Iris Murdoch not only gives her views on how morality and religion go hand in hand but what makes something morally right or wrong. Jacobus explains Murdoch's text when he says, “She ends with an interesting discussion of the relationship of two contradictory forces in the universe: good and evil. As she states in a rather paradoxical fashion: ‘Discord is essential to goodness’ (para. 7).” As children we are all taught to make and have opinions on everything that happens in our life. The way we are raised shapes our opinions even if we want to believe it or not but just because a person has an opinion on something does not mean someone who has a different opinion is wrong. Society shapes us differently. Society plays a huge roll in this, society tells us how to act, dress, and even think. The people in society and our opinions tell us if something is good or bad. Good and bad are defined by people. When nobody knows and there is nobody there to judge, then good and bad do not inherently exist. The standards of good or bad are usually socially constructed. That is, people create them with reference to others and what they have said. Good and bad …show more content…
A big issue today is spanking a child as a form of punishment, society says this is very wrong and many bad things can lead from it. Many families are against it because it in increases the risk that kids will develop emotional and behavioral problems. Everyone believes that how you treat your child at a young age significantly affects their behavior. Parents do it this though because they see a quick change in the child’s behavior. Society sees spanking as a form of abuse and that it is bad. Instead of just spanking a child, parents should look at reasons that are more acceptable by society or giving positive rewards when the child does something
Iris Murdoch, who was born in Dublin, Ireland, was known as one of the most important novelist in English during the twentieth century. In her 26 novels, she explores interesting aspects of psychology and philosophy. In her piece Morality and Religion, she states, “the most evident bridge between morality and religion is the idea of virtue” (Murdoch 363). To some, virtue is still considered a positive idea to pursue, while to others virtue has faded, has lost its positive meaning, and it is now considered “priggishness” or “rigidity”. Murdoch is saying that “the idea” of virtue may be out dated, that it instead is now something that is self-indulging. “An idea (concept) of virtue which not be formally reflective or clarified bears some resemblance to religion, so that one might say either that it is a shadow of religion, or religion is a shadow of it” (Murdoch 363). Virtue and morality are not necessarily interchangeable, but religion and virtue both have duty in common.
Swat! The entire store tries not to stare at the overwhelmed mother spanking her three-year-old whaling son. As if the screaming tantrum wasn't enough of a side show at the supermarket. This method, or technique perhaps, has been around for decades, even centuries. Generations have sat on grandpa’s lap and listened to the stories of picking their own switch or getting the belt after pulling off a devilish trick. So why then has it become a major controversy in the past few decades? The newest claim is that spanking and other forms of physical punishment can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children. Brendan L. Smith uses many case studies and psychologists findings in his article “The Case Against Spanking” to suggest that parents refrain from physically punishing their children due to lasting harmful effects.
Spanking could also teach children that it's all right to hit, and that it's all right to be hit and that could have a negative long term effect on the children. I
Society believes that when something is good or evil it is immutable, which is highly incorrect. A few characteristics society portrays as a clue of good can actually be greatly deceiving. Such as, appearance, reputation, and human nature. Many sources can support this, including: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, “Serial Killers, Evil, and Us,” and the interview with Philip Zimbardo titled “Why Do Good People Do Bad Things?”
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
In every civilized society you will always find many varying forms of morality and values, especially in the United States of America. In Societies such as these you find a mosaic of differing religions, cultures, political alignments, and socio economic backgrounds which suggests that morality and values are no different. In Friedrich Nietzsche’s book, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses morality and the two categories that you will find at the very basis of all varieties of morality. One category of morality focuses on the “Higher Man” and his superiority to all those under him and his caste. The second system is derived from those of a lower caste that may be used by those in higher castes to further themselves and society. These categories as described by Nietzsche are known as Master Morality and Slave Morality. In this modern time in our culture, morality is becoming a more polarizing topic than ever before. Morality is often times held synonymous with religious practice and faith, although morality is an important part of religion and faith, everyone has some variation of morality no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Friedrich Nietzsche’s theories on morality, Master and Slave Morality, describe to categories of morality which can be found at the very basis of most variations of morality. Master and Slave morality differ completely from each other it is not uncommon to find blends of both categories from one person to another. I believe the Master Morality and Slave Morality theories explain not only religious affiliations but also political alignments and stances on certain social issues in American society. By studying the origins and meanings of Nietzsche’s theories, comparing these theories to c...
