Kant On Morality

Kant On Morality
We will be concerned with Kant's theory on morality and rather or not it is convincing. I will argue
about on how the good will is "The only thing that is absolutely good, good in itself and without
qualification, is the good will" (pg. 127). All natural virtue, both clever and moral can contribute to
wicked acts. Sometimes we assume that if we are successful in life and happy then that's all we
need, but in order to be successful we need integrity and recognition that can steer us in the direction
of satisfaction. I will argue that Kant's theory on morality is rather very convincing in this paper,
how hypothetical and categorical imperatives are different but a key factor. Likewise, that the
principle law of nature is the core to the categorical
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Oryx And Crake Morality And Morality
Is morality relative? While some might believe there are absolute or unchangeable ethical truths, in
Margaret Atwood's novel, Oryx and Crake, moral standards are dependent on the social, historical,
and economical context of the society. Through genetic modifications, deceitful capitalistic pursuits,
and an inflated ego in humans, Atwood creates a society that depends on science and capitalism for
moral guidance. Essentially, through the character of Crake, Atwood illustrates the dangers that
extremist ideology can have on a society that lacks a prevailing ethical code.
Crake's lack of emotions makes him vulnerable to the moral neutrality of scientific knowledge, as he
cannot understand the nuances of human nature. When Jimmy and Crake ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
One company, OrganInc Farms, aims to improve the artificially formed pigoon through
implementing, "a rapid maturity gene [that] was spliced in so the pigoon kidneys and livers and
hearts would be ready sooner, and now they were perfecting a pigoon that could grow five or six
kidneys at a time" (23). Through this attempt at "perfecting" the pigoon, OrganInc Farms promotes
the importance of reaching an idealized version of living animals. Through inventing, and then
accelerating the adaptation of the pigoon, OrganInc Farms transitions biological changes from an
event outside of human control to an academic pursuit. This change signals a societal increase in
control over natural surroundings, and a commitment to the advancement of humanity through the
use of technology. Crake's project of recreating human biology coincides with an increased
awareness of flaws in the human design. Crake explained to Jimmy that, "racism...had been
eliminated in the model group, merely by switching the bonding mechanism: the Paradice people
simply did not register skin colour" (305). By eliminating racism through biological means, Crake
reveals he believes there are inherent problems in all human beings. He must have determined
human nature to be negative as he rejects its current status, rather than working within the current
framework to end racism. Crake believes his artificial humans, which are referred to as Crakers,
"represent the art of the possible. We can list the individual

Morality In The Road
The Road is an interesting novel that has added to my perspective of morality and how it is explored
in literature. Many books talk about morality, some are specifically about this topic but most tend to
integrate moral questions into their plot. The Road differs in many ways from other books that
explore moral questions. The Road's plot has less action than many books, lending more of its pages
to deeper discussions of morality after each event. When exploring the topic of the frailty of
morality many books came at the topic in different ways. The stories that explored this topic the
most were not apocalypse stories, but rather dystopian ones. One common thread to many of these
stories is the journey to a goal, where that journey strains the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Having smaller characters may seem to take away from a story but it actually adds to the narrative.
The man and boy's goal isn't to save the world, they are just focused on survival. In Invisible Man,
the main character is fighting for equality and to change an entire system. In V for Vendetta, V
manages to collapse the government while accepting the inevitable deaths that will result. By
making The Road smaller in scale, the decisions the characters make and the effects are more
detailed, personal and thought provoking. The characters are not on a journey that must succeed for
the greater good. They must face the morality of their actions without being able to hide behind how
important their quest is. At one point in The Road the man kills a scavenger to save his son's life.
This is justified and most stories would pass over this as a necessary action. Later, after traveling
many miles away from where the incident happened, the boy asks the father if they are "still the
good guys" (p. 77). By making the characters no more important than anyone else, actions become
harder to defend and need to be addressed in more detail. In many stories spending so much time on
the morality of something that is done and can't be changed would seem out of place. The Road does
not give excuses for the characters' actions and always has the

Lord Of The Flies Essay : Morality And Morality
Morality is a fascinating topic that has no concrete rules. It is a game created by man, where the
rules exist only within the human psyche. When humans do not play the game, we end up with
situations like Meursault's who is sentenced to having his "head cut off in a public square in the
name of the French people" (107) after being found guilty of killing an Arab man. However, the
murder is not what earns him the death sentence, but instead his controversial outlook on life that
defies the norm of human morality. Meursault is condemned to die because he does not convene to
the game the humanity.
The novel starts just after the death of Meursault's mother. He makes the journey to attend the vigil
and funeral over the weekend, not out of grief or love, but rather obligation. Meursault lives in a
state of indifference, he cannot tell you what day his mother died, or even how old she was when it
happened. He does not cry, nor mourn her death like one would expect of a son. He offers only his
physical presence, but never his emotional one, claiming that his "nature was such that [his] physical
needs often got in the way of [his] feeling" (65).
The prosecution's case during Meursault's trial focuses heavily on his actions during his mother's
burial. They ridicule him for not displaying the emotions deemed socially acceptable during those
circumstances. The lawyer paints him as a soulless man who was incapable of love. Meursault
cannot answer definitively whether he

