For many centuries, man’s ability to rationalize and make good decisions has always been in debate. Through this rationalization, morals, or the rules that govern one’s ability to determine what is right and what is wrong, begin to develop. For some, these morals are drawn out and predetermined by a divine being, but others derive their morals from other means. Charles Darwin and Ralph Waldo Emerson fail to obtain their sense of morality from religion, so they formulate their own new ideas from which they acquire their morals, although these ideas are very different. While Emerson believes in human intuition and that morality is derived by self-reliance, Darwin doubts intuition and looks to his theory of evolution to explain morality. But while their sources of morality may differ, the formation of Darwin’s and Emerson’s morals through their own ideas reveals that morality doesn’t always have to come from a divine being; it can come from one’s own thoughts and ideas.
To begin with, both Darwin and Emerson grew up in religious homes, specifically Christian homes. At first, Darwin goes along with the ideas and moral codes of Christianity, but after he researches Christianity and acquires a deeper understanding of its rules and meanings, Darwin discovers that he doesn’t agree with the type of God that Christianity portrays, nor does he agree that humans naturally possess morals, as Christianity insists (CITE). Similarly, Emerson obeys the rules of Christianity, since his family is religious. He even becomes a priest because many of his ancestors, including his father, had been priests (CITE). As time progresses, Emerson comes to have some major problems with Christianity. He thinks that Christians are too focused on mirac...
... middle of paper ...
...hat is right for one person may not be right for another. Through this discovery, they began to explore their own ideas of life, which guided them to two completely different places, the places from where they attain their morals. And because these places are different, it can be inferred that all humans will differ in their morality. For some, these morals can be predetermined by a divine being, and for others, these morals can be the product of their own thoughts and ideas. And since every human is unique, their morals most likely will contrast in some way with the person beside them.
Works Cited
http://www.iep.utm.edu/am-trans/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emerson/
http://www.victoriannetwork.org/index.php/vn/article/viewFile/11/12
http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/Emerson.html
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/ideas/studentdef.html
A disturbing thought about man’s ethical barometer is that most of the theories, categories and principles emanate from the point of man’s reason. There is a cause to shudder at the thought of man as the absolute authority of what is right and wrong; what is ethical and what is not. Born into a sinful nature, man will ultimately make decisions that will lead to a moral philosophy that is shaky at best. Even philosophers with the best of intentions fall short to God’s model for the order, organization, and meting out of ethical actions. Because of man’s finite vision of what should be done to improve the present situation, mankind will always be found lacking in making the best ethical decisions; not being able to see the long term outcome and the impact those decisions and actions would have on others in the world.
Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the
While maintaining a open look of this moral law, Lewis presents two objections one would present to the moral law: “The moral law is just herd instinct” and “Morality is just social convention. The moral law is not a herd instinct due to man’s choice to suppress stronger instincts in fa...
On The Genealogy of Morals, Essay I refers to the second stage of human morality—the emergence of the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" as categories o...
Humanity is taught to be moral, to do good and avoid evil. However those lessons become foolish when we ask what is morality, the thing that we are told to achieve. For many morality is doing what is good and doing good is moral. This roundabout answer may be satisfactory to some that only look at the surface of the issue, however once the digging begins the grad question of morality comes into question. While this question has been looked an infinite number of times without being universally solved certain patterns have been made in the conclusions great thinkers and scholars come to regarding morality. One of these particular ideas involves a rationalist perspective that rationality defines morality or that moral failings imply rational failings. This concept is supported by Shafer-Landau and Korsgaard while thinkers like Williams and Foot disagree with such a claim. It should be understood that morality and rationality are intertwined were a moral failing correlates with a rational failing.
Taking this to be true, Kaufman argues that there is every reason to believe that on the whole our moral judgments will tend to be true. Furthermore, when we take the moral realist’s argument that morality has a deep connection with human flourishing, there are evolutionary reasons, Kaufman believes, for believing that there is a connection between moral judgments and actions that for the most part promote our well being.
“Every natural process is a version of a moral sentence. The moral law lies at the centre of nature and radiates to the
Inwardly examining his own nature, man would prefer to see himself as a virtuously courageous being designed in the image of a divine supernatural force. Not to say that the true nature of man is a complete beast, he does posses, like many other creatures admirable traits. As author Matt Ridley examines the nature of man in his work The Origins of Virtue, both the selfish and altruistic sides of man are explored. Upon making an honest and accurate assessment of his character, it seems evident that man is not such a creature divinely set apart from the trappings of selfishness and immorality. Rather than put man at either extreme it seems more accurate to describe man as a creature whose tendency is to look out for himself first, as a means of survival.
After more than two thousands years, the same discussion topic is among the philosophers world. Until today, no one can be sure and give an exact answer on the question concerning the foundation of morality. With John Stuart Mill, there will have a whole new view of the concept of morality and its implications and applications.
Throughout the past centuries, the concept of instinctive morality has been debated back and forth. One philosophy with a strong viewpoint on this subject is Puritanism, because they believe that since the beginning of the world, people have been born sinners. Puritans felt that Adam and Eve’s temptation by Satan had cursed all of humanity to be born evil. A few decades later, Deists shifted their ideas away from religion and believed that every person could choose whether they were good or bad. Then, Transcendental ideas began the thought that humans were born innately good, and that God and Satan had nothing to do with people’s morality. Throughout the major literary philosophies in the United States, one can see how the innate character of a human progresses from being evil to being innately good.
James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.
Many of us have wondered about the role of a Deity, in defining our moral code, and this has been a subject of discourse among scholars and philosophers since centuries. Many define morality as the innate ability of the human conscience to draw input for decisions which they believe is present there by itself. While some say that the (belief on the) presence of God gives them strength and inspiration to overcome their inability to follow moral standards (which are already defined) especially when they conflict with their self-interests. Although, some people argue that social stimulus imposes limits to one’s actions even if God does not exist. However, a person is at absolute liberty to perform, whatsoever one wants to in the non-existence of God because one does not regard anything as right or wrong in absence of objective moral principles and does not fear any Divine judgement.
We need a critique of moral values, the value of these values should itself, for once, be examined?. [What if] morality itself were to blame if man, as a species, never reached his highest potential power and splendour? [GM P 6]
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.