Category: Moral

Most authors provide lessons sugar-coated with stories of unrealistic and non-relevant plots and twists. To Kill a Mockingbird deeply explores real life problems while simultaneously teaching its readers valuable life lessons. As a classic literature enthusiast, it’s truly disappointing that To Kill a Mockingbird is not a part of the ‘Guides to the classics’ series. Harper Lee’s richly textured novel cleverly utilises characterisation and language to teach readers many moral and ethical lessons. This novel is about the perspective of race and justice in the Depression-era South-Eastern US State of Alabama through the eyes of an innocent young girl named Jean Louise (Scout) Finch. Scout alongside her older brother Jeremy (Jem) Finch are raised by their widowed Father Atticus Finch, who taught meaningful life lessons throughout the novel; some of which include ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’, ‘Fight with your head not your fists’ and ‘stand up for what you believe in’. Atticus, who is a prominent lawyer within Maycomb taught his children one of the utter most aspects he uses daily within his job and outside of his work, to never judge another until you understand their situation.

Atticus raises his children to be empathetic and just, sharing his experiences to educate Scout and Jem about what’s wrong and right. One of the most outspoken lessons portrayed in this novel is ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’, meaning that one should not prejudice the worth or value of a person by only their appearance. This is exemplified in a line spoken by Atticus when conversing with Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view – until you climb into his skin and walk around in it” (p. 33). This line demonstrates the importance of viewing the world from the perspective of others before passing judgement thus positively affecting interactions with others. Towards the end of the novel, Scout states ‘Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them’ (p. 308). This evidently demonstrates that the protagonist has learnt and developed throughout the novel, exemplifying the lessons taught to the readers. This lesson, I believe needs to be taught as today’s society focuses specifically on the appearance of others and themselves, not many focusing on people’s true identities.

Another lesson the novel teaches its readers is that ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’, which is utilised throughout the novel to reduce or renounce wrongful behaviour as a reaction to another individual’s transgression. Atticus is quoted in the novel explaining how fighting with your head and not your fists is the best action to take when others approach a more aggressive route, “Try fighting with your head for a change…” (p. 84). This is the response to ‘ugly talk’ that is thought to have spread due to Atticus taking of Tom Robinson’s case, who is one of the towns coloured residents being charged over the ‘rape’ of Mayella Ewell. This lecture about prejudice was not only important but necessary as during the 1930s, the brutalities of white-race prejudice towards African Americans preserved even after freedom was won by the slaves in the 1870s. However, today the white-race prejudice towards coloured people is frowned upon, with penalties/consequences in place.

It’s not always easy to differ from the popular opinions or beliefs placed upon individual minds by society, like the 1930’s societal belief ‘blacks are innately intellectually and culturally inferior to whites’ that differs from today’s belief and I observe everyday around me, ‘Everyone is equal, regardless of race, gender or culture’. Stand up for what you believe in, is another lesson within Lee’s novel. Atticus states after being questioned by Scout why he is willing to continue on with the case if he already knows the verdict “The main one is, if I didn’t I couldn’t hold up my head in town, I couldn’t represent this country in the legislator, I couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do something… because I could never ask you to mind me again” (p. 83). Atticus expresses his thoughts that lead to his actions in taking on Tom Robinson’s case, primarily, that if he did not take on the case, then he would have been going against who he was as a person and his values, attitudes and beliefs. Furthermore, in not taking the case, he would be contradicting every lesson he taught to his children.

Harper Lee’s award-winning novel To Kill A Mockingbird cleverly exhibits many moral and ethical lessons, ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’, ‘Fight with your head not your fists’ and ‘stand up for what you believe in’ being some discussed. Due to these life lessons portrayed thoroughly and thoughtfully in this novel, I believe it must be granted access into the ‘Guides to the classics’ series.

Why should we have a good moral?

In my opinion , everyone that lives today in this modern day should plant good values of morals inside each individual. Moral is what define a person everyday actions and decisions and those are related by our conscience. Furthermore , because it is the only way to have a chance at having self-respect. We can only have self-respect if we respect who we actually are, we can’t if we only respect some false image of ourselves. So, self-respect requires self-knowledge. And only people who can make just and fair self-assessments can have self-knowledge. And only just and fair people, good, moral people can make just and fair self-assessments.

Other than that, from our heart moral as well differentiate what is right and wrong. As today in this social media connected world, it is very easy to connect socially between each human being and without a proper moral many problems could raise and is very hard to survive without moral . As of today’s generations we are having more and more moral issues dealing with human rights, corruptions in the government and social problems for example the war that has been going in Palestine, the increase rate of abortion and political figures caught with money laundering. I believe all of this occurs due to lack of conscience in morality.

Finally, to end this question i’ve conclude that if everyone practice good moral in their daily life we would be living a peaceful and harmonious life which also able to improve us human beings to evolve into a better species this is because being good lets you see what is truly of value in the world. Part of what being good requires is that good people know what is good in the world and what is not. Bad people have bad values, good people have good values. Having good values means valuing what deserves to be valued and not valuing what does not deserve to be valued. Quotes saying from a philosopher, ‘A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.’ – Albert Camus (1913 – 1960), French Author, Philosopher, and Journalist.

Who determined that we should follow good moral?

From the question given, the key in developing a good moral values are the people who surround the individual in their adolescent stage. The main characters are parents and teachers. Kids tend to follow people that they look up to and this could be subjective but mostly are their parents as they grow up and picking up values that are been given and showed from their parents. Written below are the research conducted that I’ve studied.

A new study from the University of Chicago suggests that parents’ sensitivity to both other people’s feelings and to injustice may influence early moral development in their children. Developmental neuroscientist Jean Decety and his colleague, Jason Cowell, brought a group of one year olds into the lab to test them on their reactions to moral situations. The seventy-three toddlers watched animated videos in which characters engaged in helping and sharing behaviors or pushing, tripping, and shoving antisocial behaviors while the researchers monitored the toddlers’ eye movements and measured their brain wave patterns using an electroencephalogram, or EEG.

Prior to the experiment, the children’s parents filled out questionnaires measuring their values regarding empathy, justice, and fairness. The parents also answered questions about their children’s observed temperaments, as well as giving general demographic information. As the analysis the researchers discovered that this distinct spike in good morality activity was predicted by the parents’ sensitivity to justice.