Animal Morality And Master Morality
agiarNietzsche is one of the most famous, complex, baffling, and misunderstood philosophers of all
time. Nietzsche begins his ethics with the proposition that there are only two basic types of morality:
slave morality and master morality. These types of morality Nietzsche proposes were initially
formed when society was not actually made up of masters and slaves. In a society where masters
were completely free and slaves simply had to do whatever their masters said. Based on their
respective situations Nietzsche argues these two groups of people came up with two very different
types of morality. Now of course there are no longer literal master and slaves in today's society.
However nietzche proposes well masters and slaves no longer exist but the moral system they came
up with do. Therefore if we are to understand and evaluate morality as it exists today, we must
investigate morality as it was originally defined by master and slaves.
Masters are totally free. They do what they want, to whom that want, and whatever they want. How
it is such a person in such a situation begin to think about morality. Nietzsche proposes a person in
such a situation would begin by saying that whatever it is the approval of our desire is good. We can
imagin such a list of thing such a master might approve of . he will no doubt desire to show off his
courage during battle to keep power over his slaves and it demonstrates his honour in front of his
fellow master. Goodness in master morality is

Socrates Morality
This chapter focuses on what morality is. Socrates defines it as "how we out to live" and why.
However, there are many rival theories against the Socrates' idea. In fact, it is hard to define
morality. So in this chapter, the authors utilize three real examples which are about handicapped
children: baby Theresa, conjoined twin Jodie and Many, and Tracy Latimer. For the case of Theresa,
Theresa had anencephaly when she was born, thus Theresa did not have the ability to breathe and
beat her heart, and was going to die within days. Additionally, she is not conscious. So, her parents
wanted to donate her organ to other children because they thought that it benefits someone without
harming Theresa. However, it did not happen due to the law. For ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Since it would cause Mary's death, their parents reject the surgery, otherwise, the surgery was
performed by the court's permission. As the doctor expected, Jodie lived and Mary died. In the other
example, Tracy (whose mental level was like a three months baby) was killed by her father because
he thought that planed surgery is really hard for Tracy, and she was suffering without hope of relief.
In fact, her mother, who did not want the father to kill Tracy, was relieved to find Tracy dead when
she came back home. Even though he received a lenient sentence from the trial court, he was
sentenced from the Canadian Supreme Court to 10 years in prison. The main point of the first two
examples is whether people can kill someone for someone's benefit or not. Furthermore, the last
example gives us the idea of impartiality. These examples are contested and controversial issues.
Thus, we need better moral reasoning in order to conclude ethical issues, and there are two things to
build exceptional moral reasoning. The first thing is to get one's fact straight because moral
judgments are different from one's

Mill And Morality
J.S. Mill's and Morality According to John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is the concept in which
"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness." He argues that happiness should
be distinguished between high and low pleasures. Hence, pleasures that engage the higher faculties
of the human body are seen as more satisfying than the baser pleasures in life, such as watching
movies with friends. Mill follows by arguing that utilitarianism, in the end, can be seen as morally
binding. This is true because if utilitarianism were to be adopted as an ethical stance, people would
naturally embody the standards of utility and happiness as if they were second nature or law. Thus,
Mill's links happiness, which he describes as intended

The Morality Of Lying
Most people are vigilant that telling the truth is a good thing and telling lies is a deplorable thing,
but most of us at some point in our lives have been tempted to tell lies and find it very convenient.
In fact there are a number of reasons and circumstances that seems that telling lies is good thing. In
this essay I will firstly explain what morality is. Define moral relativism and moral egoism. Finally I
will use both theories to discuss the morality of lying.
What is Morality? Morality defined in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics from Dr.
Norman Geisler, "First, a morale duty is a good in itself (an end), not merely good as a means.
Further, it is something that we ought to pursue, a duty. Morality is prescriptive (an "ought"), not
merely descriptive (an "is"). Morality deals with what is right, as opposed to wrong. It is an
obligation, that for which a person is accountable." In other words Morality is the parting from right
and wrong.
At first glimpse, moral relativism appears to be interesting, well tough out of a philosophical view.
According to Alan Bloom 1987.25 "Moral relativism is the view that when it comes to questions of
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
More importantly, "moral relativism suggests that no one set of beliefs is entitled to precedence over
another: in other words, there is no "correct" morality, just individual sets of beliefs"
(http://able2know.org/topic/24585–1). In other words if I believe that lying is wrong and you believe
that lying is right, the moral relativist would say that I am morally right so far as I do not lie and you
would be morally right so far as you do lie. Furthermore there is no standard by which I could judge
your actions or your set of beliefs as immoral, since your actions conform to your beliefs. Hence it
entirely depends on the individual to decide if lying is wrong or

