Category: Morality

Introduction

It is the expectations of every human being that the world will be a peaceful place where one would be able to live without fear of being attacked by anybody. Many people in the world expect to that they will live with each other as brothers and sisters without hatred and the idea of having to engage in battles and loosing lives in the process.

Unfortunately, that has never been the case and at one time all the other people have found themselves in situations where they have to engage in war rather than protect themselves or otherwise. The world has never been as peaceful as people would have wanted it to be and war has manifested itself as part of the human life.

Various religions have argued that at a certain point war is justified and have tried to give it a moral perspective while they also put it that war is not permitted in their teachings which are meant to spread the message of peace.

Morality of Warfare

War leads to destruction of property, eviction of people from their homes, rape, body injuries among other effects and above all it leads to loss of lives. In religion loss of life is extensively talked about and it is seen as a sin therefore, war should not be permitted on this grounds (Wainwright 2005).

However, it is important to note that there are situations where war becomes the only option of searching for peace or else more people will die. In this regard warfare has gained a moral perspective with people arguing that it will be utmost immorality if a government would let its citizens die from invasion by another country (Kelsay 2009).

A country is therefore justified to protect its boundaries and prevent any aggression by any enemy into its territory. However, the way that the war is conducted will determine whether the war can be justified morally or not.

Islam and Warfare

From the onset it is paramount to state that Islam as a religion condemns warfare at its utmost definition. In line with this Islam teaches peace and according to their Quran people should be welcoming to one another and help their neighbors when they need help. Islam requires that human beings should try and solve their differences through dialogue and ensure that peace prevails always as this will be the spreading of Allah’s love to mankind.

Additionally, it is the teachings of the Islam religion that people should trade fairly with those who seek to make peace and not war and coexist in harmony with them (Wainwright 2005). In this line, Islamic religion prohibits aggression or invasion of other people’s territories because of greed for power and other unholy reasons.

Nevertheless, Islam also allows people to protect their territory from any enemy who may either attack them or be planning to attack. Additionally, Muslims are required to protect their faith from any form of abuse by any person because that amounts to an abuse to Allah.

On top of that, the Islam religion teaches that human basic rights are sacred and should be protected therefore the Quran allows the Muslim to engage in warfare if their basic rights are being infringed (Kelsay 2009). It should be noted that the Quran only allows the Muslim to engage in war if their faith is threatened and there is need to protect it but abhors war if the Muslim will engage in war in order to spread the Islamic religion.

The oppressed in society need help and protection from despotism against them while people have a right to stay at their homes without eviction.

Any violation of this is against the Quran and in that case the Muslim is permitted to fight to protect people who are forceful evicted from their homes because they are Muslims and the oppressed in the society. According to Islam, jihad is not terrorism but a term referring to war pursued for self defense (Kelsay 2009).

Consequently, Islamic religion gives guidelines on how war should be carried out and how the fighters should conduct themselves during war.

To begin with, Islam allows war against those who fight you and not against those who seek peace (Kelsay 2009) therefore it highly prohibits Muslims from causing harm and killing civilians during war but rather dictates that non-combatants should be treated in a humane manner.

Additionally, the Muslim rules of war outline that in the course of any war, Muslims should be very careful not to destroy trees and crops and at the same time spare all the animals for they can not fight back.

In conjunction with that, Muslims are expected to conduct themselves with utmost discipline in event of war and fight with as minimum force as possible without any anger and treat their prisoners of war as humanly as possible (Wainwright 2005).

It should however be noted that, war, or jihad as Muslims call it, should be the last resort after all avenues of peace have halted at a dead end and the war should be within the laid down rules by the Quran (Kelsay 2009).

Muslims should not attack other nations since Allah abhors transgressors, but they should also be ready to defend themselves if provoked. The Quran not only allows idolaters to be pursued and killed but also gives room for forgiveness if they repent. Unless the war is fought in the ways of God, Islam does not support it and condemns brutality, cruelty, injustice and shedding of blood.

Christianity’s Perspective

Christianity requires its followers to follow the commandments that are set out in the bible in totality and any deviance from the same is taken as a sin. Among the commandments of Christianity is the commandment that one should not kill.

In this regard, Christians are prohibited from shedding blood of another person. But in the Old Testament the Bible says that, if one sheds blood of a fellow human being then his blood will also be shed by a human being. It therefore means that war was justified by the Old Testament and the early church.

However, Jesus spread the message of peace and therefore all Christians are expected to be promoters of peace and coexistence in the society. In this regard, a group of Christians, known as pacifists, who strictly follow the teachings of Christ as they are written in the New Testament, believe that war is totally wrong.

Pacifists argue that Jesus preached love and accepted suffering on the cross without returning evil for evil therefore Christians should not return evil for evil (Wainwright 2005).

However, in the New Testament the bible says that the function of any authority is to protect citizens. It goes ahead to say that nations have swords to protect the good and condemn evil. On top of that, American bishops in their letter dated may 3^rd 1983 agree that each nation has a right to defend itself but disapproves offensive war.

In conjunction with that, the modern churches believe that though war is not good, it is sometimes necessary to fight for peace to be found. St. Augustine of Hippo, borrowing from the just war theory, gave reasons why war could be justified in Christianity and within the rules of the bible.

St. Augustine’s position was also supported by Thomas Aquinas. According to the just war theory, war can be justifiable and be morally correct in the event that negotiations as well as any peaceful efforts of conflict resolution have proofed futile (Wainwright 2005). This is contrary to the stand of pacifists who believe that people should not fight even when they are provoked.

