Category: Morality

In his article Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer reveals the prevailing situation in Bengal, India, and the international relief awarded to the refugees. He suggests that affluent countries reacted to the situation in an unjustifiable manner. Therefore, his goal is to change the way moral issues are handled.

He says, [I]f it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it (Singer, 1972, pp. 233-234). In this argument, he proposes that people need to prevent suffering from happening if they are willing and able to do so.

As a counter argument, there are many people in the world obliged to help. Therefore, helping is not the moral obligation of any individual. His response is that, if all people show just a bit of responsibility, then any problem that arises would be dealt with jointly, which would be more effective (Sandberg & Juth, 2011, p.212).

In another counter argument, giving to a person far away without considering those that are close is said to be bad. It would only prevent future incidences as opposed to the one currently in the neighbourhood.

He argues that a distance in time and space is irrelevant in helping people. It is also argued that Singers conclusion is not in line with the current morals. Therefore, it is not right. In a counterargument, Singer states that people should not assume that the morals existing are right and or correct. He states that his statement of the principle elicits a sound conclusion. Therefore, it should be accepted as in line with the current morals.

Singers marginal utility point is the point at which any person and his/her dependants would end up suffering at an equal magnitude of the amount of suffering relieved to those he/she assisted.

He gives an example of a person giving towards relief effort in Bengal. He claims that giving a certain amount to Bengal would result to suffering of individuals and their dependants, which will correspond to the suffering he relieved in Bengal. He declares this as unnecessary in assisting other people especially charity since it would be more than what is needed.

Singer comments on the issue of charity and duty by claiming that the traditional way of making a distinction between duty and charity is not possible. In the traditional values, one is not supposed to hurt others because it is immoral to do so. It is also not considered bad not to give charity with the reverse being true. Singer reverses this principle by claiming that this traditional view should be reversed.

As a personal argument and from an individuals morals, human beings have the obligation of preventing suffering from their counterparts irrespective of distance, space, time, and relationship. In fact, Singer says, Neither our distance&nor the number of other people&lessens our obligation to mitigate or prevent that evil (1972, p.234). I agree with Singers argument that universal suffering would be reduced if the traditional view of duty and charity were changed to that of obligation.

Affluent nations therefore have the duty of assisting poorer states by providing for the needy. Responsibility however should be equal for all people in the world. Besides, getting all people to help their neighbours should be made a priority. It is true that there are people in the world whose assets are worth more than what is required to feed a single refugee camp in a year.

If they acted only in the current moral view of charity, this would then go a long way in reducing universal poverty and suffering (Lenferna, 2010, p.92). If it were within their capabilities, people would need not to sacrifice anything of equal moral importance. He also suggests that people should also prevent bad things from happening to others if it were possible to do so without having to sacrifice anything that is morally significant to them.

Reference List

Lenferna, G. (2010). Singer Revisited Cosmopolitanism, Global Poverty and our Ethical Requirements. South African Journal of Philosophy, 29(2), 85-94.

Sandberg, J., & Juth, N. (2011). Ethics and Intuitions: A Reply to Singer. Springer, 15(1), 209-226.

Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(3), 229-43.

According to Adam Smith, people are by their very nature endowed with the sense of morality. In its turn, this presupposes that, while deciding in favor of a particular course of action, which will affect others, individuals do strive to assess the extent of this actions moral appropriateness.

Nevertheless, there is much subjectivity in how they do it because the universally applicable rules of a moral behavior do not necessarily correlate with what happened to be the essence of each particular individuals ethical longings.

This is why, as practice indicates, peoples affiliation with the rules of morality often appears rather superficial: Many men behave very decently& (but) never felt the sentiment upon the propriety of which we found our approbation of their conduct (Smith par. 1).

The reason for this is that, contrary to what many people think, the rules of morality are simultaneously given (by God) and continuously formed, in regards to what happened to be the affiliated external circumstances. As such, they are better defined as social constructs, meant to ensure the societys proper functioning.

What causes many people to disregard the rules of morality, while facing life-challenges, is that there is a certain inconsistency between peoples longing towards justice and their irrational expectation for this longing to be rewarded.

While justifying his line of reasoning, in this respect, Smith points out to the fact that people are predetermined to seek truth and justice, as their foremost priority in life: What is agreeable to our moral faculties, is fit, and right, and proper to be done; the contrary wrong, unfit, and improper (par. 5).

Therefore, it is only natural for them to expect that, while acting in the morally virtuous manner, they should face the prospect of an eventual compensation: What is the reward most proper for encouraging industry, prudence, and circumspection? Success in every sort of business (par. 9).

Nevertheless, as practice indicates, such peoples expectation often remains in vain, as the laws of nature do not always favor morally virtuous individuals. Quite on the contrary  it is specifically peoples willingness to defy the rules of a conventional morally, which usually makes it possible for them to be able to attain a social prominence.

As Smith noted: The natural course of things decides it in favor of the knave: the natural sentiments of mankind in favor of the man of virtue (par. 9). This, however, does not provide people with a good enough excuse to behave immorally. The reason for this is apparent  while engaging with the notion of justice, individuals tend to overlook what accounts for the appropriateness of their application of this notion when it comes to judging others.

For example, it is often being the case that, when exposed to the sight of a con-master enjoying riches, they assume that this can well serve the indication of the fact that there is no justice in the universe. After all, there are many honest and yet poor individuals out there.

However, it rarely occurs to people that this situation can be well explained by the fact that; whereas the earlier mentioned con-master happened to be a hard-working individual, his honest and poor counterparts are lazy. In other words, it is namely the peoples lack of perceptual objectivity, which causes them to misinterpret the workings of God and consequently, to defy the rules of conventional morality.

