More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral relativism represents moral judgement
Critical evaluation of moral relativism
Moral relativism represents moral judgement
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Wrong is Wrong
Saying that “the ends justify the means” is an invalid statement , those agreeing with this statement obviously believe that killing, stealing, and cheating does not matter as long as it has a good outcome and the goal is obtained.The phrase “the ends justify the means” refers to the morality of an action,which basically means “A good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it.” (End Justifies the Means, the). This topic is among the most controversial subjects discussed today.
Practicing and preaching the belief that the ends justify the means would consider to be immoral. The acts of killing,stealing, and cheating goes against the ten commandments. Killing is the act of taking someone’s life, whether it be out of spite, revenge, or self-defense. Killing goes against the sixth commandment, which states “You must not must not murder anyone.”(Br-
undidge-Fuller 48). Stealing is the act of taking something that doesn’t belong to you at all ,without ever returning it.Stealing goes against the eighth commandment; which states “You must not steal”(Brundidge-Fuller 48) . Cheating is the act of presenting someone else’s work off as your own or copying off of someone else instead of doing things on your own. Cheating goes against the tenth commandment; which states “You must not take anything that belongs to your neighbor.”(Brundidge-Fuller 49). By following these commandments the appreciation of the covenant with God is shown. Since everyone is made in God’s image and likeness that means his actions should be emulated through everyone. In all decisions, God would make sure that everything he does is acquired doing things the right...
... middle of paper ...
... valuable time, energy, peace of mind, and what should have been a normal life, trying to restore my credit and my life.”(Written testimonial of Michelle Brown).
Once exposed to evidence on why the ends does not justify the means, it is manifest that this statement is invalid and strips anyone supporting it of moral value. Anyone living by this belief is obviously self-centered and ignores the possible victims involved in the situation . The ends not justifying the mean isn’t something that should be debated over because humans are born with a conscience and it helps to establish right from wrong. Considering that humans are aware of their actions there are no exceptions for such heinous actions. Someone who is capable of stealing,killing, and cheating is devoid of moral standards.
what they feel morally justified to do. The moral aspects of killing a person would be the
There are many forms of cruelty. One form that many can relate to is bullying. Whether having been bullied or been the one bullying others, those cruel memories can forever be imprinted on one’s heart. In “White Lies,” Erin Murphy, expresses that although bullying is wrong, trying to justify bad deeds for good is equally cruel. Using rhetorical and tonal elements, Murphy stirs emotions with pathos, “perhapsing” with logos, and vivid images with diction.
In conclusion, although there are objections to this way of thinking, I believe that capital punishment can be morally justified. Not only will the use of capital punishment help provide the families of victims with a feeling of security and reduce the ever rising population in our prisons, but it will also act as a deterring factor. Again, my goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is in a way that reduces the use of this practice to a minimum. This means that capital punishment will not become an everyday practice, but rather would be used in extreme situations where benefits such as deterrence, closure, and a population decrease can arise.
“I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
Proponents of capital punishment believe that killing criminals is a moral and ethical way of punishing them. They feel there is justification in taking the life of a certain criminal, when in fact that justification is nothing more than revenge. They also feel that the death penalty deters crime, although there have been no conclusive studies confirming that viewpoint (Bedau).
taught the importance of the commandement "you shall not kill". The church has said that
Is murder ever truly justified? Many people might proclaim the adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right,” while others would argue that the Old Testament Bible states, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21). Andre Dubus explores this moral dilemma in his short story, Killings. The protagonist, Matt Fowler, a good father and husband, decides to take revenge for his son's murder. Richard Strout is a bad man who murders his soon-to-be ex-wife's lover. These facts are complicated by the complexity of interpersonal relationships when seen through the lens of Matt’s conviction, Strout’s humanity, and ultimately Matt’s personal sacrifice on behalf of his loved ones. Though on the surface this tale might lead someone to think that Dubus is advocating for revenge, a closer look reveals that this a cautionary tale about the true cost of killing another human as readers are shown how completely Matt is altered by taking a life.
First, Murder goes against religion. The Bible states in Matthew 5:21 that “You shall not murder”, it also says in 1 John 3:15 that “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer”.
“I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
In the final analysis we see that it is hard to prove either side. For both arguments can become faulty by debate. Murder no matter how it is done is wrong, how we go about prosecuting those who act against our fellow kind is in the hands of our legal system. However, I do not want them on the streets where the people I love are, nor do I believe that a murderer can change. A person who is capable of killing another human being without cause will never fit into society and thus should not be a part of it.
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
... of whether violence can be considered moral to achieve a just end is difficult to answer. Jurisprudence is called into question, as one tries to justify violent means to an end.
This is the idea that the reader can ponder. Still, people are always allowed to have their own opinions. However, Kierkegaard tries to show that nobody can judge another until the result can be seen. The end does justify the means.
“The end justifies the means” is the famous quote of Machiavelli (Viroli, 1998) which puts the emphasis of morality on the finale results rather than the actions undertaken to achieve them. Is this claim true in the field of the natural sciences? Whether atomic bombings, as a mean used to end World War II, justifies the death of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What is moral limitation in the acquisition of knowledge in the natural sciences? How is art constrained by moral judgment? Is it applicable to various works of art? Oscar Wilde claimed that “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” (Wilde, 1945). Does it mean that writers should have complete freedom? Or should ethical considerations limit what they say and how they say it?
Every day we are confronted with questions of right and wrong. These questions can appear to be very simple (Is it always wrong to lie?), as well as very complicated (Is it ever right to go to war?). Ethics is the study of those questions and suggests various ways we might solve them. Here we will look at three traditional theories that have a long history and that provide a great deal of guidance in struggling with moral problems; we will also see that each theory has its own difficulties. Ethics can offer a great deal of insight into the issues of right and wrong; however, we will also discover that ethics generally won’t provide a simple solution on which everyone can agree (Mosser, 2013).