people to abide by absolute rules set by other people at some point. This goes against his belief that all people were created equal by God. By enforcing Absolutism we raise our rule imposing leaders to a God like Status of which no man should be. Furthermore this goes against the fist commandment that men should serve God alone; if we serve a ruler we can then not worship God. Another argument for Relativism is that absolutist moral standards, in some circumstances can lead onto extreme evils. The famous example that illustrates this is that of a crazed axe-murderer coming to your front door and asking you where your children are. Now a relativist could lie based on the circumstances thus saving his children whereas an absolutist must tell the murderer where the children are with full knowledge that they will be killed, thus allowing an even greater evil to be committed, they could even be called an accessory to the murder of their own children. Furthermore there cannot be moral absolutes as eventually they will contradict each other. For example, Jewish doctors in the Holocaust performed abortions to prevent women from being sent to the gas chambers. Two rules here are conflicting. One of which is that Doctors should not perform abortions and another that Doctors should try and save lives. Either way from an absolutist standpoint the doctor will be doing the wrong thing, but a relativist approach allows us to overlook this. On the other hand, there may have to be moral absolutes, because if everything is relativists then how do we decide what rules to abide by. If two tribes cross paths on a Sunday and one of which believes that a sacrifice should be made on Sunday whereas the other tribe does not, if the first tribe then sacrifices a member of the other tribe, it that then morally right or wrong. A relativist would say that it is right for the first tribe but wrong for the second. But how can society work based on right for me, wrong for you system without falling into moral conflict and chaos. Moreover, some relativist arguments when further analysed have absolutist roots, proving there are moral absolutes. For example, the Eskimo practice of leaving female infants out to die as so future male hunters could thrive appeared to be a significant disagreement between their moral systems and ours therefore seeming to deny the universal approach of Absolutism. But when dug deeper, given the hardships of the Eskimos to survive and limited resources for survival, keeping every child puts the whole family at risk. So there is actually a fundamental moral value of preserving life that we share with the Eskimos. The only difference being that they have to make choices based on what they value most (future hunters), these choices we do not have to face. This said the Eskimo example is also a benefactor the relativist approach of situation ethics. Joseph Fletcher, founder of situation ethics argued that in certain situations, absolutist principle have to be put to one side in order to do the right thing. He believed that absolutism didn’t lead to the best of most loving outcome, and the best thing to do may be to break a rule. Utilitarian also reject moral absolutes and focus more on consequences. They believe that the right action is the one that brings the most pleasure and the least pain. Sometimes this may admit Killing in order to save more lives. For Jeremy Bentham, there was no rule he would not break in order to bring about greater happiness. In short if there are no moral absolutes we are left with a Relativist state of mind. This is the belief that moral reasoning is a matter of taste and opinion and is subjective and relative to time and culture. Leading to conclusions such as the killing of Eskimo girls to be morally correct and the act of abortion by a World War 2 doctor also to be moral. Whereas if there are moral absolutes than the same moral rules are applicable all across the world and throughout history. These rules may be some form of innate knowledge or come from the divinity of God and do not change as opinion does. Meaning that if slavery comes back into fashion and is agreed upon to be good, it does not make it morale. In conclusion, I hold a relativist point of view because different cultures have to adapt to live in their surroundings. Extreme measures are often taken for survival which to us in western society would seem abhorrent; however it is for the greater good of future generations. I very much believe that ends justify the means therefore making me a Consequentialist even if rules such as absolutist murder have to be broken. Finally morale absolutes can also seem cruel, for example branding Euthanasia as murder makes people live their final days in unimaginable pain, whereas a relativist approach could give people a dignified end to their life, is that not moral.

Mother Teresa :: essays research papers

Matt Miller   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   3-15-00 Mr. Thorp Morality Per. A Mother Teresa   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Mother Teresa was a powerful woman with her missions and countless acts of mercy. Powerful leaders in our world today should learn from Mother Teresa and her countless acts of mercy, which she performed. Often men and women in powerful positions misuse their strengths simply for their own personal benefit. Mother Teresa is a perfect example of a modern day saint. Through her love and guidance of Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa proves to be savior. Now if you compare Mother Teresa to some of today’s wealthy politics and the way they conduct themselves, you will see a great contrast between to two. Mother Teresa does not work out of the intent to profit but instead out of her love to help others, like no other women our society has seen.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Mother Teresa used her power of love from God to help those in desperate need. Mother Teresa didn’t get paid for anything she did nor would she except money from organizations or donations. It was not like Mother Teresa had an overwhelming amount of money but she was simply a person who devoted her entire life to serving others and helping those in need. Many people may not have noticed it, but all Mother Teresa had to do was touch a person and that was almost enough. She helped thousands of people in poor countries with ailing diseases, but most importantly see touched the souls of common men. She made even the rich and selfish take a deep look into their lives, which brought out the best in everyone. When one person can captivate the world as she could, it makes you realize how very important she really was. It was not always what she did, but rather how she conducted herself while doing it. For all the many deeds she did, she never once asked for anythin g in return. Most leaders today are very selfish and are only contributing to society when they feel it looks good for their image.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Leaders such as Mother Teresa should be highly respected for their accomplishments. It is people like Mother Teresa who give us all a new meaning to life. She truly proved that one person can really make a difference in the lives of millions. Mother Teresa set examples for future generations to continue her work. This shows how much of an impact she truly had.