Contrary to pacifism, just war theory states that war is necessary but should be instituted by governments and not individuals. This is also the argument of the reformation and modern day churches. Therefore, war can be justified in the event that it is for self-defense and not for transgression or other political reasons which are not within the teachings of Christianity.

War initiated by individuals or a small group of people who are angry because of one reason or the other is against Christianity (Wainwright 2005). In addition to that, the intention of the war should not be for material gain for example power or natural resources but rather genuine and selfless motives.

On top of that, the means used for the war should be appropriate for the intention of the war and the war should bring peace in the end and not further problems. War for the sake of peace is also supported by Christian realists among them Niebuhr, who publicly supported First World War yet he was a pastor at Detroit.

In conjunction to that, Christians believe that for a war to be just then the civilians or non-combatants should not be harmed and there should be no massive destruction of property for no good reason (Wainwright 2005).

Comparison between the Two

Christianity and Islam preach peace and teach their followers to try as much as possible to avoid shedding of blood and any form injustice to the community. Both types of religion follow the jus ad bellum which provides the criteria to be followed before a country makes a decision of going into war.

Additionally, jus ad bellum outlines the conduct of solders during war, the need to protect civilians and the principle of proportionality, which means that a country should not use excessive force when at war.

However, the two types of religion do not share everything as regards to justification of war or rather about the morality perspective of war. As it has been depicted, Islam allows war for the protection of their faith and any threat to the Muslim faith is regarded as an abuse to Allah. On the contrary, Christianity does note advocate for war to protect their religion and neither does it allow its followers to seek for idolaters.

Conclusion

Every faith teaches peace and coexistence among people whether they profess the same faith or not. However, there comes a situation when all other avenues of peaceful conflict resolution fail and war remains as the only option.

Political realists argue that though war is ethically wrong, it is the only way to attain peace in such a situation therefore, war is sometimes necessary. Nevertheless, reasons that can lead to war are not similar and therefore various people can engage in war due to different reasons. All in all, war to some extent is morally right and justifiable.

References

Kelsay, K. (2009). Arguing the Just War in Islam. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wainwright, W. J. (2005). Religion & Morality. Farnham: Ashgate Publishers.

Sport has a very positive influence on our health. It is possible to say that going in for sports can help a person to improve his health and prolong his life. However, very often, professional sport is connected with different and very often dangerous injuries, which can make a person disabled. Especially it deals with contact sport where players are playing on one field, competing with each other.

Emotions which players feel and adrenaline, flowing in their veins condition a very high level of aggression, that is why sometimes players cannot control their actions, being totally devoured by game. Under such conditions, each clash is extremely dangerous. Football is one of those kinds of sports. The main disadvantage of playing football is a great risk of being injured (Goldsmith, 2013).

A person who is going to play football on a professional level should keep it in mind. Another important disadvantage of this game is that it demands a great time expenditure. Training and games will take a lot of time. However, football also has a lot of advantages. Football influences improving a persons physical fitness.

It goes without saying that constant training can develop the muscles of a person and guarantee his healthy way of living. Moreover, football develops team spirit and the ability to work in a team, which is important for a further career (Silverman, 2014). Another great advantage of this kind of sport is that it is very popular and its popularity can guarantee that a player will become famous and well paid, especially if he is playing at a high level.

Golf is an absolutely different kind of sport. It does not suppose any physical contact between players; that is why there is no risk of being seriously injured while playing golf. It is a great advantage of this kind of sport. Another obvious benefit is that it is available for all people, no matter what their physical conditions are. This kind of sport does not demand any special training, especially if a person does not play on a professional level.

Even more, it can be good for a persons heart, as long walks while playing golf influence positively mens heart (Golf – health benefits, 2014). However, golf has some obvious drawbacks.

The first is that it is a very expensive game which needs special equipment and a field. That is why not everyone can afford it. There are special golf clubs which can rent you a brassy. However, membership in these clubs is also very expensive, and not everyone can pay for it. In these terms, football is more available, as very often ball and players are the needed equipment to play it.

Sport is a great challenge for a person’s moral qualities. It develops such traits of mens character as an insistence, rigidity, will to win, and believe in his own forces. Very often it is possible to hear that to become a good person and develop some qualities a man should go in for sports. Usually, there is no difference whether a person plays on a professional level, or he is just an amateur. The sport will change him. However, there are always better results when a victory can bring something except moral satisfaction.

That is why professional sportsmen are more influenced by sport. It is possible to see how a weaker team beats a stronger one. From the point of view of physical culture, it cannot be explained. A stronger team consists of great professionals who are better than sportsmen from a weaker team in all components. They are faster, higher, stronger, and more enduring. However, they are not motivated. Motivation is one of the main factors which influence the results of every team.

That is why the desire to win is much more important than a win itself. There are some researches that give evidence for a statement that motivation influences the achievement of better results and correct behavior on the field (Ntoumanis & Standage, 2008) greatly. That is why it is possible to call motivation to win a more important issue as a win itself. Coaches of any team or a single sportsman have already understood its significance. That is why they pay great attention to this issue.

There is a psychologist among workers of a team that helps to influence sportsmen and help them to obtain motivation. A teams desire to win can show miraculous results. There were a lot of examples in the history of the sport when weak teams obtained victory only because of their high motivation. A stronger team does not need this victory.