The earlier outlined line of Smiths logic has led him to suggest that, despite these rules often appear to be rather ineffective, this is nothing but an illusion. God himself passed down these rules to people. This is the reason why individuals can never cease observing them while facing life-challenges  even when in their eyes; there is very little practical sense in it.

Being the subjects of God, people are simply in no position to doubt the legitimacy of divinely inspired moral rules: The very thought of disobedience appears to involve in it the most shocking impropriety. How vain, how absurd would it be for man, either to oppose or to neglect the commands that were laid upon him by Infinite Wisdom, and Infinite Power (par. 12).

It is the fact that following these commandments is never easy, which justifies the idea that they must be followed, in the first place. Only by being able to suppress their animalistic urges, while opting in favor of remaining faithful to the conventional rules of morality, that people can expect the actual fulfillment of their destinies.

Smith suggests that the prospect of being placed in the kingdom of heaven, as a reward for their willingness to act morally while on Earth, should provide people with a strong enough incentive to act as God expects them to. According to him: We may escape the observation of man, or be placed above the reach of human punishment, yet we are always acting under the eye, and exposed to the punishment of God, the great avenger of injustice (par. 12).

Thus, Smiths conceptualization of the rules of morality presupposes that these rules validity is best confirmed, in regards to what appears to be their very source  the God himself.

Works Cited

Smith, Adam. Chap. V: Of the Influence and Authority of the General Rules of Morality, and that they are Justly Regarded as the Laws of the Deity. The Theory of Moral Sentiments 1759. Web.

I disagree with Socrates claim that morality is objective. According to Dr. Jordan B Cooper (2018), sophists believed that there was no objective truth that could be concluded by the use of philosophy. The perception of life, including morality, varies from person to person. Morality is like a temperature, which can be cold for one person and hot for another person. Peoples moral beliefs of what is good and what is bad is a construction of the knowledge that was obtained from other people of the same society as children learning from the parents. For example, some ancient societies had a human sacrifice, which was a part of social norms, while other societies did not see such activities as morally acceptable. Thus, the definition of morality is relative and can vary from society to society, and even from individual to individual.

Modern law is a very complex set of rules. Those rules were based on the vision of lawmakers on what is moral and what is not. It is morally justified to break the law if the person truly believes that the action he is committing is within his moral concepts. According to the Academy of Ideas (2013), Socrates believed that evil is committed because of ignorance. If one knew that his action is evil, he would not commit such acts. Hence, the question of whether it is justified to break the low directly relates to the individuals moral concept. For example, people smoking marijuana truly believe that marijuana poses no harm to society. Socrates reason not to resist the death sentence was part of his moral standards. In this sense, I agree with his decision not to escape from prison.

References

Academy of Ideas. (2013). The Ideas of Socrates. YouTube. Web.

Dr. Jordan B Cooper. (2018). The Sophists (A History of Western Thought 8). YouTube. Web.

Nietzsche is known for his pioneering deductions and highly controversial views on religion, human nature, and ultimately the natural and societal forces and laws that govern the entirety of a persons life. In truth, historical figures like Friedrich Nietzsche challenge the status quo merely by expressing themselves; however, one of his ideas in particular has made significant resonance  the idea on the origin of morality. Specifically, in regard to this, the collection of essays titled On the Genealogy of Morality has received the grandest share of attention from readers. For this reason, the following work examines the main themes that Nietzsche postulates in the body of the work. Those are the polemic on the etymology of the good and bad and the condition of the modern man connected to his main argument on the origin of morality.

The central problem of On the Genealogy of Morality can be found in the first essay titled Good and Evil, where the skeletal structure of the state-of-the-art of morality is depicted by Nietzsche. This particular part of the treatise is often viewed separately from the other two, as rightfully noted by Meredith, for its compelling clarity of discourse that separates it from the other chapters (248). It is also the part that received the most scholarly attention, and surely, not without a reason, however, Meredith says, that the morality principles discussed in the Good and Bad are far from exhaustive (248). Restricting oneself to the first essay inspires to compose distorted and limited interpretation of the concepts proposed Nietzsche. It is for this reason in particular that the current work aims to compile an overview as close and as comprehensive as possible.

What appears to be quite obvious for Nietzsche concerning the origin and the true nature of morality appears at least extraordinaire for the reader at first. Nonetheless, the philosophers arguments become increasingly convincing as the work progresses. In the preface, the philosopher inquires, under what conditions did man invent the value judgements good and evil?  and this can be named as the prime interest of his in the On the Genealogy of Morality (Nietzsche 4). In the following chapters, he then proceeds to analyze the origin of moral code as it is, returning to prehistoric societies with its inherently natural, untouched state of the values. His philological deductions constitute major interest, as they appear particularly convincing and relevant to the emergence of noble and slave types of moralities  and self-sufficient in their wholesomeness. To give an example of his linguistic explorations, which he conducts masterfully, it would be appropriate to refer to the German schlicht  plain, simple with no derogatory connotation  gradually transforming into schlecht  bad (Nietzsche 13). The formation of this word with its current meaning can be referenced to the times of formation of the duality of morals, which developed in the same manner.

The shifting meaning of words like schlecht clearly demonstrates the shaping process of values. However, this investigation defines only the early origins, and does not expound upon the nature of morality according to Nietzsche  he introduces the main concepts of priestly caste and the warrior / aristocratic caste further. The most significant distinction in the first chapter is the juxtaposition of these two and one of the main historical examples that spawned many variants of false reading of Nietzsche: it was the Jews (Nietzsche 17). In this case, the Jewish nation serves only as a suitable example, as the philosopher distills the values of good and evil, guilt and responsibility, and ascetism from the Christian paradigm. His main argument is rather concerned with the way the values were turned upside down by priests  namely the Jews  and the effects it had on the subsequent current condition of the modern man.

