Category: Moral Values

Introduction

The introduction of IT has had a pronounced impact on the behavior and personalities of individuals and the Virtual community members. Some of the impacts are good and are in support of moral values. Others are negative to what society holds as moral. However, what may be moral to one community may be immoral to another. This varies across the whole world. However, we have to address the issue of ethics from one community point of view. This is a virtual community where everybody can be a member of the whole world. This paper will discuss the age of information in relation to ethics. It will look at indicators of conformity and non-conformity. The impacts shall also be discussed. Some speculations will be discussed, of which most are imaginations. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn based on the arguments.

Non-conformity to morals

The issues of non-conformity to the required social and moral standards with regard to the use of cyberspace in influencing peoples behaviors and personalities appear to be more than the originally desired conformity to the moral standards. There have been very many cases of impersonification on the Internet. In cyberspace, you do not have to stay and learn the behavior or the personality of a person. The personalities of people are deduced from the way they communicate on the web. The kind of literature he references, the media he uses to communicate his ideas, his religion, the kind of friends he has, his lifestyle, his priorities, and such kind of stuff that he puts on the Internet form the basis of defining his or her personality (Hugh, 1995).

The personalities defined in this space could be true or could just be mere imagination. In other cases, it may be serious when one has used another persons details to create a negative personality (Alex, 1973). In society, almost the whole world community condemns the act of impersonification. This point can be put clear by taking a brief review of the story of Mr. Stink. Mr. Stink has been putting very demoralizing and negative information about women on the WELL bulletin board. He is a molester who has been for quite some time been harassing women. When the molester is finally banished, the fellow users of this board criticize the act by asking for justice. One WELLian asks whether it is possible to call themselves open virtual communities when the web managers lock out members who communicate in a way that does not please most WELLians. The story becomes more interesting when Mr. Stinks identity is revealed and he publicly admits his anti-women works. It is also discovered that he had stolen the account of his brother and used it to post the alter ego. This is impersonification because Mr. Stink could do whatever he wanted. After all, he knew there were no personal repercussions because he after all was using the other persons identity. Later, it is discovered that the real personality of Mr. Stink is of a family many with a wife and children, his real identity is Mr. Bennet, a member of other cyberspace conferences like Christianity where he is a mild-mannered participant, he has a job and a social conscience, a religion and a quiet disposition. What an impersonification to pursue his immoral activities!

In cyberspace, it is possible for a person to have as many personalities as the number of conferences and discussions as he may have (Walker, 1999). At one point when on a religious forum, you can be perceived to be very religious by the way you quote the verses from the Bible or from the Quran. You can brainstorm your views in a civilized manner taking caution about the kind of people you are addressing. On another forum where you are discussing say about sex and youth, your testimonies on how have been doing sex can create a different personality of the same you. It is clear that in the first forum, your contribution helped in promoting social morality while the second personality is somehow immoral and in this way, cyberspace is promoting both immortality and morality.

The Internet is accessible to millions of people. Therefore, it is important to know that millions are watching what others are putting on the Internet. A seemingly convincing idea on an immoral thing can result in a massive change of what a person has been seeing as moral in a single day. It is estimated that over seven hundred million people access the Internet every day and there is a possibility of accessing an idea on immorality. For example, if an argument is published on the net on the medical benefits of smoking opium, more youth around the world are likely to be convinced and change their prior immoral view they had on this substance while the actual truth is that it does more harm than good when taken (Sherry 2001).

Traditionally, each culture has its own ways by which marriage, courtships, and friendships are made. There are pre-set methods of handling any negative outcomes of such activities. But with the introduction of cyber hooking and relationships, peoples original morals have been perverted with regard to the respect and values attributed to these social relationships. As a result, it is complex to solve the problems that may result when online relationships are broken. This feature of cyberspace has led to people disregarding the moral teachings of their cultures and started adopting the teachings of a different culture (Theresia & Adel, 1994).

Another service on cyberspace that has contributed to the perversion of peoples behaviors and moralities is the issue of cybersex. Psychologists argue that the personality of a person is a reflection of what is in his mind. The goodness or badness of a person can be determined by the way he argues his ideas and relates to others. The input channels of the minds content are mainly the eyes and the ears. When somebody has logged on to a cyber sex website, the kind of stuff that he obtains is likely to alter his or her personal behavior. One is likely to feel like doing sex when he watches the way the sex lady or sex man graphic responds when he clicks. A click or modification of the ladys or the mans color, appearance can lead a person to imagine doing sex with a person of that kind in reality. His or her mind can lead him or her to finding a real person with similar traits as the cyber graphic to do sex with so that he or she may experience the sensations that the cyber lady or guy appeared to feel. This is a direct influence on the way a person behaves and also his or her personality when he or she is expressing to the real partner. There have been crazy speculations on the issue of cybersex. Every command to your computer you make as a movement of your physical body is directly translated onto the cyber partner as a touch or to a sex arousal move or the real act of doing sex. The way the cyber partner reacts to those mouse simple clicks leaves the real person as if he was doing actual caressing and sex. On one side, if this act brings any satisfaction at all, can lead some people to sex abstinence behavior. This can be a vital tool for fighting the current world threat of HIV and AIDS. But the truth is that most people after watching and feeling sexual aroused end up doing the actual act. The cybersex lady can alter her skin to feel the way she may like. When she programs to be in fur, she looks to be in fur to the observer. There are endless possibilities in a sexual designer virtual reality cyber world. And is there a possibility of things like a virtual rape or things like virtual murder or virtual mudding? It is crazy to imagine such things but maybe these are possibilities in the future. It would be of great impact on peoples personalities because if someone has annoyed you very much you may decide to murder him or rape her in the virtual world. On learning what you did to her or him virtually, she or he may take the necessary step of apologizing for the mistakes or just avoid this potential enemy or murderer or rapist in the actual world (Ward &Rogerson, 1996).

Another deterioration of the world societys morals is through the current cyber-dating. What is actually happening is that a close friend is introducing you to a dating club through the Internet. But he or she is not in a position to decide the kind of a friend you will be assigned ( Terrel and Petra, 1998). Many people in relationships and marriage have changed their behavior through this online interaction. Married men and women have hooked other partners secretly on the Internet and have gone to a higher step of meeting physically and have made love to one another. This behavior can not be tolerated and divorces have resulted when their legal partners learn about these affairs. What started as a mild invitation to a dating club by a close friend has led to broken families forever because of the influence of cyberspace on an individuals behavior (Simon, 1995).

It is possible to shop for pornographic artworks online. A certain culture for example the western permits the exchange of these materials on the Internet for adults. But the net is available for everybody from anywhere. Then a consumer can access the material in a, for example, African country where such material is forbidden. There is an acute conflict of cultures based on this point and the moral teachings of a given culture are being violated or undermined by the other culture (James 2002). The morality of the modern writing and publication society is violated when a person used another persons published or unpublished work without giving the necessary credits. This is technically called plagiarism (Hoven, 1996). This act of violation has been perpetuated mainly when these materials were published on the Internet. It is on the increase in societies where this is not serious and no strict policies on the issue, for example in Africa. Were it not for the Internet, most plagiarists today would not have the access to the materials which they have plagiarised. Therefore, it is the cyber technology that has fuelled this bad behavior of stealing another persons ideas without permission (Guynes, 1996).

