I found this week's readings interesting and very thought provoking, although I was particularly disturbed by "Original Child Bomb" by Thomas Merton. I believe this was probably Merton's intended response to this poem. If nothing else, it certainly gets the reader thinking and hopefully questioning our actions as a nation.
I think Haidt's definition of moral systems is an interesting one and one which I believe would help reconcile conflicts between religious morality and secular morality, at least on the surface. If, as a human group, people viewed morality in this way (values, practices, institutions, psychological mechanisms used to make social life possible), I believe we might recognize the commonalities religious and secular definitions of morality have. I truly believe that if we keep the "Golden Rule" to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself at the forefront, our differences in what we view as moral or immoral behavior start to diminish to some extent. The problem though is that most of us can't get past these differences and often forget the Golden Rule and replace it with the "If you don't do things my way, you're wrong" rule.
Ninian Smart's chapter on 20th century worldviews had some pertinent points which seemed to reflect Haidt's definition of morality and support my interpretation of that definition. Smart states that different worldviews should be able to learn from one another and as "global citizens we ought to make the effort to apply informed empathy towards understanding one another's value systems." (Smart, pg. 155) By understanding differing worldviews, we are not only able to communicate with one another but recognize that each of us has a unique contribution to make to...
... middle of paper ...
...iefs) may have positive aspects to them as well.
In conclusion, whether we are speaking about technological advances and their affects on morality or about religious versus secular definitions of morality, I think the key to reconciling conflicts of these opposing views is to remain open to ideas different then the ones you hold as an individual. This being said, I don't think this means we accept ideas of morality without critical thinking. Blanket statements are not positives whether they are used to reject or defend a particular set of beliefs or ideas. We must think critically of our own as well as other's ideas of morality. When we are able to accomplish this, then I think we will recognize the commonalities between secular and religious views of morality and be able to hopefully, move past our differences and strive for a more peaceful world at large.
In the novel, A Separate Peace by John Knowles, the protagonist, Gene Forrester “battled” within himself to find “a separate peace” and in this process directed his emotions at Phineas, his roommate. Forrester and Phineas formed the illusion of a great companionship, but there was a “silent rivalry” between them in Forrester’s mind. Self deceptions in Forrester led him to believe that Phineas was “out to get him” (Forrester). Subconsciously Forrester jounced the limb of the tree and forced Phineas to fall and break his leg. Phineas found out the truth of his “accident” with the help of Leper Lepellier and Brinker Hadley, who were friends that attended Devon High School. Gene Forrester’s conflict between his resentment of and loyalty toward Phineas’ personality and athletic abilities was resolved by the death of Phineas.
I realize you cannot legislate morality. I agree with that 100 percent. Yes, saying things like "Thou shall be moral" is foolish, but other things can be done. We have to get back to our roots and become more civil and moral. Throughout recent history our society has continually loosened its moral bonds until we have arrived at the 'everything goes' attitudes of today. This loosening simply has to be reversed. Let me say that this will be a difficult task, but our society MUST put common sense and civility forefront of today's efforts nationwide. It will be harder to fight then any war. We must have an awakening or things will continue to go downhill. Would you agree on that?
Morality and ethics have always been a large source of debate and contention between different factions of various interests, beliefs, and ideals due to its centrality and foundational role in society and civilization and incredible importance to everyday life and decision making. In many of these disputes religious belief, or a lack thereof, serves as an important driving force behind one or both sides of the argument. In the modern world, one of the bigger instances of this can be seen in the many debates between Atheistic and religious individuals about the implications of religious belief on morality. One of the most famous Atheists, Christopher Hitchens, asserts that religion is not only unnecessary for morality, but actually impedes it. In his work God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens challenges religious believers to “name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer”, and proudly states afterwards that many have made the attempt but no one has given him a satisfactory answer. However, the best response to this challenge is to point out the inherent flaws in his logic, the unfairness of his challenge, and the fact that Hitchens is asking the wrong question in the first place.
Morals are usually the standards by one which lives in, whether them being good or bad. However, how about when religion influences ones morals? Religion isn’t or it doesn’t work for everyone, and that’s okay. But, there are many people out there that religion influences their morals; and the most common reason for that is that religion was influenced into them and into their morals as a child. Iri...