Having won everything, it is very difficult to keep motivation at a high level. This is one of the man tasks of a wise coach. Moreover, even if a team loses, but shows its great desire and makes titanic efforts to win while playing, it is more important than to win this game. Having won, they will achieve their goal and will calm down. However, an overwhelming motivation showed while losing can fasten even a weak team and guarantee its future victories.

Reference List

Goldsmith, B. (2013). Advantages & disadvantages of football. Web.

Golf – health benefits. (2014). Web.

Ntoumanis, N. & Standage, M. (2008). Morality in Sport: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Web.

Silverman, S. (2014). What are the benefits of football?. Web.

At the beginning of the first chapter, Ooka’s main protagonist Private Tamura calls his forceful departure from his unit a “fatal sentence” (3). The author makes it clear to the reader that morality and perceptions of war are very different to those of civilian society: A man who had spent many days being a soldier does not think of his everyday life as a fatal sentence where he could die at any minute. Tamura’s fatal sentence is becoming sick, weak, and useless as a soldier in an area stricken with a severe shortage of food. Thus, the protagonist is facing the unknown in total solitude because the society around him is in survival mode, at the point of desperation, making each individual and group extremely pragmatic: All stop caring about the wellbeing of others, viewing the weak as a waste of resources.

Moreover, Tamura notices the inadequacy in the exchange that he and his country are making; he thinks, “Six small potatoes—to this extent and no further was my country prepared to guarantee my survival: this country of mine to which I was offering my life” (Ooka 7). This illustrates the way that pragmatic morality is not only a characteristic of desperate people exhausted by the war, but also by the entire country of Japan, shocked by the devastating impacts this global armed conflict had produced.

The longer Tamura spends alone, isolated from other people, in an alien country, unable to find help or any way to survive, the more he loses his connection with reality and the world around him. As a result, the habitual moral norms that are enforced and stimulated only within social groups gradually start to fade away as Tamura continues to exist torn away from society and its rules. Thus, the main protagonist soon begins to live according to the rules of his environment, where the only task he has is to survive at any cost. Remembering the hierarchy of needs introduced by Abraham Maslow, it is possible to notice that Tamura is driven to the very base of this hierarchy, where his most essential physiological needs are not satisfied (namely, that for food). One may point out that the common norms of morality exist in the layers of the hierarchy that are located above the basic ones required for survival; that is why, driven to care only about satisfying these needs, the soldier is forced to disregard everything else.

Works Cited

Ooka, Shohei. Fires on the Plain. North Clarendon, Vermont: Tuttle Publishing, 2001. Print.

Today, people are inclined to think that the modern society becomes more tolerant in relation to following definite social norms, rules, traditions, and rites of passage. I can refer to such important life periods and events as the graduation from high school and marriage as certain rites of passage, but they do not have the real ritual meaning for many people.

The graduation from university, career development, and marriage can be considered as important stages in my life, but I do not discuss them as the real rites of passage. For instance, getting married, people provide their vows, but this process often lacks its spiritual significance. Social norms and rules of morality should regulate marriages, and spouses should not betray their partners. In reality, these norms are regularly violated.

The advantages of the life patterns accepted in our society are in the possibilities for the personal and professional development. However, the disadvantages are in the people’s ignoring many social norms because of their limiting character. It is the first step to the social chaos and decline which can be observed today in the youth’s alcohol and drugs abuse in spite of all the limitations.

From this point, social norms, rules, and rites of passage are important to regulate the social life. Moreover, it is almost impossible to determine some strict rules regulating the life of the modern people in relation to morality without involving the legal issues and laws.

Nevertheless, there is the world where people follow the social norms and rules strictly. According to the Amish people’s visions, the world can be divided into the ‘English’ one and the ‘Amish’ one. Thus, the main difference is in the religion and social norms followed which determine the people’s way of living.

When Amish young people are at the age of sixteen they receive the opportunity to experience the life typical for the ‘English’ world. It is the period of their rite of passage known as Rumspringa. The main problem is in the fact the representatives of the ‘English’ world cannot understand the meaning of this period for the Amish youth because there are no fixed or followed rites of passage in this world. The advantage of the Amish life is in plainness, religious rituals, daily routine, rural activities, and humility.

They do not use electricity, television, telephones, and cars. Alcohol and drugs do not harm their health, and there are no other provocations and serious challenges in this world, except the period of Rumspringa. That is why, following their Rumspringa rituals and traditions, the Amish people face a lot of provocative situations which emphasize the differences between the two worlds and visions.

According to Devil’s Playground (2002), the ‘English’ world is based not on following social and moral norms, but on violating them (Devil’s Playground, 2002). The religious principles are broken, the behavior of young people and their way of life are closely associated with alcohol, drugs, sex, and parties.

I cannot agree with such a position because it is only a limited viewpoint used to oppose the ‘English’ and ‘Amish’ worlds. Although some social norms in the modern world are not as strictly as in the ‘Amish’ world, it is impossible to speak about the Western world as the ‘Devil’s Playground’.

The Amish culture reflects the principles of life typical for the 18^th-19^th centuries. They wear plain dresses, men work as farmers, and women bring up children. The Amish people try to depart from all the conveniences as well as any temptation. From this point, the culture of the Amish people is based on the religious principles which help define the ‘Amish’ world.

The ‘English’ world is based on following people’s temptation, and the culture of the ‘English’ world depends on the secular principles. That is why, according to the stories presented in the movie, the ‘English’ world can be defined with references to rock music, premarital sex, alcohol, and the importance of money (Devil’s Playground, 2002).