The role of ressentiment has an important connotation as well  it serves as a base for the whole operation of the reversal of values from aristocratic to slave. It is a force binding it together  a force of hatred and resentment, which is why it is particularly effective. It is the a reactive and negative sentiment against the oppressive masters of the slaves revolting and proclaiming themselves, the poor, the crooked, the weak as righteous (Nietzsche 27). Thus, he presents his central argument: moral values were purposefully reverted and the current moral norms are derived from the perspective of the weak; the original, noble values promoted faded away and need to be restored.

The conditions and circumstances replace each other according to the stages the society. Nietzsches depiction of different conditions shows the progression of the principles he discusses, whether it is responsibility, guilt, conscience, or the notion of ascetism. For instance, in the second treatise, he shows how morality of custom finally reveals what they were simply the means to: we then find the sovereign individual as the ripest fruit on its tree (Nietzsche 36). Similarly, the circumstances of the time On the Genealogy was conceived, clearly shows the degradation of morality and its subsequent nihilistic nature of the philosophers modernity. Thus, his thoughtful deconstruction of the circumstances influencing the appearance and nature of morality contributes immensely to the understanding of the so-called Modern Man.

However, as mentioned before, the main role in the treatise is given to the moral dualism of the noble caste and the priestly caste. Nietzsches analysis certainly inspires the feeling of the author being somewhat biased in this matter, however, being able to retain integrity. As can be seen in the text, he clearly leans towards the noble morality being this pristine, original, and rightful concept. The priestly caste, on the other hand, is something that perished the human society, bringing it to the current devastated form. This can be deduced by the quite emotional assessments that Nietzsche makes regarding every new idea he introduces into the text. The point of view of a man of ressentiment is re-touched, re-interpreted and reviewed through the poisonous eye of hatred (Nietzsche 22). Therefore, up to the point of introduction of slave/noble and priest/noble categories, it appeared that Nietzsche was aiming at objectivity: however, his wording concerning the nobles proposes a different interpretation. He compares the noble races to birds of prey: there is no reason to blame the large birds of prey (Nietzsche 26). Despite the subjectivity, his analysis of slave-noble dualism appears utterly rational and logical.

The correlation between the ressentiment and punishment is not as obvious. Clearly, according to Katsafanas, the images of punishment and cruelty are to forcefully instill new desires in an animal through images of pain so that itll behave as its masters require (156). Nonetheless, despite this being the main link between punishment and slave morality, Nietzsche gives a variety of interpretations for it. In the treatise, punishment is viewed as a means of rendering harmless, as payment of a debt to the creditor or as means to prevent further spread of the disturbance (Nietzsche 53). In this sense, the following interpretation can be proposed  punishment, albeit being the tool to ensure power of the dominant force, instead serves to uphold ressentiment and slave morality as a whole. Punishment is deeply connected with responsibility, which is inherently an enforced concept and thus, fits perfectly into the moral system depicted by Nietzsche in the form of a useful tool of maintaining it.

Overall, On the Genealogy of Morality constitutes a convincing critique of Nietzsches contemporary state-of-the-art in the social morality dominant at the time. He reviews different aspects of morality, borrowing them mainly from Christianity: the notions of good and evil are thoroughly expounded upon  from etymology to specific historical accounts. His main concept concerning the origin of morality revolves around the dual nature of aristocratic morality and priestly morality. The latter gives birth to slave morality, which, by the way of ressentiment, views only the weak and the crooked as righteous  the paradigm in power. It is particularly compelling to draw parallels between the historical accounts he offers and the condition of the modern man that the notions described have resulted in. Nietzsche employs the deconstructive method in order to arrive at his conclusions concerning punishment, guilt, responsibility, and the true nature of ascetism  and offering a unique interpretation of the world relevant to this day.

Works Cited

Katsafanas, Paul, editor. The Nitzschean Mind. Routledge, 2018.

Meredith, Thomas. The Radical Goals of Slave Morality in Nietzsches on the Genealogy of Morality. The Review of Politics, vol. 82, no. 2., 2020, pp. 247268.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morality. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Introduction

Rhetoric debates on whether something is morally right or wrong provide many answers to a single question, and each individual is free to decide on what basis they judge others and their actions. Philosophical theories that explain each side of the topic vary greatly in their definitions of the basis for good and evil. In this essay, different ethical views, including deontological and utilitarian, will be reviewed.

Utilitarianism vs. Deontology

The philosophy of utilitarianism strives to be adapting in its judgments. It focuses more on the relative rather than an absolute definition of good and evil. Everett and Kahane describe utilitarianism as a principle to act in a way that impartially maximizes aggregate well-being (1). According to this theory, there is no ultimate solution that fits all cases. Followers of utilitarianism thus claim that an action is morally right when it increases the happiness of the involved parties and minimizes the harm (Everett and Kahane 3). It is based on the theory of consequentialism, which ushers people to pursue actions with the best possible consequences according to each given situation (Everett and Kahane 5). Utilitarians can perceive one event as both right and wrong, depending on the outcomes.

In turn, the decisions of deontologists are based on intrinsic duties that every person has. Their philosophical theory does not focus on a situation but on intentions and the absolute negation of actions that may cause regret (Goldstein-Greenwood et al. 2). They take into account feelings, perceptions, and assumptions that it is a persons obligation to operate on the basis of the idealistic good. Unlike utilitarians, who may justify their actions and have a clearer conscience, deontologists will always strive for perfection or suffer from guilt.