Other than that , the environment that parents introduce to their kids is another thing that affects moral development. Children’s environments exert influence on their moral development in many different ways. Adult and peer modeling, family and societal values, religious values and beliefs, and parenting practices can all play a part in shaping morality. Some moral behaviors are passed on by way of verbal stories or structured lessons, such as religious teachings or classroom teaching activities. However, more commonly, moral behavior is learned through direct observation and imitation. Children carefully watch the behavior of their caretakers, other adults, and older children. If they see their parents being helpful to strangers, they’ll be more likely to be helpful to others as well.

So based on the research and my experienced in life it is proved, that early childhood development is very important. Parenting practices and daily discipline have a huge effect on a child’s developing sense of morality. Children who receive fair consequences every time they break a rule will learn to connect their choices with consequences.

Do we have to practice all the values to be morally good?

As an individual living in the society, yes it is advised to take as much as good values in your life. But also being human make us having flaws and problems and it is very important for us to have an open mind and a very strong mindset to keep us motivated on being good. Make it as a hobby to be good to others and most importantly to ourselves. As for me I always set my goals in every new year to be a better version of me as it makes me motivate to improve all of my weakness in every aspects of life.

Moreover, being good lets you see what is truly of value in the world. Part of what being good requires is that good people know what is good in the world and what is not. Bad people have bad values, good people have good values. Having good values means valuing what deserves to be valued and not valuing what does not deserve to be valued.

In a nutshell, it doesn’t mean that if we don’t practice all the values we are not morally good. It is almost impossible but possible to collect all the values and implant it in ourselves. Hence, it’s a very good idea to have all of those values to develop ourselves on transforming to be a good person. Have in mind that moral values enable us to know where to draw lines, and also highlight to us the lines we should never cross.

Moral decision-making, similarly to other types of decision-making, is a complex process. In order to decide how to act in a particular situation, an individual must first recognise that the situation has a set of moral rules attached to it, retrieve related moral schemas from their memory, encode and interpret features of the situation and generate and assess their moral response options (Garrigan, Adlam & Langdon, 2018). In order to understand how morality develops it is important to define what morality is. Morality can be defined as principles concerning the distinction between what is seen as right and wrong and the capacity to act on this distinction.

The concept of morality and how it develops has been widely explored and many different theories have been proposed. One of the first and well-known theorists of moral development was Piaget (1932), who proposed that there were two stages of moral development known as heteronomous and autonomous morality. He suggested that there was a pre-moral period in which children before the age of 5 show very little concern or awareness of rules. He then proposed that heteronomous morality develops between the ages of 5 and 10, in which children display a strong respect for rules and believe that rules are set by strong authority figures and must be obliged by. The second stage, known as autonomous morality, emerges at age 10 or 11 in which children come to understand that social rules can be challenged and are more based on mutual respect rather than being moral absolutes. Piaget’s work on childhood moral development inspired many other theorists that adapted and created their own theories regarding moral development.

Motivated by Piaget’s theory, Kohlberg (1969; 1984) expanded and developed his own ideas, looking beyond childhood and encompassing adolescence and adulthood into his theory. He proposed that there were six stages of moral judgement that were grouped into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. The pre-conventional level occurs for most children between the ages of four to ten and in this stage, similarly to Piaget’s theory, children display heteronomous morality. The second stage of the pre-conventional level suggests that children are concerned about what others can do for them, therefore they make equal exchanges with others in order to satisfy both people but ultimately their main concern is themselves. After this stage children move into the conventional morality level between the ages of ten to thirteen. At the first stage of this level the main concern is maintaining mutual interpersonal relations and they feel obligated to live up to the expectations of those closest to them. At the second stage of this level the social system defines appropriate rules, roles and relationships therefore moral decisions are made based on this. After this, individuals move into the final level: the post-conventional level. At the first stage of this level individuals are concerned about the social contract and believe that it is better to obey the law. In the final stage individuals become capable of making moral decisions that are truly their own- unconstrained by self-interest, fear of punishment or the need for another’s approval. However, the final level is only reached by a minority of adults. Kohlberg’s theory has been faced with criticisms as well as support from other theorists, which will be addressed and evaluated in this essay.

Kohlberg proposed that morality develops through a series of qualitatively distinct stages with each stage presenting a higher level of moral rationality (Arnold, 2000). He came to this conclusion from his study investigating boys age 10 to 16 years old who had to resolve a series of moral dilemmas. Each dilemma challenged the respondent by requiring them to choose between obeying a rule/authority figure or taking action that disobeyed these rules/authority figures but it served a human need instead. Kohlberg was less interested in their decisions and more interested in the rationale they used to justify their choice. From this study, Kohlberg concluded that moral development progresses through an invariant sequence from stage 1 of the pre-conventional level to the final stage of the post-conventional level. He argued that the order of these stages are invariant due to the fact that they depend on the development of particular cognitive abilities that emerge in an invariant order. He also argued that each succeeding stage evolves from and replaces the stage before and once an individual has moved onto the next stage they never regress to the stage before (Shaffer & Kipp, 2007). Since the 1950’s many other researchers have tested his theory of moral development through studies carried out on thousands of children, adolescents and adults (Moshman, 2011).

The evidence from these studies has shown that males and females of all ages from differing cultures and backgrounds can be classified into the stages proposed by Kohlberg and also showed that they do develop through the stages in the order suggested by Kohlberg, therefore providing support for his theory. (Boom, Wouters & Keller, 2007; Dawson, 2002). Snarey (1985) and Walker (1982) also found evidence from their studies that supports Kohlberg’s claim of an invariant stage sequence as they found a positive correlation between increasing age and more advanced stages of reasoning. However, this does not necessarily prove that moral development does occur in an invariant sequence as the participants at each age stage level were only measured at a particular point in their life therefore it cannot be certain that a 16 year old at stage 4 has progressed through each of the stages and in the particular order proposed in Kohlberg’s models unless they have been consistently throughout their life and development.