Plath Sample answer

â€Å"Plath’s provocative imagery serves to highlight the intense emotions expressed in her poetry.†I agree completely that Plath uses a lot of provocative imagery to highlight the intense emotions expressed in her poetry.The poem I will discuss in light of this statement is ‘Morning Song’.In this poem I found a lot of provocative imagery that made me feel various emotions. One provocative image that stood out for me was, ‘new statue’. I found this image provocative because it’s abnormal to describe your new born baby as a statue. It provoked/caused anger and confusion in me. It made me angry because I think that Plath is suggesting that her child is a possession. I believe it is wrong to have a child just to add to your life like a new car or home. It also confused me because the title suggests something positive but to me this image is negative.Another provocative image that stood out for me was, ‘In a drafty museum, your nakedne ss shadows our safety’. This is a provocative image because I find that Plath is being harshly honest when it comes to her relationship with her husband. To describe your home as being a drafty museum is unusual. It made me feel respect towards Plath but also anger. I respect her for being able to tell the truth about her relationship. To express the loneliness and depression she feels is courageous. However I feel anger at the idea that somehow having a child would fix the problems in their relationship, ‘your nakedness shadows our safety’.A third provocative image that stood out for me was, ‘I’m no more your mother’. This to me is extremely provocative. Her child is only born and already Plath is feeling that she is not or should not be a part of her daughter’s life. This provoked/caused me to feel sadness and pity for Plath. I feel that she’s afraid that her child will soon be an individual and will not need her mother’ s advice or encouragement. This makes me feel sad for Plath as a mother, to already be thinking of when her daughter leaves the home instead of enjoying the moments of her being a child. I also feel pity  for Plath because I feel she hopes that her child won’t need her. I think she feels this way because she’s afraid her child will be like her and take on her depression.The final provocative image that stood out for me was, ‘In my Victorian nightgown’. This is a provocative image because again I think Plath is being blatantly honest when it comes to her relationship with her husband. I think she uses the nightgown as a symbol for a lack of passion in her relationship with her husband. This image made me feel respect for Plath. I respect her for being able to tell the truth about her relationship. To express the loneliness and depression she feels is courageous especially when it’s something intimate like their sexual relationship.Overall I found t hat Plath uses a lot of provocative imagery to make a statement, to shock and cause the reader to take notice of what she is trying to say. I also feel she uses these images in a great way to provoke or create intense emotions for the reader and suggest these are the same emotions she herself is going through.

Comparison Paper GOVT200 - 679 Words

The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are two of the oldest documents in America and two of the most popular. These documents help to shape America and gave us freedom from the British government. The two documents contains very important information about our independence but they are different in many ways. In this paper I will compare the two documents and incorporate an outlook from the Christian biblical worldview. The U.S Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are very different in their objectives and personal appeal. Since it was established the U.S. Constitution has been the foundation for the U.S. Government. The U.S. Constitution has been designated the supreme law of the country. The Declaration†¦show more content†¦Once approved by every State the U.S. Constitution was put in effect in 1789. The U.S. Constitution brought the President, Supreme Court and Congress into play. It states the powers held by each office and lays out how ea ch position should be picked. The U.S Constitution also states the rights of every U.S citizen. The Declaration of Independence led the way for the U.S. Constitution because without the Declaration of Independence the Constitution would probably never exist. The Declaration of Independence got the thirteen United States of America thinking about how much more they could do on their own under fair leadership and how better things could be if the citizens was able to help make some decisions. I think that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution did not think about the separation of church and state. At that given time I think that the main focus was getting away from the British government. I believe they were thinking if we can remove ourselves from under the British government we can make our own rules and run our states the way we see best fit. Not if we don’t focus on keep the main focus on strengthening our churches our government could be lost. I believe that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution was thinking that if they separate God from the Government that they could keep some of the rules and guidelines set forth by God and then make their own. The thinking