Nevertheless, the features used to describe the oppositions between two cultures cannot be used as important to define them. I am inclined to define the ‘English’ world as more secular, but not as more ‘Devil’s’ one. The Amish people cannot live without their rules and norms. And the modern Western society tries to develop rules which are more convenient for them and contributing to the progress, but not limiting.

The rules and principles adopted in the society help regulate its development. The progress in the Amish people’s society is almost impossible because of rejecting the typical elements of the evolution, but the growth of spirituality can be observed when the community is regulated by preachers. Thus, the process of Rumspringa is important for the Amish people because adolescents can consciously choose the life and rules they want to follow basing on their own experience.

They can choose the most appropriate life pattern at the age of sixteen, comparing the ‘English’ and ‘Amish’ worlds. The Amish tradition to be baptized after making the significant decision to plan the future life according to this or that pattern is also important. From this perspective, the process of Rumspringa is the major stage in the Amish people’s life which helps cope with the life-changing issue.

Reference

Devil’s Playground. (2002). Web.

Introduction: Animal Liberationists and Environmentalists

Animal liberationists are groups of people who oppose the use of animals in medical, biological or chemical research work. Animal liberationists fall under the animal liberation movement which is a global animal rights movement that operates under three major components; legal development, direct action and philosophical debate.

The animal rights movement seeks an end to the status of animals as property as well as end the legal distinction that exists between human and non human living beings. Animal liberationists believe that all non human animals deserve protection from harmful activities that are meant to benefit human beings (Cahn and Markie 825).

Animal liberationists share the believe that the basic interests of non-human animals should be observed and protected and that the legal world should confer these animals legal rights to protect them from any harm or injustice. Animal liberationists differ from utilitarian liberationists who believe that animals do not possess any moral rights.

Utilitarian liberationists argue that moral decisions are based on the happiness of the majority number since animals have the ability to withstand suffering and this suffering is usually taken into account in moral decisions. Animal liberationists believe that animals lack the ability to withstand any form of suffering and they therefore advocate that animals should be accorded similar rights to human beings (Cahn and Markie 589).

Environmentalists on the other hand believe in environmental conservation and the reduction of environmental pollution to improve the state of the environment. Environmentalism is deemed to have a social movement that advocates for the conservation of the environment through lobbying, activism and education. Environmentalists speak out about the various environmental issues around the world and what people can do to protect the natural resources and ecosystems in the environment.

Environmentalists also advocate for the introduction of public policies that will reduce the amount of green house emissions and pollution that takes place in the environment. Environmentalists and environmental organizations in general seek to make the world a greener and safer place to live (Gottlieb 389).

Theoretical Perspectives of Animal Liberationists and Environmentalists

According to various researchers such as J. Baird Callicott, animal liberationists and environmentalists share distinct and inconsistent theoretical perspectives. Callicott was of the opinion that animals did not deserve any form of rights and he termed animal liberationists to be incoherent when they spoke of animal’s natural behavior.

Callicott noted that it was impossible to liberate domesticated animals and that the animal liberationists were betraying the value commitments of the social human movement. With regards to environmentalists, Callicott noted that they were more holistic and real than the animal liberationists since they allocated moral values to the natural ecosystems and resources of the environment (Jamieson 197).

Callicott provides an example of some bacteria which might be of greater value to the natural environment and economy than domesticated animals such as dogs, cats or rabbits. This meant that such bacteria or natural resources deserved more value commitment and recognition than the domesticated or non human animals. This meant that Callicott supported the views and beliefs of environmentalists instead of those of animal liberationists.

The theoretical perspective of the land ethic proposes that inanimate entities such as mountains, forests, oceans and lakes are assigned a greater value than the animate objects which include wild and domesticated animals. Callicott further argues that animal liberationists fail to meet the criterion of measuring whether animal ethics meet the environmental land ethics. This is because animal liberationists have more in common with anthropocentric ethics than they do with environmental land ethics (Jamieson 198).

The idea that environmentalism and animal liberation have distinct concepts and qualities is a fact that has come as a surprise to many who view these two concepts to be similar in purpose and meaning. This is mostly because these two concepts share the same enemies such as air and water polluters who negatively affect the survival and existence of animals in their natural habitats or loggers and lumberjacks who destroy the natural ecosystems of birds and wild animals that reside in forests.

Also the historic background of the environmental movement shows that most environmentalists advocated for the end of animal suffering by showing concern to how animals are treated in their domesticated or wild environments (Carter 42).

The modern environmentalists and animal liberationists that are in existence today have their foundation from the post World War II era where social movements opposed the use of nuclear weapons to eliminate the war threats and a culture that viewed human beings and other animals to be commodities that could easily be replaced.

These social movements came to form the modern environmental and animal liberation movements that are in existence today. Environmentalists today are more than likely to be concerned with the rights and health of animals than they would be with the health of old forests and other natural resources (Carter 42).

While many people are members of both the environmental and animal liberation movements, there are several differences that exist between the two concepts. For example animal liberationists are viewed to have a lot more in common with conventional morality than with environmentalism and environmentalist ethical standards.

Jamieson (198) in his thesis focuses on the differences that exist amongst these two groups and also how they are able to share a consistent theoretical perspective. These differences emerged during the counter-culture period of the 1960s that promoted the use of drugs and the opposition of the government as a moral obligation.

The differences that emerged between the environmentalists and animal liberationists were the elimination of wild animals that were deemed to be dangerous to the environment so that fewer of these animals would suffer and die and the conversion of wilderness areas into places where animals could be domesticated and taken care.

