Everyman was a play written in the fifteenth century that dealt with mortality (Unknown 265). The purpose of this play was to impart a scrupulous lesson to both a scholarly and unschooled audience (265). While this play has been compared to others such as Pilgrim’s Progress and Confessions, there is a major difference in how salvation is attained (265). The latter mentioned plays elucidate that salvation is received through grace by faith, while the former shows salvation being the result of good works (265). The Apostle Paul told the church in Ephesus, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). The play begins with the character death being summoned by God. The role Death will perform is that of bringing Everyman to judgment. Ultimately, a pilgrimage must be taken by Everyman, which will bring him to the grave. Throughout the play we encounter the reality of what must be done and that judgment will happen to all mankind prior at death. The Apostle Paul wrote, “For w...
When studying atrocities such as the Holocaust, the concept of morality is often questioned. However, as the medieval morality play illustrates, there are those that will decide, during these times, to make a free and conscious decision to do the right thing instead of following the temptation to commit a wrongdoing. The plays that have been read thus far in the semester have supported this assertion.
Morality is, in essence, subjugated by he who defines it. This being the case, morality (defined as right or wrong, good or evil) is malleable as long as it does not impede upon any “ipso facto virtue';(Didion). In the essay “On Morality';, by Joan Didion, this aspect ‘on morality’ is composed. This will be utilized to verify that William Saroyan’s (author of “Five Ripe Pears) guilt of an immoral action is conflicting given specified conditions.
Morality is an abstract concept that continues to confuse people worldwide, a concept that is accompanied by the image of a compass. However, people believe that morality is a generalized system, but then how are morals symbolized by a compass if most compasses are different? The answer is obvious in M. L. Stedman 's The Light Between Oceans where the author communicates that morality is not defined in black and white terms, but is rather a blurred shade of grey. Stedman gives readers this answer through the actions and reactions of Tom and Isabel, Hannah, and Lucy on the decision made to keep Lucy on Janus Rock. The decision that rocks an entire town is made by Tom and Isabel.
In the book, A Practical Companion to Ethics, Anthony Weston shares his exploration in the myriad of ethical issues that we as a population have discussed and disagreed upon every day since the beginning of time. Within A Practical Companion to Ethics Weston describes several different ways that one can be mindful thinkers.
A society that is ruled by liberty contains morals, morals that come with rights that must be respected in order to preserve integrity. In his article “A Right to do Wrong”, Ethics, vol. 92 (1981), pp. 21-39, Jeremy Waldron argues that if people in a society take moral rights seriously they must accept an individuals “right to do wrong” from a moral perspective. Having a choice to do wrong from a moral point of view creates diversity in a society which lead’s to development in the society as a whole. Waldron offers a paradox to explain his position on individuals having a moral right to act in ways that might be seen as wrong from a moral point of view. I will explain and outline Jeremy Waldron’s position on the idea of individuals having the moral right to do wrong, and I will also evaluate Jeremy Waldron’s position and demonstrate if there is really such a moral right using my views that will be enhanced by John Stewart Mill views.
Throughout the book, Bob Starrett changes drastically. From a small boy eager to prove his worth in vicious battles with a gun in hand, to a boy tinted with the understanding that having courage and being a good man doesn’t necessarily mean building your reputation so others find fear in your presence. ‘’This was the Shane I had dreamed for him, cool and competent, facing the room full of men in the simple solitude of his own invincible completeness’’ (152). This certain passage displays Bob’s aspirations for both himself and Shane because in the beginning of the book, Bob felt as if he had to resort to violence to prove his worth. Feeling proud of his ability to injure others in instances such as the time when Bob felt important and ‘manly’ for having Licked Ollie Johnson in the ear (49).
The philosophers Williams and Nagel have recognized a problem wherein moral assessment is based on forces outside human agency: called the problem of moral luck. As I find both philosopher’s solutions unsatisfactory, I will propose a superior settlement to the problem of moral luck by defining what is meant by moral luck, as well as by analyzing William’s control principle alongside Nagel’s ‘solution’. I argue that there must be acceptance of luck as a force of the universe, with individual’s moral accountability being determined on the risks that they take, and their understanding of the dangers of these risks.
Mustapha Mond is the most powerful character in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Mond keeps scientific and historic documents from reaching the people. Mond believes that science, religion, and art threaten Brave New World if let out, but religion would be bane of Brave New World.