Longitudinal studies can be looked at to provide the most compelling evidence in evaluating Kohlberg’s theory and addressing the previous criticism regarding a lack of consistent testing. Support for Kohlberg’s stages theory comes from his 20-year follow-up assessment of his original participants. Participants were re-interviewed five times at 3 to 4-year intervals and given 9 moral dilemmas. The results from this study found that the majority of the respondents scored at only one stage or at most 2 adjacent stages over the 9 dilemmas that were given to them. Only 9% showed evidence of a third stage of reasoning from their responses (Colby et al, 1983). This study also showed evidence that supports Kohlberg’s notion of an invariant stage sequence as the participants did not skip stages and they did proceed in the order proposed by Kohlberg. Similar results have also been found from a 9-year study in Israel and a 12-year study in Turkey (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987), furthering support his claim. However, this study did also show that 4% (6) of the adjacent testing times showed a downward stage change. This contradicts Kohlberg’s argument that once an individual has moved onto the next stage they never revert back the stage before. Although, this is only a very small percentage therefore it is fair to say that the vast majority did show results that help support his theory.

Kohlberg’s longitudinal work also showed that only about 15% of adults at the age of 26 appeared to be functionally at the post-conventional level. Also, the highest stage within this was removed from the analysis in the 20-year follow-up as none of the respondents displayed the use of this type of moral reasoning (Colby et al, 1983). This therefore questions the validity and the importance of these last two stages within moral development as by the age of 36 only a limited number of the participants actually reached the post-conventional level. It especially questions the final stage within this level proposed by Kohlberg as no one reached it, therefore there isn’t evidence that supports that this is a stage within moral development. However, there were only 58 subjects involved in his follow-up study therefore this could explain why there was no evidence of any participants reaching this level as the sample size was very limited. It was also only males involved in the study therefore it would have been interesting to see if females were included if this would have made a difference. Also, Kohlberg did acknowledge that the final stage within the post-conventional level was very rare and virtually no one functioned at this level, therefore he suggested that it was a hypothetical construct that was put forward in case someone did manage to surpass the 5th stage and was more his vision of an ideal moral reasoning rather than a stage that everyone would reach.

Although there has been research that indicates that children in many other cultures do progress in order through the first three or four stages proposed by Kohlberg, it has also been seen that the post-conventional level of morality simply does not exist within some cultures. Kohlberg’s highest stages can be seen to reflect more of a Western ideal of justice therefore showing cultural bias against those not living in a Western culture or who do not live in an individualistic society (Gibbs & Schnell, 1985). Those who live in a collectivist society often emphasise social harmony and are more concerned about making decisions that will benefit the group as a whole rather than those that will benefit a certain individual. Using Kohlberg’s model of moral development those within a collectivist society may be seen as conventional thinkers when in reality they actually have much more advanced concepts of justice but when using Kohlberg’s analysis they are seen as lower in their moral development than they actually are. Shweder, Mahapatra & Miller (1987) carried out research on children and adults in India and the United States where they found that Hindu children and adults rated son’s having a haircut as one of the most morally offensive acts out of 39 acts they had to rate and they rated husband’s beating a disobedient wife as not morally wrong. Whereas, American children and adults rated wife beating as something that was morally wrong. This illustrates that the culture you live does often have a significant impact on your moral beliefs and Kohlberg’s model of moral development was designed in favour of a Western culture, therefore it is not fully representative of many other cultures and would place them lower in moral development than they actually are.

Bias within Kohlberg’s model has been further criticised regarding bias towards males in his theory and research. As mentioned previously, Kohlberg’s original and 20-year follow-up studies were conducted using all male participants therefore it is suggested that his theory, which was developed from male-dominated data, does not adequately represent females moral development. Carol Gilligan heavily criticised Kohlberg for being exclusive of females moral reasoning in his theory. She argued that males and females differ in their moral reasoning as females demonstrate moral reasoning based on care whereas males demonstrate moral reasoning based on justice. She claimed that Kohlberg’s theory focused heavily on justice therefore reflected a theory of moral development that was aimed towards the male ideology. However, there is very little support for this claim on differing male and female moralities within literature that focuses on gender differences in moral development (Dawson, 2002; Walker, 1984). Literature has instead found that both males and females moral reasoning contains elements of both care and justice.

The actual moral reasoning in any situation has more to do with the nature of the dilemma presented to them rather than what the gender of the individual is (Helwig, 1997). Research has also found that women reason just as complexly as men do when scored using Kohlberg’s criteria and there were no reliable sex differences in moral ratings (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000). Most psychologists are therefore dubious of any notion that moral orientations as associated with different genders. However, Kohlberg’s theory can be seen to be more focused on justice moral reasoning rather than care reasoning. Kohlberg’s dilemmas were more focused on the assumption that moral reasoning has to do with notions of fairness and equity. Therefore, Gilligan did highlight the issue that Kohlberg’s theory and dilemmas could include more care orientations in order to give a more well-rounded and fair analysis of individuals moral reasoning, especially since it has been found that moral reasoning contains elements of care and justice reasoning. Most developmentalists view care and compassion as complementary to concern for justice therefore acknowledging the value of Kohlberg’s theory as a theory of justice development but favouring a broader conception of morality (Carlo et al 1996, Eisenberg, 1996).

A further criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that the dilemmas he gave to participants were often not realistic situations that people would be faced with in everyday life, therefore it is difficult to accurately predict what you would do if that situation happened in real life. One of the most well-known dilemmas presented to participants is the Heinz dilemma. This is where Heinz’s wife is dying from cancer and a drug that could save her has been discovered but it is too expensive for Heinz to buy. The participants are asked a series of questions such as should Heinz have stolen the drug, would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife and would it make a difference if the person dying was a stranger. This situation is clearly unrealistic and the vast majority of people would not be faced with this in real life therefore the answers they gave may not be accurate in regards to what they would actually do. Also their answers could have been swayed as a result of being analysed and viewed by others therefore they also may not have answered accurately due to this and may have been concerned about giving answers that may have been judged, such as saying they would not save the wife. A further criticism of his dilemmas is that they were also not culturally universal and were more based on more masculine situations and used a male character as the central agent of dilemmas testing female participants (Gilligan, 1982).

There are both strengths and weaknesses within Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. His theory does not fully encompass those living out-with a Western society therefore adaptations need to be made in order to make this a more representative theory of moral development. It also does not include care orientations of reasoning, therefore this is another area that needs to be explored within moral development in conjunction with justice orientations. However, there has been a lot of research that supports Kohlberg’s theory, especially longitudinal studies which provide the most compelling support and evidence for his theory and show that the vast majority of individuals do development in the way and order proposed by Kohlberg. Overall it can be said that Kohlberg’s theory does propose legitimate stages that have been proven across different cultures although there is a lack of cultural inclusivity. His model does not provide a fully comprehensive theory that explains moral development but it does provide a good basis for an understanding of moral development within individuals. However, the same can be said about many other theories therefore it is important to seek out and rely on other perspectives and combine certain aspects of theories in order to gain a more well-rounded and better understanding of how morality develops as there is not a definitive answer that has been found.