Callicott in his 1980 article further noted that differences existed between animal liberationists and environmentalists and this article was used in influencing the environmental community during the 80s. Mark Sagoff, who agreed with Callicott’s views, noted that animal liberationists if given the power would incorporate anti-environmentalist policies that would eliminate the need of destroying animals that were harmful to environmental conservation efforts (Jamieson 200).

The distinction between the two concepts became more distinct in the early 1980s where environmentalists had to embrace newer values that involved the view of natural ecosystems and resources as having a more significant value than land or conventional moral ethics. Environmentalists differed from animal liberationists in that they viewed value commitment to be independent from conscious beings and other aspects of nature that were inherently valuable.

Once this distinction was made, most animal liberationists sought to separate themselves from environmentalists because they opposed the notion that human and non human animals deserved to be sacrificed to achieve a greater biotic good. It therefore became difficult to assert the rights of human beings in such lines of thinking which led to a greater division between the animal liberalists and the environmentalists (Jamieson 201).

Despite his rhetorical 1980 essay, Callicott sought to bridge the divide that existed between these two groups in his 1989 article where he stated that animal liberalists and environmentalists could be united under a common theoretical perspective. He noted that animal liberationists could protect vegetarian animals from their carnivorous predators and that environmentalists had the ability to protect carnivorous animals from environmental degradation and destruction of their natural habitats and ecosystems.

Jamieson (203) noted that plausible and conventional ethics should address the various concerns that existed about animals and the natural environment. He noted that the issues that affected animals also affected the environment and that these two concepts could not continue to operate separately without having a direct impact on the other.

Moral theory of Animal Liberationists and Environmentalists

Jamieson (203) notes that animal liberationists and environmentalists can be able to share the same theoretical perspectives and moralistic theories. This is because human beings in general have placed a lot of emphasis on the protection of the environment and the animal habitat.

Since animal liberalists value the natural animal habitat to have a significant value, they can also embrace the environmental values that environmentalists prescribe to. Animal liberation is viewed to be an environmental ethical issue which means that it can be used to create awareness and empower environmentalists and environmental movements. Jamieson (210) argues that there is a great deal of evidence that exists in the theoretical convergence between animal liberationists and environmentalists.

Both groups have political leverage and wealth to change the masses views on their causes and beliefs. Environmental and animal issues play an important role in the choices that people make everyday. What people wear or eat every day is usually determined by the current environmental and animal issues. If an individual refrains from eating meat, they are part of a social movement rather than a vegetarian Jamieson (211).

Jamieson (204) proposes that several theoretical perspectives can be used for these two concepts which are primary and derivative values as well as intrinsic and non intrinsic values. Primary and derivative values argue that animals are able to withstand suffering and their lives can move from better or worse based on their primary environments and natural habitats. Jamieson notes that non sentient entities do not have a perspective on whether their lives can go from better or worse.

The value of their lives will therefore depend on how the adapt to sentient beings. Intrinsic and non-intrinsic values state that an animal’s life can go from better to worse where such properties are intrinsic to the animal. According to Jamieson (205), whether a creature lives or dies will depend on how they relate with the environment. This means that animals and the natural environment can be valued to be intrinsic and non intrinsic at different times and within different context Jamieson (206).

Conclusion

This essay has focused on whether animal liberationists and environmentalists can be able to share a consistent theoretical perspective. The essay has revealed that these two groups have differences despite sharing the same goals and dealing with similar issues.

The essay has shown that animal liberation movements and environmental groups have a common purpose which is to ensure the safety of animals and the protection of the environment. Despite sharing several differences and distinctions, these two concepts share the same theoretical perspectives as they serve to protect animals and the natural environments in which these animals live in.

In general, animal liberalists protect animals by trying to conserve their natural ecosystems while environmentalists protect natural ecosystems and animal habitats by conserving the environment in which these animals live in. This means that these two concepts can be able to share a similar theoretical perspective.

Works Cited

Cahn, Steven and Peter Markie. Ethics: history, theory and contemporary issues, 4^th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.

Carter, Neil. The politics of the environment: ideas, activism, policy, 4^th Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.

Gottlieb, Robert. Forcing the spring: the transformation of the American environmental movement. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005. Print.

Jamieson, Dale. Morality’s progress: essays on humans, other animals and the rest of nature. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2006. Print.

Definitions

Morality has several definitions thus encompassing broader facets in the world’s phenomena. One of the definitions indicates that morality is a code of conduct embraced by a community, an organization, religion, or an individual. This is upon reference to an argument on the righteousness of the act (Gert, 2011).

It is a descriptive label where the involved entity has no divergence with its acts or behaviors. When “morality” is utilized to incorporate a demeanor embraced by any definite group, including a community, whether it is different from etiquette, decree, or religion, then its use is in a descriptive sense.

It also refers to central stance demonstrated by an individual. Since one can connect a given characteristic of morality to a definite faction of people, it might also submit to a particular person. The second definition is normative in nature and tends to illuminate morality as a conventional aspect but not a confined matter.

It is an assortment of behaviors, which are rationally superior and marvelous. Everybody agrees to such acts as virtuous thus worth ratification (Gert, 2011). Equally, morality is something that should necessitate a conventional agreement when encountered. Any act that goes against this definition deems immoral.

How authors differ on their definition

The disparities noticed amid several authors while considering their descriptions concerning morality emerge due to differing perspectives seized by the author in question. This is evident by the fact that some authors may peg their definition to a particular entity while some consider global rational aspects (Thomasma & Weisstub, 2004).