These two philosophies are often juxtaposed in their views on morals, as utilitarians rarely follow absolutist rules, while deontologists do not consider circumstances as an influencing factor as relativists do. Kants deontology is a perfect example of moral absolutism since it takes into consideration values independent of an individuals personal preferences (Alvaro 33). At the same time, moral relativism allows situations where an action that would be otherwise perceived by some as evil is to be done in the name of maximizing overall happiness. For example, consequentialists use personal judgment and common sense when making such decisions as in the trolley dilemma. Objections against moral relativism often stem from the feelings of being lost in decision-making processes, evaluations, and sacrifices that detrimental to others (Alvaro 33). Absolutists, such as Christians, may hardly accept such ideas as a sacrifice of one for the safety of others, yet their feelings of guilt may drive them through challenging decision-making processes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, each action or decision is either right or wrong in accordance with an individuals personal views on morality. Utilitarianism and deontology present contrasted opinions on what to consider morally right, leading to different decisions in life. Utilitarianists may be regarded as lacking remorse towards outcomes for some of the involved individuals. Deontology is stricter in terms of the judgment of decisions, as it requires one to have a strong moral compass. Followers of this theory do not analyze the consequences but operate on the existing imperatives. It has more to do with ones affective rather than cognitive abilities. Despite outcomes, each action will always be judged as either right or wrong by moral absolutists or will depend on the situation in accordance with moral relativism.

Works Cited

Alvaro, Carlo. The Incoherence of Moral Relativism. Cultura, vol. 17, no. 1, 2020, pp. 19-38.

Everett, Jim A., and Guy Kahane. Switching Tracks? Towards a Multidimensional Model of Utilitarian Psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 24, no. 2, 2020, pp. 124-134.

Goldstein-Greenwood, J., et al. (How) Do You Regret Killing One to Save Five? Affective and Cognitive Regret Differ After Utilitarian and Deontological Decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 46, no. 9, 2020, pp. 1303-1317.

Introduction

Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential philosophers whose works continue to serve as the foundation for many modern developments in this field of study. His take on morality and the fundamental ideas on humans understanding of self play a critical role in defining core political and social aspects of civilization. In this essay, Kants self-incurred minority and enlightenment will be discussed and proposed as a foundation for morality.

Immanuel Kants Ideas

A self-incurred minority is a vulnerable and undesirable state of mind described by Kant. It is characterized by a complete lack of desire to seek knowledge without being supervised (Kant 17). The death of independent thought follows the complete loss of freedom. According to Kant, thinking of leaders as guardians who have to guide others and prevent them from daring to take a single step without strict directions is the premise for the end of humanity (17). Morality plays a critical role in this discussion since it is tied to ones ability to judge.

Enlightenment is a critical goal for humankind to achieve in order to prevail as a civilization. In Kants essay, enlightenment is the opposite of apathy, inaction, and indecisiveness (Kant 17). At the same time, the author acknowledges that many forces continuously seek to prevent people from becoming independent thinkers due to the inevitable loss of control over the minds of the masses (Kant 19). The desire to control may stem from good intentions, yet it is never a positive behavior in a society built on personal freedoms and public duties. Kant argues that such an approach would be a crime against human nature (20). Morality can be taught to people who lack the potential for self-motivation. However, genuinely moral acts come from an understanding of the core reason behind the necessity to act morally right, which is impossible to achieve without enlightenment.

From this letter, it appears that it was Kants intention to link morality and enlightenment as inseparable concepts. Only an enlightened individual is truly capable of being judged and judging the morality of others and the self. When a reason for a moral act comes from an outside influence, the morality of such an event lies on the mentor. It is worth noting that Kant calls people who lack independency domesticated animals and creatures instead of humans (17). While actions are always judged by their intentions, these minorities possess only a copy of their mentors morals. An individual who actively seeks knowledge is on the path toward enlightenment, as Kant described. This exact path allows one to find meaning in morally right or wrong actions. Without this desire to understand the world around them, a person is incapable of thoroughly thought-out judgments or conclusions. A sense of duty is a characteristic of an enlightened person whose freedoms allow them to act either within or outside of the boundaries of publicly acceptable morals. At the same time, this responsibility comes with the burden of being eligible to be judged.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Immanuel Kants views on enlightenment have a close tie with a persons morality through critical thinking capabilities that lie at the core of knowledge-seeking processes. The self-incurred minority status essentially prevents one from being appraised for their actions since these actions are dictated by an outside source. The concept of morality is inseparable from the ability of each person to appraise its worth without being told the right answer.

Work Cited

Kant, Immanuel. Practical Philosophy. Edited by Mary J. Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

The conflict between the optimal outcome and reality has long been a source of contention in the political domain. In this sense, some renowned philosophers have constructed envisioned situations for the betterment of the society upon which their whole body of work is based and their entire ideologies. Notwithstanding, several academics, like Machiavelli, have previously voiced doubt over the plausibility of such utopian governments. His famous saying the end justifies the means has long been a topic of constant discussion. In divergence, Platos notion of validation of achievement has since been celebrated by many. The two thinkers believe that an ideal state exists and that this perfect state functions as the fundamental objective of human civilization. Nevertheless, the contrast between the two idealists did not mean that Machiavellis idea was heinous compared to Platos. Instead, it was just a difference of seeking incongruence questions and ideas since both scholars ideas were conquered in some instances, as encompassed in this discussion.

The discrepancy between Plato and Machiavelli about objectives stems from the fact that Machiavellis signifiers prepare the way for the ultimate goal, which is unavoidably terrible. Thus, he favors procedural fairness in governance above fundamental justice, disconnecting the connection between politics and morality. Modern politics becomes petty as a result of this moral disengagement. He added that they convened to create laws and punish those who broke them. Therefore, this position emphasizes the need to regain the philosophical component of morality in political debate to attain fairness.