Conformity to morals

Everything that has demerits also has got its merits. It can be argued that the Internet is a truth serum. As mentioned earlier in this paper, millions of people are watching what you place on the net every minute. It is now possible to challenge a faulty fact on the net before it has had a wrong influence on people (Wolbert 2001). A lie told on the net is now easily recovered and the truth said. In summary, any violation of the moralities associated with the cyber is in no time brought to light and passed to people through the web circuits just at the speed at which they had reached the global community. The net is the correcting center for ideas from persons of bad intentions. This has contributed to ensuring the moral values of the other cyber users are not corrupted and the commends from the light perspectives can have a corrective effect on the behavior of the ill-intended people who had posted them (Schuster 2000).

Wise use of cyberspace can boost the morality, behavior, and personality of a person greatly. The social morals of a given community can be transmitted to members of that community wherever. For example, if a Masai from Kenya has gotten a masters scholarship and he is studying from America, and an issue comes up and he does not know the stance of his community with regard to this issue, he can refer to from the Internet so that he may act within his cultural dictates. This way, the cyber has strengthened his morality (Robin 1996).

Again, most people have changed their ill behaviors after listening to Internet counseling sessions. It has also been possible to obtain other key peoples opinions concerning sensitive issues like relationships and criminology (Turkle, 1999). This has positively contributed to peoples change in behavior and the development of their personalities. From a Christian point of view, most people have got saved and turned away from their sinful ways by reading literature posted on the Internet and also by watching. The concept of online education has also contributed to the expansion of peoples minds and acquisition of knowledge on acts that are globally moral and immoral and thus avoiding the bad ones as they come. People have developed their personalities based on the information wealth they have acquired (Howard, 2001).

Recommendation

It is highly recommended that a mechanism be put in place to control the increased rate of obscenity on the Internet. There should be strict laws and policies that will check on the content posted on the Internet for the global community consumption.

Conclusion

Cyberspace has both merits and demerits. Through violation of ethics, people have been lured to immorality. Most have impersonated themselves in cyber meetings. Plagiarism is on the increase, especially where laws are not strict. The positive side of cyberspace has led to immoral people being turned into moral and responsible. People have learned how to live well through free information online. Internet counselors have succeeded to some extent. The demerits in relation to influencing on personal behavior and morality of the person posting and the consumers of the information appear to outweigh the merits. Proper laws should be put in place to check cyberspace content. Probably very soon, a solution will be reached since the Americans republican senator is planning to introduce such a bill. If the negatives are reduced and the benefits promoted, the cyber world could be where everyone would like to be, virtually although.

References

Alex, I, 1973, Modern man model, Routledge, London.

James H., 2002, What Computer Ethics are: Computers and Ethics, Blackwell.

Guynes, C., 1996, Privacy and security: Computers and Society, v.26 (1), p.11-13.

Hoven, M., 1996, Computer Ethics & Methodology for Morality: Information Science Journal, ETHICOMP96 proceedings, Complutense Univ. Press, pp. 444  453.

Howard, R., 2001, The virtual community, Prentice H, NJ.

Robin, H., 1996, Fantasy in the online graphic construction, John Wiley, New York.

Schuster, S. 2000, digital culture, OUP, Blackwell.

Sherry, T, 2001, We Who Am, Blackwell, Oxford.

Simon, R., 1995, Cyberspace is the Ethical Frontier, London Times, London.

Terrell, W. & Petra, S. 1998, How Computer Ethics are done:Philosophical Enquiry, Prentice, Upper Sanddle River.

Theresia, G, & Adel, M, 1994, Computer ethics: conference Proceedings of the on Ethics in the computer age, p.74-79, November 11-13, Galtinburg, Tennessee.

Turkle, S., 1999, Cultural identity, CUP, Cambridge.

Walker, P., 1999, Critical concepts in Cultural Modernity Modernity, London, Routledge. vol. II. P. 95- 109.

Ward, T. & Rogerson, S., 1996, Global Information Ethics, Opragon Press, NY.

Wolbert A., 2001, Life on screen: Age of the Internet, McGraw Hill, New York.

Moral intent, according to Abelard, explains that morality is a state of the mind and has defects that compel a person to undertake certain activities. Abelard holds that moral defects lead people to do things, which may not be moral (Moore and Bruder 274). Furthermore, Abelard argues that moral intent is not sin; however, sin occurs when God fails to execute what is moral or renounce what is evil among individuals. Conversely, Heloise believes that individuals should not blame the action, but they should blame partakers of certain actions. In the argument, Heloise asserts that affection held by partakers determines morality, but not actions.

Aristotle holds that virtue ethics comprises actions that define human nature, but it does not comprise a set of predefined rules. Essentially, human nature is dependent on the virtues and character traits of individuals (Moore and Bruder 266). Therefore, Aristotle believes that character traits and virtues of people dictate their actions and define the aspect of virtue ethics. According to Aristotle, virtue ethics is an outcome of human nature, which depends on the traits and virtues of an individual.

In the argument that St. Augustine presents, evil comprise the act of forces that has the power to create, apart from God, who is the Supreme Being. St. Augustine argues that the forces of darkness orchestrate evil. Moore and Bruder state that St. Augustine contests the existence of evil as a problem because he believes that God is the one, who created everything in the universe (270). Since God is the only creator, St. Augustine holds that other creative forces that prevail as evil forces are not real.

Plato compares the soul of a human being to a well-structured state. In his comparison, Plato states the soul has raw appetite, intellect, and drives, while the state consists of artisans, soldiers, and the ruling class. According to Moore and Bruder, each of the elements in both the soul and the state play unique roles and occupy different levels (310). At the top is the intellectual part of the human soul, which equates the ruling element of a state.

Likewise, in the middle of the human soul are the drives, which consist of anger and ambition. Plato states that the drives are equivalent to the auxiliaries in a state, who are soldiers and police officers. The lowest position, according to Plato, comprises of artisans in a state, while in the human soul incorporates the raw appetites.

In his concept of utilitarianism, Bentham likens pleasure to happiness, for he believes that an action is good when it has the ability to generate happiness and joy to the recipients. According to Bentham, if an action has the ability to generate high levels of happiness and joy as opposed to other acts, then that action is correct and moral (Moore and Bruder 285). In the argument, Bentham explains that in the quest to undertake actions that propagate happiness as an outcome, individuals must ensure that the outcome affects those around them.

In Mills justification of utilitarianism, the agents involved in an activity should exercise impartiality and strict disinterest, especially on matters that would affect their happiness. Moreover, Mill elucidates that pleasure and happiness fall under inferior and superior clusters. Moore and Bruder (286) argue that the actions that generate high levels of happiness are superior, while those actions that lead to low levels of happiness are inferior.

David Hume asserts that individuals should undertake those activities, which are just and moral. In his assertion, Hume explains that as actions have repercussions, bad actions lead to destructive feelings, while good actions lead to constructive feelings. Therefore, in sentimentalism view of Hume, feelings are outcomes of actions that individuals undertake in the society and the impact that the actions have on them and others (Moore and Bruder 414). To substantiate his argument, Hume states that although the world has imperfections, people must always strive to perform those actions that are near perfect.

According to Kant, moral activities are in line with his notion of the categorical imperative. In the notion of the categorical imperative, Kant alludes that individuals need to act in a manner that reflects the universal laws (Moore and Bruder 283). Therefore, people need to avoid engaging in bad activities, which are not in line with the universal laws.

In Nietzsches classification of moralities, master moralities glorify what is right and focus on the benefits of the recipients, who experience the actions. According to Nietzsche, master moralities overlook the issues of humility and meekness, but they justify wrongs, according to the definitions of the law (Moore and Bruder 366). Nietzsche explains that these values advocate for weakness and render the recipients slaves of the actions that others perform.