Introduction

Moral principles break into two words, “moral” and “principles”. Principles are rules that are so well established that are essentially laws. The word “moral” concerns with the right or wrong of a behavior. Moral principles define as the principles of right and wrong which an person or a social group practices. A famous philosopher Immanuel Kant (1964) expressed the concept of morality as an individual’s duty to do the right thing. Moral principles cannot provide us the exact answers whether it is right or wrong, but it does guide our actions. Everyone has their own moral principles and value, but they can differ greatly from one and another. The fact is that no single moral principles that accepted by everyone. Some examples of moral principles are honesty, kindness, respect. Moral principles are person-specific which mean an individual’s principles regarding right and wrong.

Ethics is about what is right for people and society, which refers to laws given by an external source such as the social structure. Although ethics and moral are sometimes interchangeably, but they are different. While moral principles rely on individual judgement, it often results in some ethical problems. This happens when a person act based on his or her moral principles does not bring consider the well-being of others.

One common issue with moral principles is that it cannot solve some problems and people call it moral dilemmas. One famous example to demonstrate moral dilemmas is the Trolley and Footbridge dilemmas. The first case in which a runway trolley travelling down the tracks straight towards five workers, you are standing next to a switch that will shift the trolley onto the other track with one worker. You have to sacrifice one in order to save those five. Second case is where you are standing on a bridge over the track and there is a man standing next to you. You may push him over and his body will stop the oncoming trolley, saving the five workers and the man will die. Based on moral principles, it cannot guide us towards which action is morally right or wrong to save the five guys.

For instance, in our society, you are morally to feed a stray dog. However, problem may arise if you feed them which encourage them to produce more litters of puppies and cause societal problem. So, an action is morally right does not mean it is ethical.

Contents

As moral principles fail to provide reasons in explaining about right or wrong of doing something, argument arise if moral facts and duties really exist. According to MacKinnon and Meynell (1972), Is something good because God says it is good? or Does God say it is good because it is good? the first question form dilemma where if God say it is good, then what is the prove of existence of God? The second dilemma form if God say it is good, then who is the one higher than god? According to Lamont (1930), he presented in his paper with the summarize of argument for the existence of God by Martineau that “The fact of moral duty or obligation implies a moral law presenting the obligation”. This means that moral must have its legislator and this legislator cannot be a human. Since, no one can prove the existence of God, so who even able to prove where moral comes from?

Teleological ethics concerned with the consequences of an action. This means whether an action is morally right or wrong is depends on the result. Teleology moral philosophy further branch into two categories. The first one is ethical egoism which belief that every individual ought to act in a way to promote himself of herself if the result will generate, on balance rather than negative result. According to McConnell (1978), ethical egoism defines that a person’s duty is to promote his or her own best interest. The next branch is utilitarianism. According to Eggleston (2012), utilitarianism is an ethical theory whether an action is right or wrong is depends entirely on the maximization of overall well-being. So, there is a pitfall for utilitarianism, how good is consider good? and Not everyone gains the benefits they deserve.

The next moral philosophy perspective is deontology. Deontological the rightness or wrongness of an action is solely based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules. Deontology thought that moral principles are ascertained through some sort of logical test consistency. Deontologist believes that is the action is right, the consequences definitely will be right. Deontology focus on the important of right rather than good. Right is the matter of logical and rational.

The relativist perspective defines that ethical behaviour is subjectively from experience and there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. Descriptive relativism says that moral standard is culturally defined. Metaethical moral relativism states that there are no objective grounds for preferring the moral values of one culture over another. Therefore, moral relativist belief the right moral value exists in their own culture. Normative relativism everyone has a good opinion as others. Therefore, normative relativist suggest that society should accept each other’s differing moral values because there are no universal moral principles.

Another moral philosophy perspective is virtue ethics which is the oldest tradition in ethics. Virtue ethics defined as the quality of moral excellent, righteousness, and responsibility. Virtue ethics approach summarize as four views. First is corporate ethics encourage individual virtue and integrity. The second is those virtues which are synonymous with a good person’s proper behavior. Third is the purpose of virtue ethics is to concern with well-being of community. The last is at the same time of concerning well-being of community, the individual excellent also to be pursuit.

Discussion

There are cases where it is morally right but ethically wrong. Ethical problem in organization often has to do with the obligations a company has to its stakeholders. According to Christopher, Stirling, and Nielsen (2007) mentioned that pressure to achieve an effective result, productivity, the global competition had resulted in ethical violation and publicized fraud. In most organization, leaders and top management tend to focus on organizational development by improving task effectiveness and efficiency.

As mentioned by Hooker (2008), cultural differences tend to differ a person perception towards and act. According to Napal (2001), officials may expect bribes as a motivation for them to carry out normal activities and has becoming part of Mauritian culture. However, this seems to be morally right on moral relativism perspective as ethical behaviour subjectively from the culture. Bribery has become something necessary in Mauritius to improve organizational performance. But in other part of the world, bribery is an unethical behaviour. According to Pavlović, Mladić and Buzar (2016), corruption and bribery is unethical behaviour in business and even prohibited by laws.

Moreover, taking an example of corruption in international business where a manager has to bribe in order to close deals in foreign country. In this case, bribery in the domestic country is prohibited but it is a culture in that foreign country. Based on deontological perspective, it is unethical for the manager to pay or receive bribe. However, on the utilitarianism perspective, things might not as simple as how we look. If the manager pay bribe in order to close the deal which might eventually avoid the company going into bankruptcy. If the company declare bankruptcy, which might cause lost of jobs, income, poverty or even worse consequences. So, based on utilitarianism perspective, it is right for the manager to pay bribe in order to maximize the consequences of overall well-being.

Sometimes, organization act unethically in order to get things done or in other words, improve company performance, even manager know it is unethical to do so. However, according to Sahakyan and Stiegert (2012), empirical research found evidence that corruption is detrimental to company. In fact, there are lots of bad consequences company might face if they get discovered. This including breaking of laws and regulation. According to Zhu and Fu (2012), for instance, the case of Siemens AG pay bribe to Argentina government officials to retain contract to produce national identity cards for Argentina citizens.