I find that is it a necessary arbiter over morality in that in order to determine what is best for ourselves and others, we must take evidence and critical thinking into better context. For example, followers of a religion will base their ideas from the teachings of the supernatural being and would justify why that being is their truth. On the other hand, a non-believer, such as an atheist would base ideas off of what they feel is best or right for society that all comes from their experiences. On topics that people divide themselves over like homosexuality, gun control and abortion here in the U.S., the conservatives are those who hold onto religious beliefs more than liberals. Conservatives believe that homosexuality is a sin and that is should not be legal because of the dangers homosexuals provide to children, they believe that abortion is against the rights to life for the product of conception, and also believe that there should not be strict gun control laws in order to protect more people. All of the ideas are from the main religion in the U.S., Christianity. Conservatives use that religion to justify all of their reasons for being against these things because they believe that by allowing them to be tolerated within our culture causes them to lose respect they have from God, thus making it harder for them to get into paradise after death. Those who lie on the liberal side of the spectrum decide that these issues should be permitted because of the benefits they have on the American society by allowing for better expression of one's self, the right for a woman to her own body and to protect the lives of civilians while keeping weapons out of the hands of those with evil intent. Being able to provide better forms or reason based on what one thinks is going to be best for not themselves, but for society as a whole is the better way to face morality. Having the
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
It has been stated that a person’s sense of morality deals with how he should act as a person, as opposed to acting on the basis of his race, ethnicity or religion. This statement therefore implies that all people should have the same set of morals. People should be concerned with how they should act as people in general and not let other aspects of who they are influence their sense of morality. But in the end this belief has been proven to be false. Different people across the world have contrasting moral reactions, natural responses and thoughts to moral dilemmas. (Fleischacker, 1994, p.8)
For my book project I read the book Way of the Peaceful Warrior, by Dan Millman. Set in Berkeley California, Dan Millman a college student struggles to find the part of himself that has always been missing. One night while out walking from his dorm, Dan comes across a gas station and a strange man that is soon to turn his life upside down. This man, known as Socrates, shows Dan a side of existence that only few people had ever seen. To become a warrior like Socrates and have the mind to not allow the regular struggles of life to control a single part of you. Socrates takes Dan in and tries to create a warrior from a young star athlete with the ignorance of every other human on this earth. Through his teachings Dan comes across an elusive women named Joy. This spiritual journey shows Dan a side of life never seen by his own eyes before, and guides him to his final conflict that hopefully will help him reach his destination he has always yearned for. The missing piece of the puzzle that is Dan Millman. This book shows life in a way that I had never thought of before. It shows the many steps it takes to become, "a warrior." In most cases it is Socrates showing the ignorant Dan the differences between their
Collective security is one type of coalition building strategy whether global or regional in which a group of nations agree not to attack each other and to defend each other against an attack from one of the others, if such an attack is made. The principal is that "an attack against one is an attack against all." It differs from "collective defense" which is a coalition of nations which agree to defend its own group against outside attacks. It can also be described as a system where states attempt with its use to prevent or stop wars. Examples of Collective defense are NATO and the Warsaw Pact .The United Nations (UN) is the best example at an attempt at collective security. Many nations enter into such an agreement in an effort to maintain the status quo and to secure their best interests. Collective security is achieved when states come to an agreement on the need for same. As a result an international organization is formed under the rules of international law. The collective security organization then becomes an arena for diplomacy, balance of power and exercise of soft power. The use of hard power by states, unless legitimized by the Collective Security organization, is considered illegitimate, reprehensible and needing remediation of some kind. This idea of collective security was posited by people such as Immanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson. There are a few basic assumptions as it relates to collective security, including , In an armed conflict, member nation-states will be able to agree on which nation is the aggressor another basic assumption is that each member state has freedom of action and ability to join in proceedings against the aggressor. Also of great importance is the fact that all member nation-states are e...
In conducting research for an essay that I am writing on constructive approaches to the problems of war and peace, I read a short, but thought-provoking fable by an unknown author. I would like to share that story with you, as well as my idea as a possible solution for world peace.
An example would be the bombing of Hiroshima. The morality was good in a way that it prevented millions of lives being saved, but at the cost of thousand of Japanese people dying.
The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole.1 Both territorial questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of war.
...teenth century intellects claimed that morality was independent of religion, and that religious authority had no say in the moral dictates of an individual. This sort of thought would eventually sway the public’s view in matters of morality and religion and eliminate the churches influence in society and institution altogether.
When you work for peace or any other aspect of social change, there are often hardships to overcome. You must believe deeply that what you are doing is right, or else you may become discouraged and give up. I have found that there are no easy solutions to problems involving social change. When you commit yourself to creating a better world, you are most likely committing yourself to a lifetime of effort.
The third argument of morality and religion needing to be relational makes most sense. It would create more peace among the believer and non-believers because people wouldn 't feel like they would have to be in one group or the other. Although this idea sounds great in theory, it would be extremely hard to enforce this type of idea, because people are very set in their own beliefs. I do think that morality and religion are interconnected. Both morality and religion are in the world, there are morals in religion, but morals don 't always come from religion. They are connected in a way but can also be separate at the same time. We as people have a tendency to group ourselves to separate the “in-group” from the “out-group”, causing a fracture between the groups (Religion and Morality, 2014). If people were able to see the relational side of the argument, that morals and religion aren 't inseparable nor are they just separable but could be both this would result in less fracturing between groups of