Hobbes explains that the state of nature is a state characterized by poverty, short life cycles, and nasty experiences. These characteristics relate to the factors that dictate the state of nature. In the argument, Hobbes states that selfishness, war, chaos, and distrust dictate the state of nature. Moore and Bruder assert that although Locke is not as pessimistic as Hobbes for he believes that individuals can harm one another if the state of nature prevails (320). Therefore, he champions for the establishment of the civil rule and control.

Rousseau argues that people live naturally and interact freely without any interference from any civil organization or state. Conversely, when the civilization emerged, the natural person entered into civilized world and lived within boundaries and control of the state, which has civil powers (Moore and Bruder 323). Rousseau argues that the civil person is the furnished individual, who understands the control and supervision of the state.

According to Locke theory, distribution of property and wealth depends on the level of aggressiveness and industriousness of a person. Moore and Bruder assert that if an individual is less industrious or active, the size of the wealth that he or she acquires is less than that of someone, who is aggressive and hardworking (322). The theory of Locke concerning property tries to justify unequal distribution of wealth in the world. In the assertions of Marx, labor is equivalent to the value and reflects the worth of an individual. In the argument, Marx explains that laborers work and specialize in certain activities, and thus, become alienated.

Plato refers philosopher kings as leaders, who rule their respective states in a classy and organized manner. Plato highlights that the kings apply aristocracy of high class and ideals. According to Moore and Bruder, Plato elucidates that philosopher kings improve their bloodline by ensuring that their guardians and aides have collective property that includes their wives and children (310). Therefore, Plato explains that royalties employ philosophical leadership to advance and retain their leadership qualities and intelligence in their bloodline.

The veil of ignorance is a concept that Rawls uses to explain the significance of creating principles that do not disadvantage or demonstrate any kind of bias among people in various classes and statuses. Rawls states that for people to establish good principles, they need to hide behind a veil, which he refers to as the veil of ignorance, and use it in judging others (Moore and Bruder 366). Essentially, by using the veil in judging others, all individuals will be at the same level and receive equal justice that is free from biases. Placement of individuals at the same levels eliminates biases, which interfere with the administration of justice.

Robert Nozick uses the concept of the night watchman to explain the significance of the concept in the protection of human rights and the attainment of social justice. Nozick describes the night watchman state as a protector of social rights. In the concept, Nozick promotes justice for all, irrespective of their status and personality. The concept stipulates that the distribution of assets should occur in an impartial manner (Moore and Bruder 370). The concept demonstrates the essence of social justice to all by highlighting the fact that everyone has the right to acquire and own wealth.

Capabilities approach to social justice, according to Martha Nussbaum, implies the ability of a state to provide key factors that facilitate human dignity. Nussbaum states that freedom of movement, expression, and provision of good health care are some of the factors that are crucial for the attainment of human dignity (Moore and Bruder 377). Additionally, the capabilities approach advocates for mutual advantage as an important element of social justice. It is important to note that capabilities approach as presented by Nussbaum highlights the vitality of independence, equality, and freedom in social justice.

Works Cited

Moore, Brooke, and Kenneth Bruder. Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. California: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.

The life of a modern human is in many ways full of excess and diversity. Issues and needs that troubled the average person a few decades ago now do not seem relevant. The individual, then, endowed with a diversity of possibilities and choices, should probably be more morally fulfilled and self-sufficient than his ancestor: but this is not the case. The life of society is not reducible to an unambiguous definition of the fullness of material goods but requires the involvement of spiritual categories. Modern human, as well as the human of the last century, is still interested in finding answers to existential questions of existence. In this regard, it is particularly relevant to explore such philosophical criteria as morality and ethical values, which determine the path of life of individuals. Morality is expected to be a dynamic system of views and ideas. This essay aims to analyze the driving forces that direct the vector of peoples worldview to recognize elements as moral and socially significant.

There can hardly be any doubt that the best tool for assessing the morality of a phenomenon, behavior, or viewpoint is an individuals personal life experience. People, as a rule, do not think about the necessity of performing specific actions if there is a correspondence between them and the paradigm of social consciousness. For example, questions of helping a grandmother cross a freeway or buying food for a poor stray dog do not raise any moral qualms. This is how essential human ethics work: based on hereditary reflexes and social upbringing, consciousness automatically determines which behavior is morally correct at the moment. On the contrary, when an individual, because of physical circumstances or personal reluctance, cannot satisfy a moral act, it initiates processes of conscience pressure and guilt. Here it is imperative to emphasize the crucial role of prior upbringing since it is correct to expect that if it were customary in a particular society to beat grandmothers and dogs, such a pattern in an individuals behavior would also be valued as morally correct. Consequently, one of the fundamental pillars of the ethical perception of objective reality is social upbringing and the system of culturally accepted values.

Whereas morally unambiguous events do not require severe cognitive processes, ethical dilemmas are not so unambiguous. In this context, it is appropriate to recall the textbook example of the train and the rails, which raises questions of an individuals personal responsibility for the lives of others. More specifically, if an unstoppable train moves toward a track with five people on it, should the individual turn the lever of the rail arrow to direct the train toward only one worker. In other words, the question of the dilemma is to determine whether it is permissible to sacrifice one person to save the other five. As a rule, it is customary to deliberately complicate this scenario to develop further the facets of the respondents moral value system. For example, the question can be rephrased to determine whether an individual would sacrifice the lives of five strangers for the lives of a parent, brother, or friend. When the more intimate categories of trust, love, and intimacy come into play, the dilemma seems even more challenging to solve.

Regardless of the nature of the character alone on the railroad tracks, however, such ethical dilemmas no longer seem as unambiguous as the decision to help a grandmother cross the road. Based on this example, it is clear that the individual uses an emotional context in choosing morally correct, socially relevant decisions. At first glance, the decision to sacrifice one strangers life or one loved one seems equivalent since, in either case, the sacrifice of one saves the lives of five people. Nevertheless, from an emotional point of view, these decisions are entirely non-identical because the death of one loved one is much more emotionally taxing for the individual. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that disabling emotional attachments makes it easier to resolve ethical dilemmas. This claim finds support in Carlson & Crocketts (2018) study, which showed the results of such problem-solving in patients with lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex. Because this part of the nervous system is responsible for conscious emotion, its lesion inhibited any difficulty caused by the respondents experiences.

Another consequence of solving this ambiguity dilemma is recognizing the need to construct a hierarchical structure of priorities and values. The decision to kill five or one people should probably be decided in favor of the survival of more individuals since this decision is more socially significant. Consequently, there is a need to find the driving force that defines a particular decision as meaningful and morally responsible. Such a framework is ethical norms, which control and guide the vector of social values. It is paramount to recognize that such systems of norms are never conservative but instead actively change with the passage of time and the development of civilization as a whole.

Until recently, the criteria of classical ethics formed the basis of most philosophical conceptions of modernity. The use of values to recognize particular events as moral or socially significant has involved adherence to the philosophy of the ancient Greek thinkers. For example, according to Plato, the moral code of decision-making for the individual had to be based on the primary virtues (Frede, 2017). This category included reasonableness, justice, courage, and certainty. It seems quite apparent that each of the elements cited does not in itself possesses unambiguity, which is generally consistent with the lack of a unified system of ethical values. In general, justice was taken to mean the balance between actions and responsibility for them. Reasonableness corresponded to the individuals ability to analyze a situation instead of blindly following intuition critically. This component of classical ethics was characterized by moderation, behind which was the individuals ability to consider different perspectives and weigh their significance. Finally, the need to make tough but fair decisions of social significance required the traits of masculinity.