In western society, there has been debate in recent years over the use of corporal punishment for children in general, and increased attention has been given to the concept of "positive parenting" where good behavior is encouraged and rewarded
The morals of society concept is exemplified by the Judeo-Christian religions. These religions base their moral principles on their respective religious texts that they believe to contain God’s will.
The use of spanking is one of the most controversial parenting practices and also one of the oldest, spanning throughout many generations. Spanking is a discipline method in which a supervising adult deliberately inflicts pain upon a child in response to a child’s unacceptable behaviour. Although spanking exists in nearly every country and family, its expression is heterogeneous. First of all the act of administering a spanking varies between families and cultures. As Gershoff (2002) pointed out, some parents plan when a spanking would be the most effective discipline whereas some parents spank impulsively (Holden, 2002). Parents also differ in their moods when delivering this controversial punishment, some parents are livid and others try and be loving and reason with the child. Another source of variation is the fact that spanking is often paired with other parenting behaviours such as, scolding, yelling, or perhaps raging and subsequently reasoning. A third source of variation concerns parental characteristics. Darling and Steinberg (1993) distinguished between the content of parental acts and the style in which it was administered (Holden, 2002). With all this variation researchers cannot definitively isolate the singular effects of spanking.
Brigitte Vittrup and George W. Holden surveyed 108 children aged six to ten years old after they watched videos of children being disciplined by either spanking, reasoning, withdrawing privileges, or time-out. The results show most children rating reasoning as the fairest form of punishment, and spanking as the least fair. This research illustrates that when parents spank their children, they are doing so in a manner that the children think is unfair, and therefore unnecessarily antagonize the child as opposed to disciplining him or her in a way that is
Good and evil are more connected to each other than what people give them credit for. Good coexists with evil and there can be no good unless there is also an evil. Something that benefits a society would be considered good. On the other hand, if it does not benefit a society, it would be considered evil. The term good and evil can be associated with whatever a person sets their moral to be.
The perception of good and bad is varied, but to be good or bad is very different. Many are misled by the term and so I will now define it. What us people call being good is genuinely triggered by actions or kind gestures. Actions as such serving your country regards killing to survive. Then you have kind gestures such as giving money to the homeless or to a charity. This is a sympathetic gesture so we class it as good.
For starters, one must define the words good and bad. Dictionary.com’s definition of a good person is “a person who is good to other people.” Its definition for a bad person is “a person who does harm to others.” Both of these are vague so one must venture into the definitions of the words good and bad. The definition found at www.dictionary.com for the word good is, “Socially correct, proper, beneficial to others, valid or effectual under the law, characterized by honesty and fairness.” The definition of bad is, “Not achieving an adequate standard, evil, sinful, unfavorable, having undesirable or negative qualities.” It seems as if the public has determined the meaning of good and bad to be whatever they want it to mean. This paper is going to use good and bad in relation to people; where good is benefiting someone, and bad is hindering someone.
Has your child ever misbehaved in a store? Have they ever thrown a fit because they didn’t get what they wanted? Did they have a tantrum because they didn’t like the decision you made? Have you ever wanted to spank your child for misbehaving? Well, maybe you shouldn’t spank your child as a punishment. Studies show that when you spank your kid repeatedly, it can have negative effects on them. Facts also show that spanking your child isn’t only harming the child, but it could be harming the parent as well. Parents shouldn’t spank their kids or use corporal punishment as a punishment. The reason for this is because capital punishment affects children’s learning in a negative way, it affects areas of the child’s brain causing violence, and capital
There is a lot of violence in the world today, but think about this: what if these people were once beaten and physically abused as children? In the article, Parents and Experts Split on Spanking, an expert, Dr. Spock, states that the reason there is a lot of violence in the world could be because of all the spanking that the parents do to their children (1). This statement could possibly be true. As children grow up, they’re always told that it is not nice to hit others. Furthermore, they’re told that if they do, there will be consequences. But if you think about it, how are these children suppose to follow the “no hitting” rule if they are constantly being spanked for their misbehaviors? In the end, it leads me to believe that if children are spanked after misbehaving, they will continue to grow up believing that violence is ultimately the answer.