Recommendations

Most business manager do not hold strong moral philosophies, and thus, they cannot explain the exact the moral philosophy they apply. To solve ethical problem in organizations, management should develop strict ethical standards for their employees. Every organizations have different norm and culture, thus, the ethical standard which must be best fit to the company context. According to Cullen, Victor, and Stephens (1989), there are three factors to determine the ethical climate which include environment, organization form, and organizational history.

To solve a problem, we should dig into the root of the problem. The best way to overcome unethical behaviour in organization is the corporate culture and rewards for meeting performance goals. It is important to promote ethical norms within organization by develop an ethical code of conduct for all level of employees. There are many principles and qualities under the code of conduct such as responsible, integrity, honest, respect, fairness, transparency, accountability, diligence and so on. So, it outlining standards and all employees are obligated to follow. If any employee found to disobey under the code of conduct will be punished. It is also important for manager to provide training to employee regarding the details in ethical code of conduct. This is an important way to create an ethical organizational culture. According to Scholl (2016), rewards are a motivating source to encourage employees behave ethically. Forms of reward can be in term of pay, promotions, bonuses and other benefits.

Furthermore, it is also important to equip employees with necessary skills that help them better understand and to resolve ethical dilemmas and help them make the right decision. Sometime, ethical dilemma occurs when an employee is to choose from two option. The point is, neither option is ethically acceptable. It even happens in a situation where employee don not even realize that their action is unethical. For instance, utilizing knowledge for own profit.

Moreover, reevaluate and revise as needed. Situations and needs are set to change. Managers need to know what works and what is not, what are the new flaws have arisen, and what progress have made. As time passed by, things might change. Thus, it is important to constantly updating the organization’s ethical culture and also revise on ethical code of conduct.

Conclusion

To be clear, there are several arguments about various moral philosophy perspective. In short, there are some ethical problem to society which include the ruin of well-being of the community and affect the interest of others. As most people do not embrace extreme philosophy, individual decision making often deal with ethical problem like ethical dilemmas. Organization is also no exception, ethical problems tend to arise in organization because no matter how perfect an organization is, there is still probabilities of mistake.

As far as the existence of moral realities is concerned, there are generous disputes in favor of moral principles as to whether an action is right or wrong regardless of people and societies’ beliefs. However, whether an individual respects a moral concept to others is the concern. The truth is that a moral principle strongly regarded by an individual can be contrasted with others. But the bottom line is that there are general right and wrong to the degree perceived in its culture.

The lesson we learn from this study is the importance of moral principles to individual, organization and society. Could we imagine if the world is without moral principles? What will it be like? Would people live in a peaceful and harmonious environment? Clear enough, morality is important in every human being. People need moral principles as guidance in life. Moral principles can guide a person to make a rational decision. Ethical problems can never rest as our world is in developing. When some issues were out of date, surely, new issues will arise as the central for debate. As far as argument pertaining to moral and ethical issues, it is an opportunity to ascending human reasoning capabilities.

Morality is best outlined as principles regarding the excellence between right and wrong or sensible and dangerous behavior. However the contradiction most face is that the belief that they themselves do unselfish acts of morality once very they are doing it within the best interests of themselves. This becomes apparent once staring at the work older recent philosophers philosopher and Immanuel Kant World Health Organization shed lightweight on verity and rational basis of their thus known as ethical actions.

Like most completely different ancient philosophers, thinker maintains a virtue-based eudaimonistic conception of ethics. that is to say, happiness or well-being is that the very best aim of moral thought and conduct, and thus the virtues area unit the requisite skills and inclinations needed to realize it. If Plato’s conception of happiness is elusive and his support for a morality of happiness seems somewhat subdued, there area unit several reasons.

First, he defines the conception or makes it the direct target of investigation, but introduces it in Associate in Nursing oblique approach inside the pursuit of various queries. Second, the treatment of the human wise varies inside the wholly completely different dialogues, so as that readers notice themselves confronted with the matter of what to make of the discrepancies in various works. This touches on a basic draw back with Plato’s work – significantly whether or not or to not follow a ‘unitarian’, ‘revisionist’, or ‘developmentalist’ approach to Plato’s writings. Whereas unitarians regard the dialogues as things of one mosaic, and take the browse that thinker in essence maintains a unified college of thought from his earliest to his latest works, revisionists maintain that Plato’s thought underwent a basic transformation later in his life, whereas ‘developmentalist’ hold that Plato’s views evolved significantly throughout his career. Whereas revisionism has lost its impact in recent years, developmentalism has gained in influence. Although there isn’t any agreement, few unitarians deny currently that the character of Plato’s early, middle, and late works differ fashionable, language, scope and content, as is to be expected in AN passing thinker world organization agency worked for quite fifty years.

Most developmentalists, in turn, agree that it is not doable to line up Plato’s works like pearls on a string ANd to reconstruct his progress from dialogue to dialogue; as an example, where the views expressed in various dialogues seem to disagree there’s additionally complementation or supplementation at work, rather than divergence. as long as thinker never speaks in his own voice, it is important to need note of world organization agency the interlocutors area unit and what role is assigned to philosopher, if he is the foremost speaker. Plato’s dialogues mustn’t be treated in isolation once it involves the reconstruction of his doctrine; but even the comparison and contrastive of ideas given in various dialogues is not a positive direction for decipherment this elusive thinker’s views.

Immanuel Kant argued that the supreme principle of morality might be a commonplace of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Immanuel Kant characterized the CI as Associate in Nursing objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we’ve got a bent to should follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we’ve got a bent to might got to the contrary. All specific moral desires, to keep with Immanuel Kant, unit even by this principle, which means that every one immoral actions unit irrational as a results of they violate the CI. Different philosophers, like Thomas Hobbes, thinker and Saint Thomas, had jointly argued that moral desires unit supported standards of rationality. However, these standards were either instrumental principles of rationality for satisfying one’s desires, as in Thomas Hobbes, or external rational principles that unit discoverable by reason, as in thinker and Saint Thomas.

Immanuel Kant united with many of his predecessors that Associate in Nursing analysis of wise reason reveals the necessity that rational agents ought to adapt to instrumental principles. yet he jointly argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle), and thence to moral desires themselves, can however be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was supported his putting ism that a rational will ought to be thought-about autonomous, or free, inside the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none except for the law of Associate in Nursing autonomous will. Thus, at the center of Kant’s philosophy might be a conception of reason whose reach in wise affairs goes well on the so much facet that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this free reason in everyone that Immanuel Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect.