In addition to the elements already mentioned that determine approaches to assigning the status of moral events, classical ethics operated with the term trivial virtues. The first of these was the love of order since the only discipline, and the absence of chaos could clear the mind for decision-making. Adherence to duty was also perceived as an essential quality, raising such aspects as patriotism and civic responsibility. Finally, the ethical stability of individuals value systems must be based on diligence and engagement, without which one would hardly be interested in resolving moral dilemmas.

Times have changed rapidly, however, and new models have replaced the classical system of ethics. One of these is the paradigm of the New Ethics, created more than seventy years ago. The new ethics, like the classical models ethical values, respond to the need to explore the mechanisms that define events, objects, and behavior as moral and socially significant. The new ethics is ascetic in nature and thus focuses on the individuals inner struggle with his passions. In the context of the question under discussion, this means that a socially meaningful decision must not involve sophistication or bias. In addition, the new ethics elevates the theological concepts of faith, hope, and love above the classical primary pillars discussed in the previous paragraphs. This means that priority in moral dilemmas must be given to those decisions that are based primarily on the emotional-sensitive side of the individual, empathy, and sympathy.

Consequently, the model of the new ethics does not cross out but complements the foundation of the system of moral values built back in ancient times. This is generally unsurprising since the central reference points of human existence would hardly have changed qualitatively in the intervening time. Nevertheless, certain modifications are noticeable. Whereas for generations past, sacrifice, killing babies, and forcing women to copulate seemed everyday occurrences, such actions would be monstrous and inhumane for the modern inhabitant. However, this does not mean that society has abandoned such measures: maniacs, murderers, and sectarians can still use such patterns, but the perception of these episodes has changed qualitatively. When attempting to justify a particular event as moral and socially significant, the individual seems to operate not so much on academic theories of ethics as on personal experiences and his own historical background.

To summarize, it must be recognized that ethical systems of perception of reality are not conservative and stable but rather change with the development of human thought. This essay has shown that moral decisions are based on a harmonious combination of the emotional context of the event with a personal reflection on the situation and the inherited background. Models of classical ethics and new age ethics are also relevant to decision-making because they guide societal values at a particular stage of civilizations development.

References

Carlson, R. W., & Crockett, M. J. (2018). The lateral prefrontal cortex and moral goal pursuit. Current Opinion in Psychology, 24, 77-82.

Frede, D. (2017). Platos ethics: An overview. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

Introduction

Many different theories of morality can give a reasonable idea of how people cope with endless arguments about what is right and wrong, what is good, and what is evil. This paper will consider the well-known theory of Friedrich Nietzsche, which describes the morality of slaves and masters. Nietzsches concept, put forward at the end of the XIX century, still causes discussions in scientific circles because the theses put forward by him find a new interpretation. It can see as the most detailed description of Nietzsches idea in The Genealogy of Morality.

Morality, according to Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche believed that there are two main types of morality: the morality of the master and the character of the slave. For people of the first type of moral principles, their strength, nobility, and pride are first. They evaluate actions, paying attention to what results the one who acted got for himself. People with a slavish morality believe that kindness and humility play key roles. Therefore, they evaluate not the result of actions but the quality of intentions (good or evil). If the master can benefit from his activities due to his efforts, he will commit an act that adherents of slave morality may consider bad. Nietzsches concept is universal, and therefore there is an eternal confrontation between its supporters.

The Lords Morality

There is a belief that helpful something should be good, and evil should be harmful. Nevertheless, Nietzsche claims that this is only a generally accepted opinion, and those who believe in good and evil do it out of a habit imposed by society. In ancient times, good and evil were associated with consequences  and this makes sense. The cavemen had no intention of helping an older man crossing the street but instead wondered if a battle with another tribe would result in benefits that would exceed losses.

Supporters of the lords morality believe that being strong in spirit, proud, noble, and wanting more benefits and power for yourself is the actual value of life. Those who have a terrible attitude to the morality of the masters are weak, cowardly, and petty, which means they are bad. A noble type of person can decide what is good for him, that is, good. He is the measure of values for himself and is guided mainly by the will to power. As a rule, a person of the prevailing morality has power. Therefore, he often influences other people; there is a kind of hierarchy in the world. Therefore, those who are among the leaders can affect the subordinate moralist-masters.

Slave Morality

It tramples on oppression in all its manifestations and defames its oppressors. It implies that everything the master has and the slave does not have is worth nothing. Thus, the slave turns out to be more cynical than the master. At the same time, he will not try to impose his opinion by force but will cunningly undermine the morality of the master in such a way that he, too, becomes a slave. A slavish moralist may believe in the voluntary nature of humility, but he cannot realize that it was the master who imposed humility. Friedrich Nietzsche emphasizes that most of the principles mentioned in the Bible are part of the morality of slaves. The Bible teaches mercy, humility, and other forms of condemnation. It is a moral code that a follower of slave morality should follow.

Conclusion

Nietzsche disapproved that the West chose slavish morality. He did not accept the idea that a slave is always trying to rise against his master because slaves did not have a thirst for power. Their main task was to bring power to a level that would become inaccessible to others. It works very well when analyzing democracy because the idea of democracy is that people decide everything (theoretically, anyway). Besides, no one is strong with a religion like Christianity. All people are the same in the eyes of their God, and their God will judge them when the time comes. No, Nietzsche did not believe that the masters morality is ideal and everyone should accept it. He thought that there were flaws in both sides, but perhaps someone could transform them into a new idea of morality, more consistent.

For Nietzsche, morality, including those on the other side of good and evil, leads to specific violence against nature. Without character, nothing arises that makes life worth living. Neither works of fine art nor creations of poetry (not to mention great philosophy!) are impossible without a certain compulsion: without an ascetic life attitude. Nietzsche did not want a return to nature to the primitive expression of passions. It brings us to the characteristic of the Nietzschean ideal of man: superman. Nietzsche was a somewhat controversial figure, so everyone has every right to disagree with his opinion about how the world works. It does not negate the fact that it is worth studying some aspects of his theory for basic knowledge. It can give good results if a person wants to take the best of the master and slave morality.

In recent years, deception, dishonesty, and bluffing have become increasingly prevalent in the professional realm. By examining current corporate practices, it is easy to see why todays society is more skeptical about seeking professional service, whether in law or medicine, than ever before. As Ellin asserts, is it ethically appropriate to engage in deception in specific situations concerning the professional-client relationship? According to certain theorists, such as Ellin, lying and withholding information are sometimes permissible and even desirable. These claims, on the other hand, are difficult to back up ethically. Contrary to common opinion, more rational ideas advanced by theorists like Bayles, Gorovitz, and Kant demonstrate that misleading practices employed in professional-client interactions are almost never ethically justified since they infringe on clients fundamental rights and autonomy. Even though Ellin argues that deception is morally acceptable, Kant, Bayles, and Gorovitz more convincingly show that these tactics only hurt clients trust or limit their freedom and basic rights, not help them.

In his works, Ellin proposes two theories of professional morality in anticipation of a conflict between special morality and ordinary morality. According to Ellin (75), ordinary morality refers to the values that ordinary people should or would have if they were adequately thoughtful. On the other hand, the concept of special morality only applies to people who hold a unique position or work in specific professions (Ellin 75).In his view, the manifesting differences between these two concepts can be addressed by rational thinking, which he calls ordinary reflective morality, which he defines as the minimum moral standard for educated practitioners in any unique field that separates them from ordinary people (Ellin, 75). According to Ellins definition of ordinary reflective morality, those who choose to overlook ethical difficulties will fail to meet the standards of ordinary reflective morality. So, the significance of the ordinary versus special morality debate should not be overlooked.