Concurrently, the differences emerge due to issues under discussion by the author. Several authors are motivated by different themes to discuss thus tend to incline their definitions to favor the matter in contention. It is possible to have a specific view on themes concerning specific entities.

This means that the author in such a context will never attempt to generalize his/her argument but will rather hit the community or individual in question directly. They will reckon if that particular act they are discerning is considerable to be moral and why.

Ultimately, their definition will be based on instances that abreast the act. Conversely, other authors tend to apply exclusive approaches in handling their areas of interest thus coming up with definitions supported by their ultimate findings (Thomasma & Weisstub, 2004).

Modern morality issues

There are numerous conventional morality issues but this paper only considers two, namely homosexuality and gender equality. These aspects are of greater concern when considered critically.

It is imperative to assert that these morality facets have had heated reactions globally; nevertheless, they still stand a judgment on whether their full ratification should be left in sole discretion of the parties involved or be a worldwide concern.

Homosexuality entails sexual acts on which the participants are of same gender. Its major examples are gays for men and lesbians for women (Ekwo, 2010). The societies and individual who embrace homosexuality have no negativities with the act even though other external parties educe numerous criticisms upon this very act.

The act of treating women fairly is no exception in this realm. Numerous communities depict women as equivalent beings who similarly deserve better treatments and opportunities just as their fellow men. The matter still meets current hiccups although considered as a morality aspect in diverse regions globally.

Viewing moralities according to one of the definitions

When considering the first definition, which depicts morality as an individual phenomenon, a given entity might accord an act as just, hence rendering it moral in its own context.

The issue of homosexuality has elicited numerous rebuffs globally but when the parties involved are interrogated for their take on the matter, they are contented and instead point fingers at their critics warning them never to infringe. They accept this act with all its aspects and view it virtuous (Ekwo, 2010).

Contextually, homosexuality is a morality, which is of no harm to some individuals. The societies involved do not discriminate themselves and conversely care very little on other people’s say.

Precisely, the definition considered view homosexuality as a morality accepted by a given society. It cares less on what the uninvolved parties believe. Furthermore, what is a virtue to someone might be vicious to another.

Concurrently, the concerned definition hardly globalizes the issue of equality. If only a given community or an entity can consider the issue as of moral value, thus it is solely their decision to embrace it. Gender equality is a global phenomenon; nonetheless, it hardly meets a global ratification (Connolly, 2005).

Conversely, some communities and individuals have never believed sharing anything evenly with women thus would never ratify any accord closer to that. Such individual will always consider gender equality as something immoral and injurious to the interests of the society.

Concurrently, these matters are regionalized with varied intensities from one country to the next. Conclusively, morality incorporates an essential feature where involved entities discern the kind of deeds, which morality forbids, obliges, dejects, or upholds.

References

Connolly, S. (2005). Gender Equality. Minnesota, MN: Black Rabbit Books.

Ekwo, E. (2010). Homosexuality: Explaining the Zeitgeist. Indiana, IN: AuthorHouse.

Gert, B. (2011). The Definition of Morality. Web.

Thomasma, D. & Weisstub, D. (2004). The variables of moral capacity. Dordrecht: Springer.

Harman argues for the three basic principles of morality, stating the contradictory nature of two of them:

1. Certain specific principles might be innate,
2. A less simple “principles and parameters” model might apply.
3. Innate biases might have have some influence over what morality a person acquires without determining the content of that morality.

It is often offered in a rather vague way that there is something about principles which necessitate the being of a God. Arranged as an argument, the proposal comes in numerous forms. An ordinary version of the dispute from morality clutches that moral laws are controls from a law giver which dominate all human laws or teachings, and such controls can only originate in somewhat like God. But it has to be revealed that moral laws are inspirational authorities rather than individual discussions. Furthermore they have to be the controls of such a being as we suppose God is. Another case is to say that God gives an essential power to moral laws. But such power does not have to originate from a theistic God, nor from any actual god. The influence could be just the approval of the mainstream of humanity that convinced rules must be experiential (for whatever reason).

The notion of the utilitarianism is that the first and most significant principle that is believed can be resulting from this ethical system is the key consequence of fairness and morality. Justice – defined as giving people what they deserve and not offering them what they do not deserve – is and must be a substratum attitude of universal utilitarianism. It is easy to note why: a society where impartiality is not guaranteed greatly enlarges both the actual and probable anguish of all its citizens, actual as of people who reasonably do not obtain the repayment their efforts merit, probable because all nations will have motivation to fear that the same will occur with them.

According to one of the most prominent Utilitarianist Jeremy Bentham, the origin of morality lays in the balance between pleasure and pain. It is stated in his work “The Principles of Morals and Legislation”:

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think…

Talking about possible agreement or disagreement between Harman and Utilitarianist, it is necessary to mention, that the agreement is incredible, as Harman represents ethical relativists. These two schools have the major distinction in their views, that ethical relativists view morality in God and Justice, while Utilitarianists consider morality the matter of inner struggle, that is claimed to define the measure of morality, by comparing the level of pain and pleasure delivered by oneself personally, and to other people.