It is terribly apparent that each philosophers area unit talking to the requirement of man developing personal ethics, however every thinker approaches this universal question mistreatment completely different principles. Philosopher uses Socrates’ dialogue to assess however one acquires knowledge through the acknowledgement of inherent content. Immanuel Kant evaluates the causes of individuals remaining in willful content and therefore the ways by that they will raise themselves out of such a state into enlightenment. Before examination these 2 philosophers, one should acknowledge that each have displayed variations in ethics, as some decision one “Platonic” and therefore the different “Kantian”.

First, allow us to examine the ethics of Immanuel Kant. we tend to should acknowledge the foremost distinguished options in Kant’s ethics were deontological, normative and therefore the worth of autonomy. Deontological ethics area unit essentially the judgment of actions’ morality supported however they relate to rules or obligations. One’s duties, consistent with Immanuel Kant, area unit delimited thereto person; thus, his or her actions ought to adhere to the expectations printed in these duties. whereas addressing duties within the text what is more, normative ethics area unit involved with whether or not AN action is true or wrong. They give the impression of being to ascertain a relationship between these variations so as to possess ethical rules that may notice a balance within the medium. And eventually, values autonomy is that the notion that each individual ought to use his or her own.

Morals can be thoroughly contemplated and studied in-depth by philosophers, but everyone, even without thinking, acts with morals in mind. Every person unconsciously follows some moral code; however, those rules differ from person to person. For example, when it comes to issues such as abortion, some support a woman’s choice to abort at any time, and others deem it inhumane, no matter the circumstances. Moral codes will inevitably contrast each other. So, the important question is, “Why?”. In other words, what single source do all unique sets of moral rules share that allow them all to be so vastly different from each other?

It is easy to state that moral rules exist; however, the source of these rules can be unclear and debatable. Some may consider the source of moral rules to be the morals a person is intentionally taught by someone else. However, the first person to maintain a moral code cannot have been taught their morals, since nobody else had the supposed knowledge and therefore the ability to enlighten them beforehand. Others consider the source to be some higher power, a perfect deity who dictates the events that occur here on Earth, but I doubt this because the supposed perfect deity has no reason to allow immoral actions. I believe that the source of moral rules must be more all-encompassing and fundamental. I will assume that every individual has free will, respect for someone other than themselves, and a moral code. The final, major assumption, and the basis for my thesis, is that human interaction is inevitable in one’s life. My thesis is that moral rules come from the bonds we form with others.

To clarify the meaning of my thesis, humans are naturally social creatures throughout their entire lifetimes. From birth, people interact with family, friends, and strangers, and they subsequently form relationships. Human beings are never truly alone, so they must interact with each other and make these bonds and connections. The formation of these bonds requires action, and every action, consciously or unconsciously, is tied to one’s morals.

So, moral rules form while we are with others, surely; however, this alone does not prove that company is the reason morals rules form. So, to delve deeper and prove this, it is necessary to consider that when it comes to morality, there is no guaranteed reward. Even with the prospect of an eternally pleasant afterlife as a reward for one’s good deeds on Earth, there is no guarantee. Nevertheless, people will do good things. Again, the big question is, “Why?”. If consciously or rationally there is no given reason to do good, then the source must be more innate, and that is where natural human interaction falls into place. People will meet others who they may deem lower, equal to, or higher than themselves. The area of equality is where people gain a sense of morality. There is an inborn desire to treat equals with dignity and respect, likely because one would treat themselves in the same way, and there is an awareness that actions have consequences on others. So, this results in people naturally forming personal codes that lean towards doing the least harm to those they consider to be their equals.

This also explains why moral rules differ so greatly from person to person. Different people have different relationships, influences, and interactions, and so, they develop different views as to who they deem equal to themselves. This affects how and to whom they display respect, the level of their concern regarding issues, their stances, and the moral rules that they stand for.

In conclusion, human relationships are at least major, if not the primary source of moral rules, and they are the very reason people do good things at all. This explanation covers the complexity of morality by tying it to a simple, fundamental concept.

Adam Smith begin the theory of moral sentiments about sympathy and the level of selfish a man can be and to what extent that he can reach. Due to the indication of his natural norm at the expense of others. Since we cannot in a way determine how other people feel, therefore we cannot assume what we might think about them unless we put ourselves in their situation. Smith differentiates two sorts of standardizing guides for activity. Rules and ethics of moral principles, shaped based on our responses to explicit examples. We tend to tell ourselves ‘I’ll never do that’ especially in a certain situation when conduct a particularly terrible sorts of conduct such as murder, assault, robbery and give a structure of shared desires for society. They are basic to equity, mainly without which social orders couldn’t endure.

They likewise empower individuals who are not completely prudent to act with at least propriety and tolerability and help we all slice through the ‘veil of self-dream’ by which we twist our circumstances to ourselves. Righteousness requires more than essentially keeping moral principles. Our enthusiastic miens should be re-designed so we don’t only effect the suppositions of the fair individual however, receive those notions. Recognize ourselves with, become, the unprejudiced observer, to the extent that that is conceivable. On the off chance that we are genuinely righteous, an accommodation to specific principles will compel all that we do, yet inside that system we will work without rules, attempting rather to form ourselves with the skill by which a craftsman shape his mud, to such an extent that we create attitudes to legitimate appreciation, graciousness, boldness, tolerance, and perseverance.

Regardless, Smith gives us more a prudence morals than the standard based good frameworks we can relate to Kant and the utilitarians. Yet, he additionally attempts to join a portion of the instincts that produced these different frameworks. As we have seen, he feels that we have to submit to general principles, and his purposes behind assuming that depending on assumption alone can nourish our self-double dealing envision Kant’s scrutinize of good sentimentalism in the Groundwork. Smith additionally recognizes that we in certainty judge activities by their belongings just as their goals, and thinks this kind of judgment is suitable as long as we take a glimpse at impacts as they are proposed, and not similarly as they happen arise. Smith says the distinction of activities, relies upon their outcomes, regardless of whether their appropriateness is autonomous of results; the point, for him, is only that these are two unique components of good judgment and the first is of more noteworthy significance than the second. Having demanded this, he allows that now and again the results of an activity where they compromise the very endurance of our general public, for example all the different contemplations.