Ellin later argues that the parallel view and the priority view both do not object to the fact that ordinary moral rules exist, which are applicable to educated practitioners, and that in such circumstances, separate codes of conduct should apply. However, the parallel view and priority view diverge when it comes to determining the association between the ordinary rules and the special rules, particularly when it comes to the ethical codes of conduct that should be applicable to educated practitioners. According to Ellin (86), priority view hypothesizes that special rules that direct how educated practitioners behave in their professions should subsist. Such rules should enforce obligations that are not consistent with the obligations enforced on each person in ordinary life. The parallel view, on the other hand, proposes that moral duties exist that do not necessarily stem from ordinary morality but rather from the uniqueness of their professions (Ellin, 76). At the heart of the priority view is that no matter the existence of special duties or stark differences, morality should be determined by ordinary moral considerations (Ellin 76). He further asserts that when it comes to priority views, such differences may occur since ordinary morality offers no means for reconciliation. Of the two views, Ellin seems to favour the parallel view. He agrees with it in an implicit manner. Ellins fundamental thesis is that the moral values of ordinary people vary from those of professionals, who require certain ethical privileges. Professionals are much like the rest of us ordinary people, but the tension between their personal and professional lives has given birth to the notion of unique professional morality. Under special morality, Ellin believes that there is a justification for deception in certain scenarios when educated practitioners are faced with an ethical dilemma and seek to protect the best interests of their clients. This is what Ellin contemplates as being a fiduciary relationship. According to Ellin (76), any fiduciary relationship (between a client and a professional) creates a contradiction between ordinary and professional ethics. This statement supports the Parallel View of Special Professional Morality, which believes that professional and ordinary morality are two distinct sets of principles that may contradict each other. Ellins argument is based on the notion that lying is more morally reprehensible than deception. Correspondingly, deception in a fiduciary relationship, he claims, is permissible in certain scenarios.

Ellin interrogates the link between professional morality and ordinary morality, concentrating on the difference between lying and deception. His arguments clearly favor professional morality, given that it corresponds with the parallel view. When considering the function of veracity in professionalclient relationships, Ellin believes that the parallel view is superior to the priority view when it comes to protecting the interests of the client. He believes that professional ethics allows for deception within the fiduciary paradigm as long as it is necessary to protect the clients interests. In such scenarios, Ellin feels educated professionals have a different ethical code than ordinary people on the streets. According to him, these professions indeed have separate ethics, but they differ in degree rather than type, and they place a higher value on individual ethics than societal or substantive ethics. Ellin (82) then claims that in fiduciary relationships, such as those between public relations practitioners and clients, the educated professional wants to serve the interests of the person who has hired him or her. Ellins fiduciary model is similar to Bayles (5), which he believes is optimal for professional-to-client interactions. Both agree that the educated professional should take the clients interest into consideration in his decision-making process. However, Ellin leaves a very critical model of autonomy, which Bayles (5) asserts. According to Bayles (71), whether the client is a person, a large corporation, or a government agency makes no difference since professionals have obligations to third parties  such as the public  that limit their capacity to act in the clients best interests. Hence, clients autonomy should always be respected in any fiduciary relationship. While Bayles point of view is understandable given professionals high esteem and authority, it is also worth emphasising that if this were not the case, educated professionals would have little obligation to respect the clients autonomy. According to Bayles (177), there is a possibility of conflict due to the multiple obligations assigned to various parties. All professionals face conflicts between their own interests and those of their clients, which arise from the tension between role-related responsibilities to clients and general obligations toward third parties (Bayles 129). Ellins interpretation of the fiduciary model ignores the clients values, limiting the clients ability to make independent judgments. Instead, his fiduciary model takes on a paternalistic model, in which the professional has complete authority over the interests of the client.

At first glance, Ellin seems to be questioning whether professional behaviour is governed by a set of standardized principles. Ellin distinguishes between what he refers to as professional morality and ordinary reflective morality. The former establishes the ground rules for everyday interactions, both routine and irregular. On the other hand, professional morality is a system of values suited to the demands of a particular profession to protect a clients interests. For this reason, Ellin makes a strong case that professional ethics, particularly veracity, should govern fiduciary relationships. For whatever reason, fiduciary relationships place a higher value on deception than on lying, according to Ellin (81), since lying is a greater danger to the trust between a professional and a client. Accordingly, professional-client relationships work best when all parties agree to interact ethically, that is, when all parties work together in the best interests of each other.

Overall, Ellin primarily conveys the argument that ordinary people and specialists or educated practitioners have separate moral standards that allow them the privilege to deceive their clients into preserving their fiduciary relationship. He opines that professionals are exactly like the rest of the public, but the complexities that exist between their personal lives and their working lives have given rise to the concept of special professional morality. Ellin then advances three crucial points: first, common morality and particular professional morality are distinct; second, lying is distinct from deception; and third, deception is ethically justifiable. He constructs his case in such a manner that, although lying is unacceptable, deceit is permitted due to this unique professional morality.

On the other hand, Ellins ordinary morality argument can be criticized based on how he uses it to develop the parallel view to support deception by educated practitioners in an attempt to support their clients interests. However, his view is not ethically and morally justifiable. Ellin advances fallacious arguments since the fact that professions exist to achieve specific goals does not answer the issue of whether professionals must achieve those goals, even if doing so contradicts widely accepted moral norms. While analyzing particular moral dilemmas, the morality of the situation as a whole must be examined rather than merely that of the situation with a client. The foundation for a specific moralitys existence is its contribution to universal morality. First, what is ethics? Engaging in ethics is engaging in a comprehensive and critical examination of fundamental moral principles to arrive at or defend a stance on a moral problem or quandary. Ethical reasoning and problem solving both make use of normative statements. It is via this method that the profession itself develops standards and expectations against which its members work may be judged. Without foundation in basic values and views shared by members of the profession, it is inappropriate to have a debate about moral dilemmas without a basis in the professions core values and beliefs. People may arrive at different ethically right conclusions while discussing the same issue. Hence it is important to have a standardized approach to ethics with a focus on the public interest. Different discourses might lead to not just varied but also contradictory and conflicting opinions regarding what is the most ethically correct behavior. It is impossible for the profession to maintain its moral standards and paradigms if they are based on inconsistent and contradictory findings about what is ethically good. Expecting moral discourse to be grounded in profession-wide standards and aims does not limit consideration of the specific peculiarities of each case, which may play a vital role in critical analysis and reasoning about the ethically appropriate course of action. Hence, Ellins arguments are ethically and morally wrong.

Next, in promoting the parallel view, Ellin is also visibly wrong in his take on the fiduciary relationship between an educated practitioner and a client. Ellin seems to forget that by promoting the parallel view, the educated practitioner may be tempted to deceive for his own direct interest or the professions interest, rather than the interest of the client and the public. The basis on which Ellin adopts the parallel view to the detriment of the priority view is erroneous. This is clearly what Ellin seems to have failed to contemplate in typical scenarios where an educated practitioner will be forced to evaluate a client to determine whether to deceive or not. This does not imply that in a typical relationship that is anchored in trust, the practitioner can willfully apply his expertise to attain the clients objectives. Rather, it points to the divergence between the clients seeking to attain the most desirable results using any means possible. Indeed, Ellin should be chastised for claiming that there is no need for trust in an agency relationship because the client is rational enough to determine whether the educated practitioner is acting in the desired manner. This is misleading, as not all clients can be rational. Critically, if the ethical codes are not based on universal morality, they are weak since they are solely relevant to the job of the profession they are derived from. If ethical rules were based on Ellins parallel view, people in special professions would only have to deal with them if they were self-sufficient. A lack of uniformity in professional standards makes the justification for the existence of ethical rules more challenging.

