Personal view of morality

I have decided to select ethics as my topic of discussion tonight. By its definition, we find that it is related to the way in which one can act on his duty without taking into account the temporal consequences. I have been living this style for many years and have no intention of changing it in the future. I act in what I see as the most moral and responsible way and accept the consequences of my actions if they are positive or negative in nature.

I have always been one to act and more than to see what my results are, instead of whining at the feet of the managers to do some task that I think I can decide better. Okay, everyone has superiors, but the main point would be the superiors in the field getting their hands and feet wet, or behind a desk in a nice, warm office that has their usual lunch and they go home on time. habitual. I fully intend to support my selection in the paragraphs that follow, and I hope you will, as the reader will agree with my assessment.

I would like to present a little experience in ethics and your ethical concerns. Those followers of this philosophical theory follow that options are morally endowed or prohibited. Indeed, it is a guide that assesses our selections of actions that we achieve. This is in direct contrast to those theories that dictate what kind of person we should be. In short, it is a means of emphasizing the old adage that actions speak louder than words.

These products, as defined, can differ greatly depending on who is interfering with them. As an example, a utilitarian can identify his good with desire, happiness, or pleasure, while pluralists may believe that the good is distributed among all people. Some would argue that failure to perform certain acts would institute the desired good. As you can see, consequentialism can easily be criticized on a number of issues. Those critical complaints are, first, that it is not demanding enough and, second, what it will allow as actions.

During our reviews and moral studies we have encountered Immanuel Kant and his categorical imperative that attempted to override all other ethical judgments. Its imperative is categorical rather than hypothetical, since to achieve true morality one should not depend on individual likes or dislikes. Several of the most important of these imperatives are:

Act so that your actions become a universal law
Act so that the humanity you show is an end and not just a means

Kant first intended to mean that the need for moral principles must be universal in nature, while the second indicates that a distinction must be made between persons and things with an emphasis on respect for persons. This is an excellent example of a duty-based ethical theory. Deontological theories judge morality by initially examining the nature of actions rather than the goals that are achieved. One of the main reasons for moving from consequences to homework theory is that humanity simply cannot control the future. We are often praised or condemned for actions that are under our control. Kant’s line of thought was that he did not care about the result of one’s actions, but simply the moral evaluation related to such actions.

Taking into account the idea that actions speak louder than words, I would like to refer to an incident that happened to me abroad. I am a CPR and certified first aid lifeguard and one day a lady in my apartment complex was found screaming in the hallway. It seemed that her very young child had stopped breathing. I immediately grabbed the boy and started CPR while a friend got a vehicle to start rushing the baby to the hospital. Fortunately, for the child and me, my skills were up to par and I was able to make the child breathe once more. If it had only been a class to sign a requirement and nothing else, the child may not be alive today. This is a prime sample of actions that speak louder than words.

Regarding the concept of relativism, I would like to present a brief note related to Sumner, Benedict and Rachels. To intelligently discuss relativism, we need to understand exactly what it is. At the most general level, we discover that it is a doctrine that claims that something is true or false only in relation to some special perspective or perspective.

Cultural relativism has its main component based on the idea that no culture can be better than another. To appreciate this we must affirm that each culture is different and totally different since each one will try to solve their own problems in the best possible way. Relativism asserts that morality is completely different for various people. They argue that it is the cultural aspects of people that shape their morality, despite the fact that in this line of thought we would not find moral principles or norms that could exist between cultures. However, ethical relativism reveals that there are no valid universal principles in existence, yet they confirm that all moral principles represent a valid choice for cultures or individual choices.

Herodotus gave an idea of ​​relativistic dominance when he trusted that “custom is king.” This is the initial argument taken at the beginning of a discussion on the defense of the customs of various cultures.

William Graham Sumner deserves ethical relativism and refers to it as the “popular customs” of a society. He argues that these customs are the customs, customs, and traditions of the society under discussion and that each member of that group has ingrained basic principles of what is right and what is wrong. Now let’s take Ruth Benedict, who argues for the consistency of moral standards toward cultural anthropology. Benedict believes that the standards that are normal within a culture represent a function of that society. She argues that these standards will vary from culture to culture.

James Rachels in his book entitled The Elements of Moral Philosophy supports the idea that different societies possess different moral codes and that those moral codes of society determine what is right and what is wrong only within that specific social group. One social code cannot be considered better than another. It would be downright rude for us to try to judge another culture rather than develop an attitude of tolerance.

Given that we have now reviewed ethical relativism, one must wonder what Herodotus meant when he proclaimed that “custom is king.” To appreciate the thought of this great philosopher we must first understand that he was a man who constantly traveled everywhere. His goal during these ventures was to observe all the actions that these foreign people considered normal. He realized that people always did things their way, regardless of whether such actions were considered good or bad.

One of his observations was on those nations where a dictator ruled the nation. Naturally, those in the dictatorial position enjoyed the privileges that came with the position and liked the status quo exactly as it was. On the other hand, victims tend to consent to obedience rather than fight, which justifies their lack of desire for change, referring to the way things have always been.

By considering the impact the Roman Empire had on its many conquered territories, we can understand the myriad of differences experienced. Herodotus had observed how the natives of these conquered territories did not care who their rulers were or what the standard religions were or even how different governments were. Each of the conquered societies retained its individual culture and still managed to distinguish itself without the need to become fully absorbed into Roman society. They chose to keep their culture and ideals alive and not let them die. These finally became known as honor traditions of the time, cultures, etc.

Leave a Comment