It shows that our ethical thoughts and activities are a result of our very nature as social animals. It contends that our social brain discipline is a superior manual for moral activity than is reason. It distinguishes the fundamental guidelines of judgement and fairness that are required for society to endure, and clarifies the extra, helpful, activities that empower it to thrive such as personal responsibility and compassion. As people, we have a characteristic propensity to take care of ourselves. That is not only wisdom, but as social animals, clarifies by Smith, that we are likewise supplied with a characteristic compassion. Today we would state sympathy towards each other. At the point when we see others in troubled or in happiness, we feel for them. Similarly, others look for our compassion and feel for us. At the point when their sentiments are especially solid, sympathy prompts them to control their feelings in order to carry them in line with others or ours. Step by step, as we develop from

Since the introduction of human onto this world, reasons and feelings are as often as possible utilized by us to legitimize any choices made. Nonetheless, to what degree that them two assume a significant job in deciding? This brings up some questionable issues concerning reason and feeling; would they say they are actually similarly important? Similarly significant methods the two variables must be available and with no of the elements which are reason and feeling, the choice can’t be legitimized. With that, I would state that reason and feeling have the equivalent noteworthy significant job in legitimizing moral choice. Them two work together to drive us in our every day life so the choices caused will to be the best for individual. In this way, this article will think about the equivalent job of reason and feeling in legitimizing moral decisions.First of all, how this two different ways of knowing cooperates.

Reason is the capacity to think consistently viewed as a reason for information, while feeling is a solid inclination towards what you had faith in and affecting practices. Reason and feeling are similarly important in ethic as in defending choices feeling will be the impetus for the following procedure which is thinking. Rachel Carlson in his statement says, ‘On the off chance that realities are the seeds that later produce information and shrewdness, at that point the feelings and the impressions of the faculties are the rich soil where the seeds must develop’. As model, the updates on cataclysmic event of Typhoon Sidr in the southern piece of Bangladesh in light of the a worldwide temperature alteration impact, the image of 273,000 houses were devastated and 650,000 harmed and in excess of 3,000 individuals dead will genuinely influence the peruser. At that point, the feelings will disclose to us the compassion to the casualties of the calamity. It would invigorate the motivation to the profound quality of the nations that let their industrial facilities discharged the gases that caused the a worldwide temperature alteration catastrophe.

Here, the feeling is the impetus for the motivation to happen. Be that as it may, without the thinking, the data from the news can’t be composed and to sift through the news in the normal way. The feeling make the peruser of the news felt compassion to the casualties of the twister and the explanation comprehends the feeling part and end up with the ethical choices of the news. As Joseph Cook suitably remarked, ‘Inner voice is our attractive compass; reason our graph’. Indeed, even explanation and feeling similarly vital in legitimizing moral choices, by one way or another explanation assume progressively significant job as it can clarify certain things that can’t be clarified by emotion.In advocating a choice, it must be sensible and satisfactory. Feeling can divert what’s going on and what is correct in light of the fact that it relies entirely upon what an individual sees and feel. In this manner, reason must present in the process to legitimize and address what feeling consider.

As model, if a pregnant ladies needed to have a premature birth. On the feeling level, she may believe that having an infant is a weight for her. She simply needs enjoyment from the sex however she denies the child. She needs to dispose of the child so she doesn’t need to deal with the infant and proceed with her past life. Her prompt reaction is the alternative to prematurely end the child. At that specific time, it might be directly for her to prematurely end the infant. In any case, at that point, the sentiment of a mother decays her to do the fetus removal and the thinking procedure started. She began to think about the discussion, ‘it is murdering’, and the infant merit a live. Maybe she should seriously mull over that it was not the infant’s flaw, so for what reason should the child take it. Or on the other hand perhaps she conceivably will think of her as religion not permit fetus removal. In this way, the thinking procedure proceeds until the ladies can legitimize her choice to do the premature birth or not. Here we can see both are similarly huge. Thinking originates from the feeling procedure yet the feeling itself can’t legitimize the choice that going to make. In this manner, one can’t occur without the other.

Be that as it may, right now progress time where the typical cost for basic items is expanding, the choice to prematurely end the child will be the most reasonable decision for the vast majority of the individuals. Their thinking carried them to that sort of choice since they guarantee having an infant will cost them a ton and they can’t bear the cost of it. Despite the fact that they will feel it is a brutal activity through their feeling, however it doesn’t forestall the mother to prematurely end that baby.In perspective on the way that feeling is an inclination that is given structure by an idea, it is generally limited from the past experience that would impact the feeling that is made. On the off chance that the past experience of the individual is acceptable, the individual will have the great side of feeling or something else, the experience will wind up with the terrible feeling toward something. As a for example, an individual observers an awful mishap occurred before his eyes. He can see the casualties of the mishap shouting for help. Luckily, the individual has some information about the clinical information particularly in crisis circumstance.

Be that as it may, due to the past experience where he neglected to spare a couple of lives after he gave the clinical treatment, the individual felt regretful and had the injury. His feeling lets him know not to help the unfortunate casualties as they would kick the bucket in view of him by legitimizing the activity from his past experience. In any case, at that point, he attempts to reason his feeling; does it a fitting activity to let the unfortunate casualties that are truly deprived for some assistance as he had the option to support them? Does it worth him just to see them powerlessly confronting a mind-blowing finish? After a fight between his feeling and reason, at last he may choose to support the people in question. Despite the fact that right now is seen like explanation is overwhelm feeling however they are equivalent.

There are a few impediments where at times reason and feeling don’t approach in making a moral issue. This is often occur in the strict conviction, field of works, and the degree of information on the individual. In the religion, for example, Islam and Christian, plural marriage (polygamy, infidelity) is disallowed in those religions. Albeit an individual needs to have more spouses or having a little encounter of sex before marriage which originates from his feeling, he can’t do that due to his religion. His thinking will forestall him to do it for what it’s worth against the conviction of him to his religion. In the field of work, for example, judge, feeling must be set aside to legitimize the decision that going to make. An appointed authority should just depends to the explanation from the realities either the denounced individual is blameworthy or not. This is where reason and feeling don’t play similarly vital in advocating moral decisions.In ends, reason and feeling similarly essential in defending good choice, since feeling can change as per circumstance however reason will legitimize the feeling with rationale and henceforth will drive us to the right translation of the moral issue. In any case, reason can possibly exist and be critical if and just if feeling exists. Feeling will be the impetus for motivation to work. In a mind-blowing majority, we can’t preclude the job from claiming feeling and reason.