Lastly, Ellin fallaciously claims that deception is a typical element of the fiduciary model. However, he seems to confuse the paternalist model with the fiduciary model. As far as Ellins argument for the parallel view is concerned, it is unclear who should have authority over the public interest. He appears to believe that educated practitioners should hold that authority. Ellins arguments are, therefore, fundamentally based on a paternalistic model and not a fiduciary model. In a paternalistic model, the educated practitioner makes decisions on what is right for a client with no regard to the clients explicit consent or agreement. However, the paternalistic model should be criticized for being deceptive since it is fallacious to claim that an individual should be assigned absolute authority to figure out what benefits the client and who should make decisions about those benefits. Paternalism, whether in law, ethics, or everyday public behavior, must be backed up by universally accepted ethical reasoning, such as client autonomy. There is a lot of scholarly debate on whether a professionals relationship with a client is paternalistic or fiduciary (Bayles, 1988). Unlike Ellin, Bayles (5) argues in favour of the fiduciary, ethical paradigm and rejects paternalism as a foundation for ethical decision-making. According to Ellin, experts should prioritise the interests of their clients or those they intend to serve above their own and those of others in their field. Bayles further contends that since the fiduciary relationship is established on trust, the professionals greater skill is recognized, but the client retains substantial decision-making authority or autonomy. This contrasts with Ellins parallel vision, which would essentially remove the clients ability to make decisions. Clients have the right to as much autonomy as is practical in all professional-client interactions, whether medical or commercial. The professionals role should be to use his expertise and present the consumer with sufficient particulars to make an educated decision. Like Bayles, Gorovitz (177) also argues in favour of the public interest. In his view, a professionals commitment to a specific client or patient has limits when it comes to giving precedence to the public interest. Therefore, each professionals commitment to a specific client or patient has limits; nonetheless, it is uncommon for that point to be explicitly defined when the public good should take precedence over individual interests and for this standard to guide professional behaviour. In return, society grants professions and their members a degree of autonomy, allowing them to work for the greater good of the community. As a result, professionals would have to balance their near-absolute dedication to an individual client or patient in favour of a stronger sense of responsibility to the wider good. Professionals obligation to promote the common welfare of society may be best accomplished by public debate of the advantages and services given by their professions (Gorovitz 192). Professionals, according to Ellin, will use deception to convince clients to pick the option they feel is preferable. This, however, is unethical as it denies clients autonomy to choose what they think is best in their interest. According to Gorovitzs Informed Consent and Patient Autonomy, patients rights to informed consent and autonomy are critical. Kants approach seems to place the most emphasis on autonomy. We may argue that Gorovitz takes a Kantian approach to his reasoning. Respecting people indicates that we care about them. According to Kant, this is a manifestation of moral law. We should perceive other individuals as an end in and of themselves, rather than as a means to our own goal. Building on this reasoning, Gorovitz argues that a clients freedom of choice is unaffected by the likelihood of making the wrong decision. The golden rule for the public interest is logically supported by Kants categorical imperative, which asserts that what is right for one person is also right for all. Therefore, the conduct of a professional should only be assessed on whether or not we are concurrently attempting to create universal morality. Yet, Ellins parallel view seems to contradict universal morality. The ability to universalize true moral responsibility is the litmus test. There must be an unbreakable moral code, just as there must be unbreakable physical principles like gravity. The higher truths, alluded to by Kant, are superior to a professionals finite reason to deceive to protect the clients interest. All-natural and socially accepted norms must be abandoned to follow Kants categorical imperative. As a result, Kants ethics are considered more motivating than the subjective procedures promoted by Ellin that may be explained simply by fleeting experiences.

Despite Ellins assertion that deception and bluffing are morally legitimate and even necessary in professional-client interactions, it is evident that these strategies only harm clients or restrict their basic rights. He primarily conveys the argument that ordinary people and specialists or educated practitioners have separate moral standards that allow them the privilege to deceive their clients into preserving their fiduciary relationship. In truth, his view is not ethically and morally justifiable. Deception, as Bayles and Gorovitz clarified, only impedes the clients ability to make life-altering decisions. Professionalism is not a game where deception or bluffing can be allowed and should not be treated like one. All professions, including business, have a duty of honesty to their clients and customers. Deception, lying, and bluffing have all been used by professionals and clients in the past, but this does not mean they should continue to do so. What is also clear is that Ellins argument is based on paternalism rather than the superior expertise of the professional. As a result, even if the patient and the physician share the same goal, the patient may still make an educated choice despite the physicians greater expertise. As a result, a professional  such as a physician  has a duty to inform his clients about all of their options and to enable them to make their own decisions without the use of deceptive practices. Ellin is also wrong, as he does not seem to share the ethical perspective that clients have a right to autonomy and knowledge regardless of whether or not they are disabled. The professional owes it to his patients to provide as much information as possible, depending on their level of understanding. Only in the most difficult and limited situations may paternalism be applied. The less the paternalism model is needed, the better the clients capacity to understand, the greater his or her ability to choose freely, and the greater the clients autonomy.

Works Cited

Bayles, Michael. Professional Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1989.

Ellin, Joseph. Special Professional Morality and the Duty of Veracity. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, 1982, pp. 75-94.

Gorovitz, Samuel. Professions, Professors, and Competing Obligations. Ethics, Trust, and the Professions, edited by Edmund Pellegrino, Robert Veatch and John Langan, Georgetown University Press, 1991, pp. 177-192.

Michael D. Bayles. Professional Ethics. Wadsworth Inc., 1981.

Introduction

In the contemporary western society, rising children who uphold moral values, integrity and hard work has become a big challenge. The life lessons that the children are consistently exposed to serve to perpetuate the incorrect moral behaviors that they internalize. It is important to recognize and appreciate a child whenever he/she does something right. Good grades deserve recognition, so is an exemplary performance in sports. Similarly, a token of appreciation would suffice whenever a child goes out of the way to do the right thing. However, the kind of reward and/or form of appreciation that the child receives is of great importance.

Argument for and against Rewarding Children

Parents and teachers should be able to distinguish the thin line that exists between offering a reward and bribing a child. Arguelles argues that offering rewards especially monetary is akin to commercialization of good work (108). Some experts on the other hand, support this as an incentive for a continuation of the good deed and/or work. They draw a similarity between rewarding children to everyday adult life: adults go to work to be paid; you perform well in your duties at work and you get a salary raise and/or bonuses; you drive carefully and avoid accident and you pay less insurance premium and the list goes on and on. They argue that incentives and rewards act as a motivator to encourage people to strive to work harder. However, does the principle hold true for both adults and children?

When should children be rewarding

Experts in child psychology and development agree with the assertion that rewarding children have the tendency of encouraging them to work hard especially when there is a promise of even a better reward, they are however quick to warn that, this may lead to a long term negative effect on the child. Children should not be rewarded for an act of honesty or kindness. This virtue should instead be cultivated in the child through similar actions from parents, teachers and other adults. Small gifts, such as learning aids, will always motivate a child to perform well and complete a task. The disadvantage of such gifts to a young child is that they will always enhance dependency on outside motivators to learn as opposed to internal self-motivation. The pride children hold in their ability to accomplish a task on their own is eroded. Similarly, such gift dissipates personal initiative by children and lends itself more as a bribe than an incentive.

Effects of reward on a childs character development

Offer of reward deprives children of the opportunities to choose to do the right thing on their own volition. Rewards essentially narrows down childrens perspective of a task or role and diminishes their initiative to do the task their own way. Children will equally have a tendency to focus on the reward rather than the task.