Throughout the play Everyman asks the characters to accompany him on his journey to death. He starts with Fellowship, his friends, who promises to go with him until they are informed of the destination. They desert Everyman at that point. He calls upon people who are closer to him, Kindred and Cousin, his kinsmen. They also promise to “live and die together,” but, when asked to accompany Everyman, they remind of the things he never did for them and desert him. Everyman then calls upon Goods, his material possessions. Goods explains to him that they cannot go on the journey with him, so he is once again deserted. Good Deeds then gets called upon. They say that even though they want to go on the journey, they are unable to at the moment. They advise Everyman to speak to Knowledge. Knowledge is the one that brings Everyman on the journey to cleanse himself. They first go to Confession, which gives him a penance. Once he does his penance, Good Deeds is able to rise from the ground. They then call upon Discretion, Strength, Five Wits, and Beauty. At first they follow him on his journey, but when they approach his grave they race away as fast as they can. When he finally sinks into his grave, the only one that accompanies him is Good Deeds.
“Without Conscience" by Robert D. Hare is one aimed towards making the general public aware of the many psychopaths that inhabit the world we live in. Throughout the book Hare exposes the reader to a number of short stories; all with an emphasis on a characteristic of psychopaths. Hare makes the claim that close monitoring of psychopathy are vital if we ever hope to gain a hold over Psychopathy- A disorder that affects not only the individual but also society itself. He also indicates one of the reasons for this book is order to correctly treat these individuals we have to be able to correctly identify who meets the criteria. His ultimate goal with the text is to alleviate some of the confusion in the increase in criminal activity by determining how my of this is a result of Psychopathy.
In the article “What makes us moral” by Jeffrey Kluger, he describes how morality is defined and how the people follow rules. Kluger discusses about scientific research that has been done to point out the important reasons of morality. Kluger explains that a person’s decision to do something good or bad is based on empathy, that humans tend not to do bad to those they sympathize with. Kluger also compares humans with animals and thinks that morality is the only thing that separates us from animals. I do agree with Kluger that people are born with a sense of right and wrong, but we should be taught how to use it. We learned to be nicer to those around us because we already know the type of person they are, and the morality we learned as children
Everyman is a classic play written in the 15th century whose subject is the struggle of the soul. This is a morality play and a good example of transition play linking liturgical drama and the secular drama that came at the end of English medieval period. In the play, death is perceived as tragic and is intensely feared. The protagonist; Everyman, is a person who enjoys the pleasures of life and good company. When he is unexpectedly called by death to account to God for his actions on earth, he is thunderstruck. He is filled with sorrow and self-pity. He pleads with death to give him more time, but death informs him it is impossible and that man cannot escape the reality of death. Faced with this eventuality, Everyman desperately turns to his friends for help. As Scott states, “Everyman’s friends in the play are personifications of his qualities and possessions” (Scott 15). He has friends like Fellowship, good deeds, knowledge, and later in the play he meets Beauty, Strength, Discretion and Five Wits.
J.S. Mill’s principle of utility is explained as actions are right as they tend to gain happiness, and wrong as they tend to reduce happiness. Mill defines happiness as, “pleasure and the absence of happiness is pain.” He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that more complex pleasures are ranked higher. Mills also places people’s achievements of goals, such as a virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. When Mill states that the principle of utility is the “First Principle” of morality he is ranking the principle of utility highest because that in order to know what the boundaries of morality are, it is necessary to know how actions should be accounted. The first principle dictates the rest of the principles of morality because it illuminates what the right thing to do is, and that is to maximize happiness. Happiness is the goal of morality, and this is why Mill believes that morality must have a first principle.
Morality can be vaguely defined as the extent to which is right or wrong. The word and the concept are hard to define as it means a different thing to people. History has many theories on morality, which only lends validity to the fact that morality is a personal definition of one’s values and concepts of right and wrong. For example, the debate on abortion has been raging for decades with no end in sight any time soon. One of the reasons that this debate is so heated is that some people find abortion to be inherently immoral. They find that taking any life is unjustifiable. Others believe that it is a woman’s choice and that since the other life is dependent upon the living woman, it should be no one’s choice but her own. We all have
For years, the matter of morality has been a widespread topic of discussion, debating whether it is a product of our chemical composition or our free will. Before I get started, I will provide you with what I believe morality exactly is. Ethics is a “code of conduct,” much like a University’s student handbook, but applied to the expected morality of a larger group or society. Morals are how individuals choose to interpret and follow such code. Just as a student may not always act in complete obedience with the student handbook, humans also deviate from their ethical codes of conduct. Therefore, morals are the set of a person’s specific values and opinions formed by their interpretation of their society’s code of ethics. With this version of the meaning of morality, I believe that individual free-will and the neurological hardwiring in which we are born with both significantly influence the development of our mature human morality due to a variety of factors including: human brain development, differences in our upbringing and education, which give rise to disparities in matters such as what is considered right or wrong, decision-making processes, and our ultimate behavioral choices, and lastly, because morality cannot exist if based solely on human nature, it must also involve our own self-determination. My position that morality is not the product of one side of the debate or the other, but rather arises through the integration of both components, allows for a complete demonstration of morality in its entirety. In this system, the ambiguities present in the one-sided arguments are removed, making it easy to link any individual’s action to their personal moral accountability.