Nonetheless, different methods for knowing, for example, recognition and language likewise can be significant in defending good choices however reason and feeling exist in the equivalent method to legitimize any ethical choice that we make in our life. Accordingly, reason and feeling are similarly fundamental in advocating moral choices.

As a society, we are frequently given a set of rules to follow. These rules or laws act as a pathway to help us choose between what is right and what is wrong. Being moral can have severe consequences even when making right decisions. These moral codes or codes of conduct, are derived by a person or group’s particular philosophy, religion or culture. It can also be a set of principles that a person or group believes should be universal. Morality plays a significant role especially amongst Catholics.

Being Catholic, I was not only raised to follow the criterion of society, but more importantly, adhere to the codes set by my culture and religion. I was taught that following the; Golden Rule, 10 Commandments, and the Beatitudes would, through practice, assist me in making the morally correct choice no matter how difficult the situation. Being moral is crucial in my life, it gives me a broader perception of moral sense and guides my conscience into making the right judgements. Making moral choices can sometimes be afflicted by another individual’s or groups moral idealism. Upholding the standards in my religion can be a little assertive. There might be times where I am in the midst of being challenged by my morals and society’s morals. In order to make the right decision, I must first compare my situation to my morals, then I would compare it to society.

Choosing to being moralistic allows me to make decisions that not only follow societal norms but my religious codes. Many religions have a code called the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule speaks of a person’s morally checked and calibrated attitude toward other people. “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets”(Matthew 7:12). Personally, it simply means treat others as you would like to be treated. Being kind and helping others is important, it establishes a relationship and respect with others. I believe in the Golden Rule, but most of all, I believe that all humans have an innate sense of morality, of what is right and wrong.

The Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites by Moses in the Old Testament, but they are still important for Catholics today. Many people debate over whether the Old Testament laws are still applicable to Catholics. The Ten Commandments are part of God’s moral law, they are given to believers by God to show us how to have a right relationship with Him and with others. For instance, “Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you”(Exodus 20) is a prime example of morality.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled”(Matthew 5). I chose this beatitude because I believe that it is extremely important. Surprisingly, I realized that it is important as a result of numerous people in our society are not fighting for what is right. For example, the lgbtq+ community. The lgbtq+ community is not being supported by plentiful people. I believe this is wrong due to the fact that, everyone should be treated equally and fairly. Not many people are stepping up and doing what is right.

‘Hafidaka Allah’- May God protect you. Cultures throughout the world have generally ruled by one notion, the belief of a higher power. Whether God or Allah, religion has heavily influenced societies’ spiritual life and moral codes.

The expression of mystical ideas and practices have been, are, and will continue to be an imperative aspect of numerous religions around the world for centuries. The practice of religious experiences, along with the ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and or magic related to them, signifies Mysticism. Christianity, the world’s largest religious group, practice and express mystical ideas with the sole intention of reaching a direct, non-abstract union with God. A component of Christian mysticism is contemplative prayer or meditation, the attempt to empty the mind to become one with God, who is found by the way, in ourselves. Christian mystics state that we are to fill our minds with either our imaginations and astral projections or with the revelations and messages from God. Richard J. Foster believes a series of twelve disciplines will transport an individual into a mystical experience with God and increase spirituality. The disciplines are divided into three separate groups: the inward disciplines, the outward disciplines, and the corporate disciplines. The inward discipline consists of confession, worship, guidance, and celebration. The outward disciplines consist of simplicity, solitude, submission, and service. Lastly, the corporate discipline consists of confession, worship, guidance, and celebration. These disciplines are believed, with mere repetition of mystic mantras will bring out the transformation.

Religion is not individually expressed within mysticism and literature; throughout history, religious beliefs became expressed through art and architecture. The Pyramid of Giza was vital for the religious expression of the Egyptian people. Despite believed to be a tomb, Egyptians believed the pyramid was also the place of reawakening for the soul or ka in Ancient Egyptian. The preservation of the body was essential to the amount of comfort the soul received in the afterlife. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is an additional example of religious beliefs spread through art and architecture. History has shown that religion is not confined to mysticism and literature, but is illustrated in several impactful ways around the world.

As humanity flourished, views of society, nature, and the cosmos changed remarkably. Discoveries were made, theories analyzed, and new movements were formed. Creationism, Intelligent design, and Evolution are currently movements occurring in the U.S. Despite similarities, each differs with its central ideas. Creationism is based upon the literal writing of the Bible and rejects the theory of evolution. They often assert the identity of the creator of the earth with religious texts and will ignore scientific data and discoveries. Intelligent design instead, argue with the scientific data and discoveries and will avoid religious texts and or writings. They believe an intelligent being or ‘designer’, who in theory could be anyone or anything, was responsible for the complexity of nature. Advocates of the theory of evolution (evolutionists) believe that the complexity of nature is due to natural selection and that a few simple life forms could evolve to create the current complex ecosystem.

According to The New York Times, Evolutionists find themselves arrayed not against traditional creationism, with its roots in biblical literalism, but against a more sophisticated idea: the intelligent design theory. Irreducibly complex is a significant point of disagreement among them. Advocates of Intelligent design use the vertebrate eye as an illustration of their argument. If the bacterial flagellum or even one of the moving parts was removed, it would cease to function. Therefore proving the irreducibly complex and the unlikeliness of progressive evolution. Creationists state that all life forms currently existing were created by the actions of God. Evolutionists rebuttal by stating, as, with the vertebrate eye, various intermediate steps to the bacterial flagellum have been discovered by scientists. Prothero then further affirmed, ‘There are semi-flagella in nature that is not as complicated as the bacterial one, and has been greatly documented.’ Specified complexity is another fundamental contrariety. Intelligent design advocates state, as unique and essential to all organisms, the DNA molecule is considered to have a high degree of CSI or complex specified information. Which, could only be the outcome of intelligence. Creationists state that new organisms cannot be formed by the organisms already created by God. Prothero argues that ‘Natural selection is enough to explain the complexity of nature.’ When the molecular ingredients for DNA are combined, natural selection will then create specifically complex molecules suitable for use in genetic code.

Human civilization has greatly advanced and progressed since the beginning. As discoveries were made, new thoughts and moral codes were created. History has shown the progression of humanity’s view of society, nature, and cosmos throughout centuries. Humanity has been, is, and will continue to challenge the concepts in a society conceived be true.