In the article “Morality and the Liberal Ideal,” Michael Sandel argues that liberalism is on an unstable foundation that seems fragile with a morally unclear basis and wants to offer some possible options in order to make the foundation stronger. Sandel brings about the claims of relativism, utilitarianism, Kantianism, which ultimately he argues are problematic as well. Furthermore, Sandel offers what he believes to be the best foundation; communitarianism and shows this to be an alternative to the problem at hand.
For thousands of people, what is holy and what is moral comes from religious texts that act as a guide for individuals for how they ought to live their lives. This idea of holiness and morality for many is deeply rooted in the understanding that it originates with God; it is a necessary condition for it to be binding. However, what if what is holy and moral didn’t originate from God’s goodness, rather it comes from other mediums and is itself good thus being approved by God? This idea of existence and thought is a question that can be outlined in Plato’s, The Euthyphro.
Morality has long been used by human being as a basis for their actions. Believers of God think that doing good deeds is being moral and thus these actions will save them from their sins. They believe that following God’s will, that is the 10 commandments and in the new commandments stated in the New Testament is the written and visible basis for these actions found in the Holy Bible. .
Famous French historian Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good. If America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” (qtd. in Carson 651.) In “Recovering America’s Exceptionalism,” Ben Carson explains how we are losing touch with the values that once made America a great country. These include decency, honesty, compassion, and fairness. He explains that in order to avoid devastation we must remember these values when making decisions about our future. I would agree that all hope is not lost, but we will have to embrace the values that America was originally founded upon to achieve greatness once again.
The responses that the audience apprehends, alters through the exploration of intertextual perspectives. These perspectives are shaped around the composer’s attitudes in respect to context. Likewise, the political treatise The Prince(1513) written by Nicolló Machiavelli, during the sixteenth century Italian renaissance and the tragic play Julius Caesar(1599) composed during the late 16th century Elizabethan era by William Shakespeare, highlight similar contextual values of Statecraft and the Corruption linked through the role of morality to appreciate the acquisition and abuse of authority. However, both texts evoke juxtaposing responses for the audience due to their difference in context.
Can a man maintain his moral codes whilst living in an immoral world? John Proctor from the play ‘The Crucible’ was able to maintain his moral codes by attempting to save his wife from being hanged and he died a respected and remembered hero of Salem. Born in 1912 Raoul Wallenberg was a Swedish man trying to live up to his parents name, became the most influential person in saving Jews from Hitler in WW2. He maintained his moral codes while living through a war and was respected by the Jewish community. Both of these people were very influential to the people that they lived among, inspiring people to reach their full potential and influence the world themselves.
The Sermon on the Mount was preached by Jesus Christ nearly 2,000 years ago. It was recorded in the book of Matthew chapter 5 through 7 and became the core elements of Christianity. These teachings can be found in chapter 12 of the book of Romans written by the Apostle Paul and in other religion’s basis in the world. The most significant principles are “love your neighbor as yourself,” “do not repay evil for evil,” “and live in harmony with one another.”
Morality is a very subjective topic, one person’s morals may differ greatly from another. Philosophers such as Darwin and Marx took it upon themselves to make a hypothesis as to what primarily influences a person’s morality. Darwin states that the greatest influence on human morality is survival; whereas, Marx believes that the ruling class is what manipulates our morality; however, Darwin's philosophy is more accurate due the increased amount of evidence he has compared to Marx.
Patrick Darnell began his speech by hitting the audience with this quote by Gandhi: “I like Jesus, but sometimes I do not like his followers because they can be so much unlike Him.” At TedX Augusta, Darnell presented the idea that Christians have moved far beyond their original purpose. Christ set aside a perfect path for His followers to walk down, but we stray from the path. Worldliness all around can poison the mind if we let it enter our thoughts. The church is meant to be followers modeling Christ; the reputation it has now gained is more like the Pharisees.
During his illustration of his principle, his definition of morality seems to be unstable and ambiguity increases with phrases like “moral difference”, “moral significance”, “moral autonomy”. It is likely that when it comes to significant difference between his principle and traditional values, he tends to use morality to confuse readers and make his statements more mysterious, more highly standardized and in a way, more likely to be trustable because we tend to believe in what we do not fully understand even confusingly.
In CS Lewis book, ‘The Abolition of Man’ is focused on the concept of Natural Law, a moral standard known to all human communities. Whereas the other book, ‘Mere Christianity – I, is focused on the universal human conception about right and wrong. In the first section of Mere Christianity, Lewis illustrates “Law of Nature” by which he defines one’s moral sense of what is right and what is wrong. He states that this law is same as the physical law, like gravitation except for the significant difference of human have the power of breaking this law of nature (C.S. Lewis, 1952, p. 5). Lewis mentions that in every culture, human say about doing one thing, but actually do something else. However, the author states an important point of human having
Farenheit 451, written in 1953 by Ray Bradbury has a very timeless theme. The novel is about a "fireman", Guy Montag, and his internal struggle between morality and law. It is set in a dystopian future in which books are banned. In this universe, fires no longer need put out- instead, the so-called 'firemen ' are hired by the state to start fires in any homes with books inside. The only thing the firemen extinguish is
If the opportunity arose, where no consequences were given for someone’s actions, do you think that individual will still commit an unfavorable action such as killing for his own personal need? In “The Ring of Gyges” the disposition of justice is called into question. As humans continue to live we must contemplate the true driving force for our morality. A discussion between Socrates and Glaucon is one main focal point into explaining the differences in how humans truly established their morality. Glaucon believes humans are restrained by consequences and human’s happiness comes from being an unjust person rather than Socrates’ belief of being just truly leads to happiness. The passage written by Plato goes in to great detail of how Socrates defends his position and how Glaucon defends his position as well but then leaves the reader to formulate his own opinion. With both Socrates’ position and as well as Glaucons, it is clear to see that Glaucon has the more rational reasoning within the debate of who’s happier, the just or unjust person.
In our lives we have the choice to tell the truth or tell a lie. Sometimes the truth can hurt people and sometimes a lie can make people feel better. I saw an example of a lie that made someone feel better. I read a news article a few days ago about a toddler was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. The father of the little girl vowed to give her the wedding of her dreams one day. He made this promise prior to receiving the news about his child’s condition. She was his only daughter and he made a vow to give is first daughter the wedding of her dreams. After numerous doctors’ visits the parents received the news that their baby girl only had a few days to live. In haste, the father threw is daughter a wedding of her dreams. Her older brother walked her down the aisle to her father. The entire family was there and all of them were crying uncontrollably, so much so that they couldn’t finish the ceremony. The lie here was giving the daughter a dream wedding and not treating her like a terminally ill patient.
As the semester and course have progressed, I’ve grown tremendously in my views of leadership, education, and the importance of diversity in a community. That being said, my philosophy of leadership has also been altered to reflect the knowledge I’ve obtained. I defined leadership at the beginning of the semester as setting a positive example through my actions for those who I’m leading. I emphasized that leadership is an active, rather than passive role, and should involve daily engagements with residents and openness to constructive criticism. Although my current definition isn’t drastically different from my last, I failed to recognize the one thing central to Christian Leadership: Jesus.