The analogy that adults work hard for a commensurate pay, is not similar to rewarding children to perform better. In most cases adults work for more than just the paycheck, they look for career growth, job satisfaction and many more. Offering children reward for good performance is like teaching them to appreciate only the paycheck.

Conclusion

Rewarding children has both positive and negative implications. Parents and teachers should therefore practice positive reinforcement irrespective of whether they choose to reward children or not. Long lasting positive virtues are acquired by consistently communicating to children good behavior and moral standing both verbally and through actions

Work Cited

Arguelles, Mary. Money for Morality. Newsweek 1991: 108 -110. Print

Reading response

According to Arguelles, offering of reward to a child for a positive gesture or hard work should be highly discouraged, she argues that the social construction of the society has laid great emphasis on material reward at the expense of the development self integrity and honesty among children.

Arguelles contends that parents should cultivate in children the notion that doing the right thing like working hard at school or being kind and honest should be a sufficient motivator for their actions. She further asserts that, parents and teachers should be the role model for children. Even though she agrees that, appreciating a child is of great importance in the child psychological development, she is quick to point out that offer of material gift to children as a motivator or as a form of appreciation particularly in matters of kindness, honesty or integrity amount to bribing the child.

This article points out to the loss of ethical guide that should essentially serve as the principle that drives our morality. The notion of doing something because there is a reward tied to it builds a culture where nothing is allowed to fail or succeed because it was bound to. Continued effort to offer reward for something, Arguelles state, would eventually lead to lack of genuine inner sense of accomplishment. She gives an analogy of consistent diet of candy making apple or orange to taste sour. Arguelles stress this position by mentioning books in childcare which offered same advice dont bribe your child with ice cream to get them to eat spinach; it makes the spinach look bad.

She concludes the article by reaffirming that internalizing the attitude and culture of hard work in the children, at the same time encouraging them has a better and more long lasting effect than the offer of material gifts.

Introduction

Morality is a philosophical view concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Overall, morality is a particular system of values, which are dictated by individuals inner standards or principles. There are two views on morality; they are skeptical and non-skeptical views. Moral skepticism is a collection of views that denies or challenges various reasons of morality. On the opposite hand, this paper will explore a non-skeptical view that supports the moral ideas indefinitely.

Morality and Skepticism

The concept of skepticism of morality is quite unusual to find these days. Arenson (2020) argues that it is very unusual for philosophers to identify themselves as skeptics nowadays. Skepticism is usually seen as a threat to be dispelled, not as an attitude to be easily adopted. Arenson (2020) states when skeptical principles are put in opposition to the principles of nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined sceptic in the same condition as other mortals (p.21). When the question comes to morality, it is, arguably, in human nature to follow the unwritten rules and codes. Skeptics argue that individuals who follow morality make a conscious and a well-rounded decision in doing so.

However, a traditional (non-skeptical) view supports morality as something ethereal, non-measurable and non-factorable. Morality is a philosophical view concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. As well as that, morality is a particular system of values, which are dictated by persons inner standards or principles, according to non-skeptics. Skeptics believe that such system of values is not innate and should therefore, be continuously questioned (Arenson, 2020) in order to find the best possible pillar to base a moral decision on. Non-skeptics, however, believe the opposite, that such pillar is innate and has been adopted many years ago by our ancestors to the extent, when morality is inherited like a second nature and the subsequent decision-making process is fully unconscious.

Non-Skeptic View of Morality

One of the main arguments of moral skepticism is the idea that an individual makes a conscious decision before the action, which undermines the idea of morality being unconscious. Skeptics argue that there is a conscious moment seconds before an individual is making an action or decision. They even suggest that there are neurobiological findings that demonstrate that there is a conscious intention that happens milliseconds before the action (Caruso, 2018). On the other hand, such findings are widely criticized, and thus are not fully considered argumentative to prove that conscious decision can exist disguised as unconscious.

Moreover, recent works in psychology and social psychology on automaticity and the adaptive unconscious, has shown that the causes that move individuals are often less transparent to themselves (Caruso, 2018). The individuals might assume diverging in many cases from the conscious reasons, they provide to explain and/or justify their actions. Non-skeptical view of morality suggests that all the actions are taken on a subconscious level, thus making invisible concept of morality responsible for the actions. Thus, it indicates that the conscious mind exercises less control over behavior than it has been traditionally assumed, making humankind less conscious, rational, responsible agents. Pettit (2018) argues that morality goes hand in hand with personhood. The appeal of being moral is nothing more or less than the appeal of being a person with integrity, a person integrated around suitably sustainable commitments.

Moral Desirability

Any concept of desirability, including one of moral desirability, is designed to mediate prescriptions for what individuals desire, including by implication, intend, and in that sense, it is essentially practical. It will mediate suitable prescriptions in relation to agents or agencies who have the capabilities required for being fit to be held responsible for the choice made. Thus, such concept can be used to prescribe for what an individual should do, for how they should be, or for what they should collectively establish (Pettit, 2018). This concept may prescribe how individuals should act in the external world and what views or internal attitudes they should cultivate. These concepts may come in different varieties and they mean moral desirability. Whenever something is desirable, it is usually due to satisfying certain considerations. As well as that, by almost all accounts, the considerations that make an alternative morally desirable, rather than desirable by any other way, are characteristically unrestricted.

These considerations are not restricted to the self-interests of a particular individual, code of law, evidence and so on. The considerations that argue for morale desirability over another option outweigh competing considerations that reflect just a restricted range of interests or a restricted standpoint of concern (Pettit, 2018). The main skeptical argument about morality, is that it is a conscious, in some cases self-driven, decision that is made on the evidence. However, following the traditional view it is clear that morality and the evidence would face one another, thus making an individual choose between the moral a concept and the concept based on the evidence. This is one of the dominant differences between the skeptical and non-skeptical views on morality. Skeptical view believes that the concept of evidence is included into the concept of morality, which is arguably not always the case. The evidence sometimes can go against morality, when an individual makes an unconscious choice.

Conclusion

Morality is a philosophical view that helps an individual to distinguish good from bad. There are two views on morality, as defined by many philosophers; they are skeptical and non-skeptical views. Moral skepticism is a collection of views that denies or challenges various reasons of morality. Skepticism questions the innate nature of morality, instead stating that morality is a conscious choice. Non-skeptical view supports the idea that morality is in individuals nature. Non-skeptical view claims that morality goes hand in hand with personhood, thus being an inseparable part of the persons character. This leads to an idea that morality is an unconscious decision-making act that does not include many variables apart from the individual feelings.

Whereas many skeptical researches argue and try to prove that there is, in fact, a moment of consciousness when making a decision that will bear a moral responsibility for an individual, there are also findings that prove the opposite. Recent works in psychology and social psychology has shown that the causes that move individuals are often less transparent to themselves and nearly impossible for individuals to justify. This means that there is an unconscious control over individuals behaviour, supporting the non-skeptical idea that morality and moral responsibility are innate to human nature. Moreover, the findings on moral desirability show that when given two considerations while making a decision, the rational consideration will come opposite to the consideration, which is based on morality.

While skeptics will argue that morality should consist of external factors and observations, non-skeptics believe that morality might come as an opposite to the external factors and observations. Overall, the non-skeptical view on morality supports the idea that morality should not be questioned since it is a given. As well as that, it should not be dependent on external evidence and factors. Lastly, decisions based on morality are subconsciously made, as opposed to being a conscious logical chain of thought.

References

Arenson, K. (2020). The Routledge handbook of Hellenistic philosophy (pp. 1-55). Routledge.