Nevertheless, based on Plato, the solitary concept of virtue can provide a republican with actual justice and operational justice and the power to defend human liberty from governmental intrusion. According to Machiavellis political philosophy, Platos political view is a compromise between the best and most pragmatic possibilities. While Platos political theory emphasizes ethical values as the city-major states objectives, he also believes that the flawless must be accomplished in reality in order to be considered legitimate. According to him, reconciling the gap between ideal and reality is necessary for the development of a political philosophy capable of guiding the Greeks in their quest for liberty.

Regarding education, Machiavelli did not concentrate on how to educate citizens to establish competent institutions and the reverence of rights and liberties. A skill set is required to enhance sound performance in the relative duties, and the guardians should be trained to prevent war through physical training and music. Hence, nothing of this nature interested me. Machiavellis perspective was entirely focused on the princes authority, who should master the skill of utilizing both love and force when required. The consequences of this secular politics are incapable of providing moral or spiritual instruction to various classes since this is not the goal of their guide. Since individuals are compelled to violate the law, the city probably lacked a strict sense of justice, as the prince does not believe in moral equality and uses it only when required. To foster justice, the prince must feel in and cherish the ultimate truth; otherwise, ethics would deteriorate so that fairness would vanish.

However, Plato believes education is the citys fundamental obligation since, minus it, people cannot consider what justice, morals, goodness, and evil are. So the leader must embody these principles and inspire others to do so. In this way, the virtues are vital in education so that everyone understands what they are doing in the city. Individuals should first be educated on how to rise above the apprehensions and defend the citys borders with a Republican army. While the duties of auxiliaries vary from those of guardians, the lower class employees are considered subject to their whims.

Following that, in The Laws, Plato takes a distinct approach to the notion of democracy. He contends that there are two main types of the constitution: monarchy and democracy, which are mutually exclusive. He argues that the optimum form of government incorporates elements of two types of constitutions to construct a constitutional monarchy. As has already been noted, Plato is a vocal opponent of democracy and condemns it throughout his writings. Yet, in the Laws, he summarizes what he views to be the contrasting constitutions, democracy, and monarchy, to develop a constitutional monarchy philosophy that he calls a constitutional monarchy. Once again, his technique of inquiry informs his perspective of democratic institutions. He begins with the democratic political system, then examines its opponent, the monarchical system, and then synthesizes the two to get closer to an ideal.

On the other hand, Machiavelli departs from Platos ideas and technique, which define his view of democracy. Machiavellis philosophy is not always a dimension of reality, and semantics is the notion of actuality. While his approach and ontology are progressive, they are not directed toward a specific goal. He argues that mans behaviors are determined by their free will only in part. Instead, Machiavelli urges people to aspire a bit oblivious to what would be anticipated to accomplish their objective. Thus, it boosts ones chances of success, particularly given his perception of the future as unpredictable. Additionally, he asserts that when men do this, they may use their virtue to combat uncertainty. It relates to his view of democracy: since the future is unpredictable, kings cannot simply develop plans in isolation from the population.

On the same note, Plato is more concerned with its durability than whether a political philosophy is valid. He detailed the perfect constitution and lifestyle for the majority of city-states during his political career. In this respect, most people do not have a sort of education that demands all-natural abilities and assets based on chance, nor a flawless constitution, but rather laws in which the majority of cities may engage are the most critical factors to take into account. In other aspects, this stands in contrast to Machiavellian conceptions of heaven as a place reserved for the superior intellects. Plato may be called the inventor of pragmatic politics when it comes to political philosophy.

However, the fact that in some instances, the two philosophers conquered in ideas; for example, both Machiavelli and Plato believe in continuous political and social progress, requiring a competent leader to start a new cycle. According to Plato, there is only one kind of virtue in political structure, namely the proper rule of the philosopher-kings, but an endless variety of evil. Platos portrayal of subordinate sorts of governance in a historical series starts with the Republic and gradually fades away. A legitimate rule, according to Machiavelli and Plato, needed an inventive person who was beyond the structure he constructed. Further, according to Machiavelli, governance decays through time as it moves between people and the masses, ultimately succumbing to a more significant foreign force. Thence, a state sinks into turmoil; one person must renew the cycle, not by democracy or republic. Machiavelli explains this necessity by citing historical precedents, except when structured by one man, no republic or kingdom is founded or rebuilt successfully. Plato and Machiavelli both concentrate the weight of liberation on one leader, dubbed the founder-hero. In order to advance not his interests but the public good, the hero-founders must each descend in turn and dwell with others in the cave. Hence, it means that their laws are designed to promote the general benefit of society, not the welfare of any one group. Thus, one of the deemed hero founders is required to recreate a stable society from the ruins of its final deterioration.

Moreover, it symbolizes the height of ethical standards and morality. According to Plato, pleasure is ultimate and self-satisfying, and it is attained via the completion of the capacity for action. Further, he accentuates that the greatest and best good is the accomplishment of the science or art that has the most authority of all, which is the science of statesmanship. Yet, the political ideal is fairness; justice, as in politics, is a common benefit. As a result, it is evident that Platos politics of righteousness encompasses a diverse set of concepts and interpretations. In regards, to political morality, for example, it is the science of attaining enjoyment for the public, in opposition to Machiavellis violent and unethical regime. The ideal case scenario is one in which politics is motivated by a desire for justice, which is the only criterion of government efficacy, rather than by a passion for power, as Machiavellian philosophers believe.