The matter, that Harman raises in his works states that the truth of moral claims will be related to the sets of inspiring approaches that are supposed to be collective when we connect in moral conversation. In some cases, though, inspiring approaches are not shared, so that someone being evaluated may be beyond the motivational reach of something that we can say to them in resistance to their behavior. For instance, Hitler’s approaches may have been as dissimilar from ours as to put him further than the attain of any balanced dispute that could be ever presented to him. The discussion of Hartman’s opinion is that his view of presenting the moral as the something collective may be viewed as the crucial point of the whole theory of moral. One can not define the moral principles staying alone, as morality may be worked out in the surrounding of the other people, as only orienting the behavior of the other people, and comparing it with one’s own, people acquire the knowledge about moral matters. Also, discussing the necessity it is necessary to mention that it is rather controversial whether ethical attitude has these three parts or whether the comparatively ordinary language I have used is the best. One could oppose to calling the first sort of conjecture a “theory of moral duty” on the positions that the normal notion of “moral” is too slender or that there is no such thing as “moral duty” in any severe sense. It had been already stated that Harman objects to the initiative that there is only solitary sort of kindness of circumstances pertinent to morality. There are grounds to doubt the continuation of the sorts of vigorous nature traits that outline in typical descriptions of asset.

References

Ferngren, Gary B., Edward J. Larson, Darrel W. Amundsen, and Anne-Marie E. Nakhla, eds. The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland, 2000.

S.M. Cahn and P. Markie Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues Oxford University Press, 3rd edition, 2005

Interview with Freud

What is the nature and definition of morality in a human being?

I think that morality is a repressive force that prevents a human being from displaying his/her instincts (Dilman, 2005, p. 93). It limits people’s drive to satisfy their most basic desires, for instance, one can mention sexual drive. On the whole, morality takes its origins in the tension between a person’s desires or needs and the values of a society (Dilman, 2005, p. 93).

How does morality manifest itself and develop in the course of human life?

As I have said before, morality is a repressive force. For instance, it restricts aggressive force that is very strong at the time when a person is angry or frustrated (Neu, 1991, p. 219). Apart from that, it restricts the libido of a person. Overall, morality is supposed to make sure that a person corresponds to the norms set by other people. Moral development does not follow a particular pattern, and it is difficult to distinguish the different stages of this process. Nevertheless, I would like to note that the evolution of morality is based on the interaction between the id, ego, and finally super-ego. In most cases, morality arises out of the conflict between id or instinctive desires and ego that is responsible for controlling these desires. Finally, one should mention the super-ego which is supposed to ensure a person acts according to one’s conscience or principles, even when there is no threat of punishment (Neu, 1991, p. 219).

What is the role and meaning of values at different stages of life?

At the early stages of a person’s life, values are perceived mostly as rules that restrict the behavior. An individual accepts their necessity but only because the violation of these norms can result in punishment. Later, these values are internalized. They are regarded by a person as moral obligations.

Interview with Lawrence Kohlberg

What is the origin and definition of morality?

In my view, morality is a result of people’s tendency toward empathy and the ability to place oneself in the position of others (Harding, 1985, p. 135). I think that moral development results from a person’s interaction with others and observation of behavior. By observing various role models such as parents, a child learns to evaluate the morality of an action.

How does morality manifest itself and develop in the course of human life?

Morality functions differently in everyday life and its manifestations are dependent on the age of an individual. In particular, a child may follow the rules set by parents or teachers to avoid punishment or gain rewards. For instance, one can mention a form of misconduct as insulting another person. In turn, when this person grows older, he/she understands that morality is necessary for the co-existence of human beings. An individual adheres to rules, even if there is no risk of punishment. I think that there are three levels of moral development namely: 1) pre-conventional stage when rewards and punishment play the most important role; 2) conventional level when an individual learns and understands social norms by observing others; 3) post-conventional level at which an individual identifies ethical principles that are obligatory in every case (Evans, 2009, p. 102).

What is the role of meaning and values in different stages of life?

At the early stages of life, ethical values such as integrity are regarded mostly as an obligation that is imposed from outside. Only, later an individual can embrace these values and perceive them as moral imperatives that are an inherent part of being human.

Interview with Piaget

What is the nature of morality?

I believe that morality is a set of rules that a person constructs through interaction with others and the assessment of people’s behavior (Spodek & Saracho, 2006). Morality can also be considered a developmental process, during which an individual internalizes values such as integrity, respect for others, or tolerance.

How does morality develop in the course of human life?

On the whole, the moral development of a person can be separated into several parts. At first, I would like to mention heteronymous morality; this concept means that a child does not always understand moral principles and tries to follow them to avoid punishment (Spodek & Saracho, 2006, p. 56). Later, a child develops the so-called autonomous morality. This means that an individual can independently evaluate the behavior of others. Moreover, when taking a decision, a person tries to put oneself in the position of others (Spodek & Saracho, 2006, p. 56). This is how individual morality evolves.

What is the role of meaning and values in different stages of life?

A person’s attitude to values resembles the development of morality that can be divided into heteronymous and autonomous stages. During the heteronymous stage, values like honesty or diligence are not meaningful to a child, because he/she does not understand the role that these values play. Later, an individual understands the meaning of these concepts and he/she understand their importance.

Summary

Thus, this comparison shows that famous psychologists do not have a safe view of morality. For instance, Freud regards it mostly as the restriction or control of primitive instincts. In contrast, Kohlberg and Piaget believe that they are social constructs that help a person take decisions and interact with others. Yet, these psychologists agree that with time passing a person internalizes moral values and perceives them as internal imperatives.

Reference List

Dilman, I. (2005). The Self, The Soul And The Psychology Of Good And Evil. New York: Routledge.

Evans, N. (2009). Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Harding, C. (1985). Moral Dilemmas: Philosophical and Psychological Issues in the Development of Moral Reasoning. New York: Transaction Publishers.

