According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. So, violence destroys community and brotherhood by planting hatred rather than love. The third way based on King is nonviolent resistance. He believes in this way no individual or group need give in to any wrong, nor need anyone resort to violence in order to right a wrong. According to king, this is the method that oppressed people must follow to win against the unjust system while loving the perpetrators of the system.
Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in. These ideas seem to make sense because we as a culture understand that the judgments people make in a different culture will differ from ours whether we choose to support it or not. Our culture has different moral judgments as well and does not look at something like killing someone for stealing as morally right since our culture values human life above theft. Cultural relativism does not exist because some principles are universal and not relative only to culture. People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view.
He eventually finds his own morals and tells himself what is right and what is wrong. Part of this realization came from him helping Jim, which troubled his mind because of what society said about helping him. But he then based his decision to help on his own experiences and logic. That is kind of what Fahrenheit 451 puts forth. But instead of trying to gain knowledge it is being destroyed, all because society is trying to promote ignorance which causes sameness in all.
Are they merely expressing opinions or stating matters of fact? Can we really tell right from wrong? Many people would answer this by stating that what is believed to be right or wrong is essential for any discussion about our behavior. If this is the case then we could never have a meaningful discussion about morality. Ethical statements are not just about observable facts, but are often statements about what we believe should happen and so are not very easy to establish as true or false, as they are expressions of points of view not shared be everyone.
It does not settle the west. It does not educate.” Thoreau also uses powerful imagery in order to persuade his readers towards his ideals. He believed that one must be conscious of the laws they choose to obey and disobey, whether or not they are in the minority. The people should not be tricked into believing that neither the government nor the majority will know what is right and what is wrong. Instead, Thoreau remarks that it is up to every man to decide for himself what is right based on his moral standards and ethics.
Slavery allows one man to imprison another man that is his equal, to a life he doesn’t choose. To eliminate another simply because they don’t image you or enslave a man should never be just in anyone’s eyes. I strongly stand against this type of act. If anyone disagrees than I should feel free to murder them, right? Wrong!
For the sake of time and space, the definition of two interpreting educators is referenced. “… ethics (we will define as) behavioral standards – a set of principles that defines what is judged appropriate or inappropriate, right or wrong” (Alcorn & Humphrey, 2007, p.301). Because this particular situation is not specifically mentioned in the interpreting Code of Ethics, it is necessary for the interpreter to use their own personal morals and ethical judgment in order to decide which course of action or inaction to take. In order to make this decision, critical thinking is needed. A variety of viewpoints need to be considered, and there are steps to consider.
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.
It is disgusting reading that kids do not have any moral conscious. If you are encouraging deviant behavior, that spawned off of moral values that you know of. Society will never accept the behavior or immoral behavior. The deviant behavior will be looked down on, due to the fact that your actions should be for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. When you are just acting on personal wants, and gains, the result is selfishness.
The robber, in this case, made the decision to commit this crime, and upon getting caught, or being seen, must suffer the consequences of being deemed evil, because someone who is out for the greater good of people and society as a whole, wouldn’t be stealing anything from anyone for personal gains. The last example I will give in regards to evil being present in so many different ways is the touchy subject of child molestation. Everything about child molestation is evil and inhumane, so my view on the matter can be seen right there. The people who commit these crimes may not have been evil in their life leading up to the crime, however, once a thought like that comes to mind, only bad things can happen from there on out, affirming that evil is a part of us, and it is our choice whether to carry out things that most people wouldn’t dare of doing, such as molesting a young