Likewise, contrasting and comparing Platos and Machiavellis views on citizenship may guide us in determining what constitutes appropriate political ambitions. According to Machiavelli, mans potential to engage in politics is contingent upon the state of the society in which he lives. While the essence of mans nature is relatively steady, humanity is an ungrateful and voracious race. Thus, within the Republics social conditions, humankind is capable of making an excellent contribution to political life. While Plato argues that the metropolis is, humanitys most sovereign and encompassing union and that man is inherently a city dweller. As a consequence, the objective of free mens citizenship is to participate in the political process. Additionally, the Aristotelian political theory maintains that those unable to engage in the benefits of a political union are either gods or animals in terms of their social niche.

Similarly, Plato asserts that humans must be equipped with logical and religious traits. Thus, people may better understand acceptable political goals by opposing and comparing Platos and Machiavellis ideal citizen notions. Conversely, citizens under Platos government and Machiavellis Republicans are capable of adhering to and supporting the law and lobbying for legislative change. Additionally, they are capable of engineering, performing extraordinary creative feats, and campaigning for the states interests.

Ethical and moral principles are thought to be universal, and yet, many people prefer their perspective and rules that go apart from the majority of law-abiding citizens. The highest morality states that the truth must be revealed and followed no matter what, even though there are sometimes exceptions from the rules.

In a particular case of a mechanical problem with an airplane that would cause the whole fleet to get grounded, the problem is adequate from a moral point of view. From one perspective, if there is something wrong with only one plane, it would be unwise to ground a whole lot of planes. This would cause delays to people, massive financial losses to the company, and other organizations that are involved in the airlines business. On the other hand, if the problem is a sign the same company built all the planes, then all of them might have faulty mechanics and, thus, should be grounded. According to Kants Categorical Imperative and the views on ethics, people must do what is necessary for relation to the greater good (Guyer, 2006).

The wait times and money can be lost and gained, whereas peoples lives work only one way. People will always feel inconvenient due to the environmental changes and conditions that regulate existence, but nothing is as precious as someones life. By the standards of moral reasoning, all the planes should be grounded, and proper authorities notified of the problem. This will be an honest way in not only the moral sense but also the safest. If the problem is discovered much later, the consequences might be greater. Any delay could cause the loss of peoples lives, and the financial and reputational losses to the airline and partner companies would be enormous. The principle of greater good and necessities has many more positive outcomes from any perspective (Johnson, 2012).

Another real-world example of a company being unethical and immoral is a supermarket selling chemically modified or expired goods. For some time, people might be buying the products, and nothing will happen, but there is the risk of one case that will change everything. As a result, people are suspected of the risk of illness, allergies, and possibly lethal outcomes, as the foods that are sold must be of the highest quality. The cost to the store or company, in case the deception continues, will be enormous. There is the possibility of lawsuits, monetary loss, and, most of all, the reputation of the company will suffer (Denzin, 2012). It would be much easier to recall a specific amount of products and lose only a portion of the resources, in comparison to losing everything. This is the case with many stores, and it has been proven that companies would rather be honest and ethical. This might happen not because of the kindness and moral goodness of the companies but because of the fear of lost customers and lawsuits. It has been a policy for some time; if any expired or bad product is found, it will be replaced and paid for by the store (Brandt, 2013). There are many examples of food companies, restaurants, and stores that will do everything to admit their fault and apologize.

The moral necessity is defined by the greater good. All who do not adhere to the honesty principle will suffer much greater losses morally and financially. The final verdict is that it is better to be honest, and admit guilt.

References

Brandt, A. (2013). Morality and Health. New York, United States: Routledge.

Denzin, N. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and the Politics of Advocacy. Walnut Creek, United States: Left Coast Press.

Guyer, P. (2006). Kant. New York, United States: Routledge.

Johnson, O. (2012). Ethics: Selections from Classical and Contemporary Writers. Boston, United States: Cengage Learning.

Introduction

The article in question dwells upon a famous TV channel which is seen as a threat to morality and Christian values. It is noted that some people believe that MTV is a channel controlling the most up-front element of defiant youth culture (Hamerlinck 44). Nonetheless, the author states that the channel is one of many products of capitalism and mass production and has nothing to do with a source forming morality or peoples mindsets. I totally agree with the author as I believe that MTV doers not form a mindset but serves as a reflection of the modern society with its values. Clearly, it cannot be regarded as a competitor of the Catholic (or any other) church.

MTV and Peoples Values

MTV as a Product of Capitalism

Religious activists note that MTV is forming certain opinions and affects young peoples minds while in realty the channel simply responds to its audience needs and wants. Some claim that the Beatles and some other bands and performers are responsible for deifying personal and subjective feelings, and establishing self-satisfaction as the principal goal of existence (qtd. in Hamerlinck 44).

Therefore, some people stress that MTV spreads such values and makes young people focused on their self-satisfaction rather than Christian values. It is possible to assume that bands and singers popularize some ideas as young people tend to try to be like their idols. Nonetheless, it is more likely that singers and bands in their songs focus on ideas which are already in the air. Any song is a story told by a performer. This is the way he/she responds to certain events in his/her life or in the world.

Remarkably, the author claims that MTV does not create viewpoints and mindsets but becomes a reflection of needs of people. More so, Hamerlinck argues that MTV can be regarded as the gospel of capitalism (45). MTV as any other channel is trying to attract as many consumers as possible. It is clear that MTV is a business which serves to give people what they want. Actually, this is one of the principles of capitalism. Obviously, the channel does not create rules but simply follows them.