Spodek, B., & Saracho. O. (2006). Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children: Second Edition. New York: Routledge.

Neu, J. (1991). The Cambridge Companion to Freud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In the United States, migration is one of the most provocative and serious issues for discussion from multiple perspectives. In “The Morality of Migration,” Benhabib (2019) underlines such aspects as national security, employment, economic health, and national identity to be challenged by promoting new migration policies in the country. President Obama’s statement directive serves as a background for this discussion because it is interesting to understand if all questions, needs, and rights were taken into consideration. The morality of migration is never simple because of the necessity to define human rights on the one hand and the authority of the government on the other hand.

In the chosen source, attention is paid to vital statistical data about the number of migrants in the United States and population changes across the globe. Benhabib (2019) proves the irony of globalization as a challenge to state sovereignty and the intention to live in a world without borders. It is correctly admitted that people cannot take responsibility for places and conditions of their birth, and their desire to live in a better world is their evident right. However, as soon as one person’s right is approved, another person’s right is damaged. The presence or absence of documents could determine people’s freedoms and opportunities. Obama, in his turn, is a responsible politician, according to Benhabib (2019). His administrative policies are based on human rights and most moral aspects to support migrants and change the idea of a better life. Students, migrants’ children, and individuals who want to survive with dignity need to face international laws and obligations. Migration problems can hardly be solved with positive outcomes only, and the offered reading help understand the ambiguity of the issue.

Reference

Benhabib, S. (2019). The morality of migration. In L. Vaughn (Ed.), Doing ethics: Moral reasoning, theory, and contemporary issues (5th ed., pp. 766-767). W. W. Norton & Company.

As individuals grow, they learn how to examine the difference between what is right and what is wrong. As a result, the issue of what is unacceptable or acceptable also comes in which is what morality entails. Morality entails the accepted codes of conduct, cultural values as well as social standards that define what is right culturally, and what is wrong.

In its descriptive form, morality involves what is considered right or wrong by people. In its normative form, what people think is right or wrong is not significant but rather, an action is outright right or wrong- moral or immoral, a line has been drawn. At some level, the definition of ethics could relate to that of morality. This can be achieved when the two meanings are integrated.

Kohlberg expanded on the work of Piaget who claimed that logic and morals develop through constructive stages by determining that the process of moral development was primarily concerned with moral justice which continued throughout the person’s lifetime. He formulated three developmental stages, that moral reasoning follows where each satisfactorily responds to moral dilemmas than its predecessor. These are the pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional, which can be branched to two other stages each.

Pre-conventional morality encompasses obedience and punishment orientation and individualism and exchange. It is common in children through some adults exhibit the same reasoning. If an act is punished more severely, then it is perceived to be that bad and vice versa. Individuals, therefore, seek to avoid punishment and adhere to the power imposed on them. The second part of preconvention-individualism and exchange involves individuals doing what is right with their personals best interests at heart. In this perspective, there is limited interest in the wishes of others as long as the person’s wants/endeavors are met. How useful people are is what is significant.

Conventional morality encompasses interpersonal conformity and law and order. It is a way of reasoning exemplified by adolescents and adults who seek to judge the morality of actions by the views and mores of society. Using interpersonal conformity the consequences of an action could be a pointer to the morality involved. Some of these consequences include gratitude, respect as well as having others like you. In addition, adherence to rules is dependent on the involved social roles.

Law and order stage involves individuals thinking in the realm of the role laws play in society and act according to these laws and rules to uphold them for the sake of a functioning society. Violation of law in this case is morally wrong and many people remain here where morality is defined by an outside force. The third stage, post-conventional encompasses prior rights and social contract, and universal ethical principles. Here people are more concerned with values that make a good society and are less interested in maintaining a society just for its being a society (Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988, 225). It is considered abstract moral reasoning where individuals view rules as useful but changeable such that they can disobey rules that do not go with their principles. This stage at times seems to merge with the pre-conventional because of its self-centeredness.

The prior rights and social contract regards laws as social contracts and not rigid decrees which can be bent when necessary to meet the greatest good for a big number of people. Universal ethical principles are defined as the tools which are used to ensure that the reasoning process is morally conducted based on abstract reasoning.

She defines stage one of a women’s orientation being inclined towards individual survival, the selfish stage. From level one to two she evolves from being selfish to being responsible.The validity of laws holds depending on how just they are. Carol Gilligan reconstructs these stages after finding that girls develop moral orientations differently from boys. She determined that the male approach to morality takes it that individuals have certain basic rights that have to be respected (Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988, 224). The female approach suggests that individuals have a responsibility in ensuring a justice orientation about the males. On the other hand, a responsibility orientation should be ensured for the females.

The second stage is a belief in conventional morality; self-sacrifice. Of great concern in stage two is self-sacrifice which is equated to goodness and a woman here adopts values and membership related to society. From levels 2 to 3, Gilligan describes the women’s transition to range from goodness to truth.

The third level is post-conventional which is better defined as principled morality. Women here learn that it is wrong to violate their interests as much as it is wrong to violate the interests of others. Each of these levels is more complex than the predecessor (Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988, 227). The evaluation done by Gillian acts as a testimony that from a moral perspective, individuals have a human heart while relating with others. The theory stipulates that girls develop their morality differently. However, the theory is criticized for being stereotypic by portraying women to be nurturing while men are portrayed as being logical.

However, the overall response to judging an action as being moral or immoral according to Gilligan is not well defined and often leaves one with the answer it depends on the situation.

Reference

Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34(3): pp.23237 Morality.