Caruso, G. (2018). Skepticism about moral responsibility. Stanford Archive 2019.

Pettit, P. (2018). The birth of ethics: Reconstructing the role and nature of morality. Oxford University Press.

Introduction

Law and morality are two regulatory frameworks that control and manage practices in a human network to permit amicable and successful intersubjectivity between people. The two notions have a corresponding relationship in the ideas of individual self-rule and equivalent regard for everybody. There is an association between law and ethical quality as the one between a section and a unity. The investigation of law depends on discovering answers to less reasonable inquiries which are more philosophical.

Main text

The initial stage of forming the law is to consistently check its correspondence to ethical quality since these two terms are in a tight association. The current investigation demonstrates an issue that has been discussed since ancient times (Nemtoi and Nesteriuc 114). Historically, it has been demonstrated that the advancement of both the state and the general public has situated the connection between the law and moral values. Morality directs and protects individuals conduct in the public arena, as does the law. As indicated by Nemtoi and Nesteriuc (2017), the Romans characterized the law as the craft of good and value, which were considered the prerequisites of ethical quality. Law serves as an instrument of effective control of the individuals that depend on the foundation of equity. Morality represents a middle of the road stage for the possibility of the law. Consequently, both law and morality should be subordinate to ethics.

One of the most popular theories regarding the law is that it depends on human instinct or reason; thus, it essentially reflects what is characteristic or sensible. Law empowers society to work equitably and compellingly. The common description of law is a declaration of both the benefit of all and the essential estimations of society. Thus, it ensures equal rights for everybody and an individuals inclinations. In this way, officials consider the groups will and elaborate legal regulations.

There should be a system characterized by specific rules, interests, and meetings to benefit and protect each member of society. The law is not above or outside society, rather being the impression of a particular community at a given period in its development. The aftereffect of the overall influence between social gatherings and one of various instruments or means are used to force thoughts and safeguard interests. The law can similarly be an instrument of segregation or constraint and occasionally an instrument of insurance. Everything relies upon the force or coalitions a gathering has when enactment is readied, passed by Parliament, and actualized (Nemtoi and Nesteriuc 114). What is more, there is a contrast between what is expressed or guaranteed about law and enactment and what occurs.

The history of society is important in studying the origins of law. The significant changes society has gone through since the middle of the 20th century accelerated due to the consequences of World War II (WWII). The law has been and still is a significant method by which people endeavor to adapt to these changes. Thus, the number of enactments and government guidelines have multiplied. Currently, Canadians are obligated for nearly 350 Criminal Code offenses, around 20 thousand government and common offenses, and every one of those is made by city guidelines (Parent and Parent 7). In Québec, for instance, nearly the same number of new offenses or punishments were made between 1965 and 1975 (Parent and Parent 7). Hence, the law has the impact of implementing authority, rehashing, and giving solid articulation to social and financial imbalances.

One of the most feasible inequalities in the judiciary system of Canada was related to the role of women. For instance, for a long time, the law explicitly denied females common, political, and financial rights. It was distinctly close to the end of the nineteenth century that a woman could think of paying for her property and not by her spouse. Likewise, until the mid-twentieth century, most common assemblies did not perceive that ladies reserved the option to similar compensation as men. For decades, females were banished from specific callings, meetings, and activities. As an example, in Québec, women were not permitted to specialize in the legislative field until 1942 (Parent and Parent 11). Women could not cast a ballot in government decisions until 1918. Only after WWII, most territories permitted them to serve on juries (Parent and Parent 12). Today, Canada is a democratic country that gives the right to vote to every citizen regardless of the persons gender, age, ethnicity, and social status. It is now more ethical than it was decades ago. This shows how law can be changed depending on the transformation of societal norms.

One of the most significant theoretical approaches to characterize law is using culture and custom. This approach sometimes compromises the morality and righteousness of the law. Ethics, morals, and lawfulness of murdering someone for personal survival in an emergency have been a well-reflected issue in psychological tests by the Plank of Carneades to The Case of the Speluncean Explorers. The inquiry had emerged in several legitimate cases across the British purviews. The Queen v Dudley and Stephens is a main English criminal instance of the nineteenth century. It set a point of reference all through the custom-based law, which suggested that need is not a safeguard to a charge of homicide. Dudley, Stephens, and the other two men were shipwrecked in the middle of the sea. At the point when the youngest of them, Richard Parker, lost consciousness, Dudley and Stephens chose to execute him for food (Minchin 793). The righteousness of such a decision was judged according to the customs of the ocean. Therefore, there are exceptional cases in history that indicate immoral behavior but are approved by the law.

It should not be assumed that in declining to concede compulsion to be a reason for wrongdoing, the court failed to remember how horrendous the allurement was. It considered the dreadful affliction and the difficulty to keep the judgment straight and the stay unadulterated in such preliminaries. Individuals are regularly constrained by the guidelines they cannot follow and the standards which they could not fulfill. However, it is unethical and inappropriate to announce the impulse to be a reason. Making need as an excuse would steadily weaken the framework. Permitting the defense may mislead people that they can use necessity as a safeguard. As a result, it is critical to not permit the empathy for the criminal to change or debilitating in any way the lawful meaning of the wrongdoing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the law is constructed by the societal norms, separating the sane and the ethical viewpoints to return and force the correct angles on them. There is an obvious inconsistency between law and morality, with these two concepts being to some extent corresponding. The incorporation of the ethical standards in the common standards accentuates the beginning character of the ethical traditions inside the guidelines of the law. Legal norms may reform and adjust to the changes occurring in society and its culture.

References

Minchin, G. E. Regina v Dudley & Stephens Anatomy of a Show Trial. Beijing Law Review, vol. 11, no. 03, 2020, pp. 782-804.

Nemtoi, Gabriela, and Oana Nesteriuc. Theoretical and Practical Convergencies Between Law and Morality, European Journal of Law and Public Administration, vol. 4, no. 2, 2017, pp. 110-118, Editura LUMEN. Web.

Parent, Richard, and Catherine Parent. Ethics and Canadian Law Enforcement. Canadian Scholars Press, 2018.

Introduction

Since the 19th century, humanity has constantly been arguing about the morality of market societies versus non-market ones and whether the market is a driver of societal corruption. This discourse began with Karl Marx, who stated that the market transforms man into an abstract being, an automaton, and [&] a spiritual and physical monster in his works (Choi and Storr 42).

Discussion

Nowadays, market defenders and opponents argue across diverse academic fields, including ethics, philosophy, economics, and sociology. Choi and Storr are in the first category, and they think that market countries have a higher morality than societies without markets (49). Their perspective would be of interest to both thinkers and economists.

Factors due to which market societies are more moral than non-market states include freedom of operations and a multitude of opportunities. Combined, these provide individuals acting in markets with space, autonomy, and tools to explore the nature and nuances of morality and ethics. According to experts, societies where the market is absent or prohibited, are missing out on opportunities for their members to learn virtues and to grow morally (Choi and Storr 49). Excessive, dictatorial restrictions or lack of fundamental institutions limit the ways for each person and community as a whole to define and distinguish virtues and vices clearly and build a robust societal structure of mutual trust, honesty, and transparency. Within non-markets, the profit and loss mechanism cannot work correctly because some actors, most often these are governments, do not experience losses while others do not benefit from exchange interactions.

Conclusion

As a result, all groups cannot gain deeper knowledge of virtues and vices from their experiences and mistakes and, consequently, develop complex morals.

Work Cited

Choi, Ginny Seung, and Virgil Henry Storr. Measuring Markets and Morality. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, vol. 13, no. 1, 2020, pp. 4260. Web.