MTV did not create the values of capitalism but was created by the needs of people in the capitalistic world. Therefore, it is possible to state that the channel is a product of capitalism and it reflects trends which persist in the society. Again, the musical channel becomes a place where stories of performers are told in a very entertaining form. Moreover, the channel does not pay a lot of attention to the ideas articulated by performers but aims at promoting bands and singers as well as certain products (songs, CDs, numerous things advertised and so on).

MTV Cannot Compete with the Church

The author also mentions another important point concerning the attitude of the Catholic Church to the channel. The author notes that some religious activists tried to ban the channel as it spread inappropriate narcissistic messages to the youth (Hamerlinck 44). In other words, those people believed MTV served as a channel to promote ideas reflected in popular songs. Those people also thought that the channel acquired certain traits of a source of some immoral ideas.

However, the author stresses that MTV cannot be a competitor to the Christian church as even the idea that the channel represents any kind of& alternative to religion is ridiculous (Hamerlinck 45). Admittedly, a product of capitalism and mere business cannot become a moral milestone for people. No one switches to MTV to learn how to live better or solve a difficult situation. People do not address the channel and do not expect to get a moral or ethical guidance.

MTV and Humanism

People will never find a set of values on MTV as the channel may only spread some ideas which can facilitate sales. The author emphasizes that messages sent by the channel which can be regarded as social responsibility ideas are simply used to comfort potential advertisers (Hamerlinck 45).

More so, according to Hamerlinck, MTV has nothing to do with humanism or moral development of people and viewers do not try to find this on the channel as there are numerous other alternatives (45). This channel helps people distract themselves from serious things. The channel does not provide humanistic orientations to follow. Hence, MTV cannot be seen as an ethical or moral pillar and it cannot compete with religion.

Conclusion

To sum up, it is possible to state that MTV should not be seen as a source of moral orientations and, hence, cannot become a competitor to the Church. The channel is a product of capitalistic society. It does not create values but reflects ideas as well as entire the society. Religious activists should not try to ban the channel. They should observe and research. Through this channel, religious activist can learn more about the society and youth and they can try to understand what guidance people need. Thus, MTV can become an effective tool in the hands of those who can make people live in a more righteous way.

Works Cited

Hamerlinck, John. MTV and Morality. Music and Culture. Ed. Anna Tomasino. New York, NY: Longman, 20046. 44-46. Print.

‘What is the relationship between morality, the law, and human rights?’ This essay aims to analyse and breakdown the relationship between Morality, law, and human rights. All topics have their respective directives and often intertwine with one another in numerous ways sharing similar content. Each subject of matter has been curated with profound thought, consideration, and with a fundamental understanding of human beings and what is needed for the safety, survival, and equality of mankind. When analysing the relationship between the trio both parallels and contrasts can be found.

The Law, when you think about the law you think about what is deemed legal and illegal, rights and wrongs, and the punishment and justice-involved within the parameters of the law. Laws are rules that unite all individuals living in a network. They secure our overall wellbeing and guarantee our privileges as residents against maltreatment by others, associations, and by the government itself. We have laws to help accommodate our overall security. These exist at the local, country, and national levels, and incorporate things such as laws on food and hygiene, making sure food is at a set standard for consumption. Traffic laws ensuring safety on roads and licensing laws for doctors and nurses ensuring the correct and relevant training of the people that look after us is administered.

However, Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that every human being in the world is entitled to. These principles start from birth and continue to death no matter who you are, where you are from, or how you choose to exist in the world. Human rights remain intact and can never be withdrawn, although they can sometimes be restricted due to breaking the law. The referred to principles are protected by the law.

Whilst morality can be best described as a form of standards or principles obtained through social code and society, it’s fundamental foundations are based on what is right and what is wrong. Morality can also derive from a particular religion, culture, or philosophy, depending on the individual and their life experiences. Morality cannot be measured or compared and depends on the individual. This can be interoperated in many ways or influenced by factors such as a person’s mental ability to judge between right and wrong, For example, Mahatma Handhi stated ‘Morality is rooted in the purity of our hearts’. Some may agree with this and others will reject this logic and will do due to personal preference and life experience.

Unlike legal rules, compliance with moral rules is voluntary, and they are not backed by legal sanctions. They are often informally enforced through social, domestic, or religious pressure.

Morals the law and human rights are all “normative”: They specify what must/ought to be done and embed the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable conduct.

In any case, the manners by which this is done are unique, as laws are sets of principles which society has chosen ought to be necessary.

Laws are officially implemented by select specialists, for example, Police and Criminal Prosecution Service.

With morality, it tends not to be sponsored by lawful authorizations, however, are habitually strengthened by social weights, such as loved ones or religion. They can have amazing impacts on individuals’ behaviour, and create evolve over 1000’s of years; often cemented in social and religious history. (Mainly Christianity) while Laws can be introduced rapidly by Parliament or the Courts, unlike moral values.

Having said that, human rights are protected by the law, the connective nature between the law and morality imposes this topic into the middle of both sets of principles. Without the law protecting human rights, it would not exist. On the other hand, morality plays a significant part also, as human rights are primarily a species of moral rights in that they call attention to certain priority moral values. Because human rights derive from important human interests and need it is natural to assume the legal protection of human rights. However, this may feed into the moral impact they have on society.

Law can consistently be seen supporting and attempting to keep up to our ethics. Regardless, this can be seen as a critical issue, regarding the nature of moral code.

Morals will dependably change after some time, to reflect a change in mindset, and the law must observe to keep up in these situations. An instance of this can be found in R v R (1991), which changed the law, so sexual assault inside marriage became a crime. It was seen that the spouse was legally viewed as property of the husband by way of marriage. This was perceived as morally outdated and wrong, yet the law postponed a change on this moral view.

If the law is to implement morals, then it raises the issue that what one individual thinks is dishonest, another might not, making it harder to pick which point of view would be authorized? This is developed by virtue of Gillick, where Mrs. Gillick searched for an explanation that what she saw as an improper occurrence (birth control advice and treatment open to youngsters under the legal age of consent) was unlawful concerning its inappropriateness. There was a conflict, as some believed this to be unethical (as it would support underage sex) while others felt that it was acceptable (as underage sex would occur regardless, anyway this would help cease unfortunate pregnancies).

This shows in any case of such conflict that law and morality, cannot be viewed as equal.

Morals can be viewed as standards that are upheld by law. They characterize not how one ‘must’ act, however how one ‘should’ act, and while they are not dependent upon moral authorization, they can be casually reinforced by society.

While the law can be connected with this culture, for instance, Lord Atkins’ ‘neighbour concept’, which is the reason for the offense of recklessness, and got from the biblical request to ‘love thy neighbour’. Which is believed to mean don’t hurt thy neighbour. The problem arises in establishing what this higher code is, although it would seem to be based on human rights. Aquinas saw it as coming from God, while Aristotle believed it came from nature.

Another theory refined by John Stuart Mill. is utilitarianism, which proposed that the moral action was the one that produced good for the many, even if it was at the expense of the one (i.e. ‘the greatest good for the greatest number). Mill’s refinement of the idea argues that whilst this idea is true, the individual should not have to follow society’s morals and should be free to act as they wish, provided their acts do not harm others.

With activities like robbery and murder, they are classed as ‘off-base’ both ethically and lawfully. However, for wrongdoings, for example, parking breaches, are not seen as immoral, while improper acts, for example, infidelity are not a criminal offense under UK law.

Laws are absolutely compulsory (one ‘ought to’ obey them) and are officially enforced thru the courtroom docket system. Law and morality can consequently be visible to be mainly different, and one might hence anticipate their courting to be in addition separate. They are, however, intertwined, an instance of which being the ‘vote of conscience’.

There are numerous theories on what the connection between regulation and morals need to be.

The first principle is herbal regulation, followed via way of means of St Thomas Aquinas.

This states that there may be a better regulation to which regulation ought to conform. One needs to brush aside a regulation that is at odds with this herbal code, except doing so might cause social unrest. The trouble arises in setting up what this better code is, even though it might appear to be primarily based totally on human rights. Aquinas noticed it as coming from God, even as Aristotle believed it got here from nature.

Another principle clarified via way of means of John Stuart Mill. Is utilitarianism, which proposed that the ethical action was one that changed and produced good for the right of many, although it changed into the rate of the only (i.E. ‘the prominent right for the prominent number). Mill’s refinement of the concept argues that while this concept is true, the individual should not feel the need to observe and live up to society’s morals, and need to be unattached to behave as they wish, as long as their acts do not propose harm or damage others.

An extension of this concept may be visible within the ‘victimless crimes’ debated via way of means of Edwin Schur in Crimes Without Victims. He argues that offenders’ acts consisting of homosexuality (this was illegal when he was writing), abortion, and drug abuse do not damage innocents, only those that partake of their own free will. A crucial complaint is, however, that not only can the character and damage be questioned (as with utilitarianism) however it’s far more complicated to argue that a person under the influence of drug addiction, for example, is acting of their own free will.

The Hart/Devlin Debate observed the book of the Wolfenden file in 1957. The committee in the back of the file contained Lord Devlin, an outstanding judge, and the educational Professor Hart. The file encouraged the legalisation of prostitution and homosexuality ‘must no longer interfere within the personal lives of residents or trying to inforce any unique sample of behaviour that is deemed further than necessary’ to guard others.

Hart, who was inspired via way of means of the theories of Mill, supported the file’s approach, declaring that felony enforcement of an ethical code turned needless and morally unacceptable because it interferes with a person’s liberty. Devlin, on the alternative hand, turned strongly against the file, on what is probably mentioned as a herbal regulation approach. He felt that society had a positive ethical standard, which the regulation had an obligation to support, as a society might collapse without common ground on morality.

The Wolfendon Report supported Professor Hart’s view that regulation and morality must be separate, however, diverse instances determined because the file displays that judges are implementing their ethical perspectives of their judgements, for example, the case of R v Brown (1994), the defendants had willingly consented to sado-masochistic practices, and none of them had complained to the police. Nevertheless, they have been prosecuted, and convictions have been upheld primarily based totally on public coverage to protect the morality of society. The regulation is consequently visible to try to uphold what it considers to be public morality, although a few can also additionally dispute the correctness of that ethical code.

This is a comparison to the case of R v Wilson [1996], At her request D branded his initials on his wife’s buttocks with a warm knife. The scars brought about him being charged with ABH S47. COA held his behaviour amounted to “tattooing” and that it turned into now no longer within the public hobby to impose criminal punishment, nonetheless displaying that the general public and their ethical perspectives nonetheless affect our regulation.

The differing techniques in those instances genuinely display that judges on said occasions are letting their ethical values have an effect on their judgements.

The courts regularly locate themselves in the centre of highly tough ethical choices concerning lifestyles and death. They are regularly pressured to determine among a person human rights, ethical code, and the law.

In conclusion, there is a close relationship between law, human rights and morality as the law does endorse moral values as well as protecting human rights. Although to what extent the law should be influenced by morality remains an open discussion. A reflection can be made on the relationship between all three in connection with the Mrs Gillick case. As stated previous, it was argued that Mrs Gillicks thoughts and beliefs were somewhat unacceptable, due to her belief that underaged girls should not recieve sexual advise/contraception on the grounds of her own personal morals.