Descriptive Morality
For each individual human being, there are six states for a human life on a normative scale from best
to worst: first is divine which exceeds the merely human on the one extreme, second is virtuous
which is absence of wrongful desire, third is strong–willed which is the ability to overcome one's
wrongful desire, fourth is weak–willed which is the opposite and so the inability to overcome
wrongful desire, fifth is vicious and bestial which exceeds the merely human on the other extreme
and are often found among barbarians. Another journal from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
on The Definition of Morality explains that morality can be used in two broad senses which are
"descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as
religion), or accepted by an individual for his or her own behavior, secondly, normatively to refer to
a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons"
there is a tricky part to morality which are not all codes that are put forward by societies or groups
are moral codes in the descriptive sense of morality, and not all codes that would be accepted by all
moral agents are moral codes in the normative sense of morality (The Definition of Morality, 2016).
Descriptive morality focuses on the rules of etiquette as well as attitudes of an individual. These
small morals are referred to decency and appropriate in behavior, as how one man should salute or
treat another or

Morality And The Origins Of Morality
Most of the times Nietzsche understands "morality" as the set of values typical of the European
society of his days. In this sense, it is safe to say that Nietzsche opposes morality and that genealogy
serves the ultimate goal of undermining it. However, it is legitimate to envision for genealogy a
scope for application which goes beyond the particular morality of 19th century Germans.
Accordingly, my claim is that in Nietzsche European morality represents just one possible form of
morality. Nietzsche himself seems to claim that he is focusing his attacks only on a specific instance
of morality – one among possible others. So for example, in the preface to On the Genealogy of
Morals he claims that the object of the book is the value of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
'2 Morals are therefore normative codes according to which we orientate ourselves in the context of
different spheres of life.
Assuming that Schacht 's interpretation is correct, I believe that his analysis bear strong similarities
with the view of morality I adopted in the first chapter. On one hand, Schacht's talk of "spheres of
life" leads to transcend our often restricted understanding of morality as including simply the realm
of ethical rights and duties, or as being focused on explaining why and how we should act in order
to live morally. In Schacht's sense, morality rather seems to include the mores of the Latin or the
ethoi of the Greek. In other words, our family of norms is the set of values we live by in all the
different situations we come across in our existence, including many areas of life that the restricted
understanding of morality would not consider as relevant. Furthermore, to understand these
mores/ethoi as moral standards or imperatives to which we have to conform is to understand only a
side aspect of them. In fact, more than simply being moral rules directing our behaviour, these
customs constitute our un–reflected habits – that is, the way in which we automatically express
ourselves in a particular context – , often being normative on a very unconscious level.
Lear's

Morality In Frankenstein
The conflicts of science and morality has been discussed throughout time, whether it be in popular
literature, and fiction as well as in different statements and studies by people in different fields of
knowledge, such as sociology to mathematics. In some ways, science can be right as it will help man
eventually fix any of the problems he or she may have. However, it could also have a negative effect
on man, meaning that humans will go through a serious moral degradation since they are creating
life through science not natural.
In the times of Frankenstein, people looked down upon toying with human life, a lot of the reason
for that was that they believed that God should be the only one to create life, not humans.
Everywhere throughout time

Morality Of Homelessness
Homelessness not only affects politics, the economy, and social environments, it also heavily
influences morality. Should homelessness continue in its current state, the moral compass of
humanity as a whole will be thrown off. Caring for those around us who have experienced troubles
should be something that is actively sought to fix, not ignored. By ignoring the issue, we create an
aura of indifference to, not just human suffering, but suffering that we experience close to our
homes. The continuing existence of homelessness can be seen as a contradiction to the Building
Blocks of Catholic Social Teaching, especially The Principle of Solidarity, The Principle of the
Common Good, and The Principle of Preferential Protection for the Poor

The Scarlet Letter : Morality And Morality
In The Scarlet Letter, the perception of sin deviates from person to person. The deviation occurs on
the severity of the sin that was committed and who committed the sin. Focusing on Hester and
Dimmesdale, it is easy to compare the consequences of coping with the perception of their sins, on a
private and a public level. The outcome of dealing with their sin is extremely different. The theme of
morality affects Hester and Dimmesdale as well. They have varying levels of morality and this
changes during the course of the novel. In terms of the book, The Scarlet Letter, the theme of
morality plays a large role in the sequence of events. The question is, who has stronger morals,
Hester or Dimmesdale? Hester was the one to reveal the sin, even though it was not her choice. This
means that she has stronger morals because she admits to her sin and deals with the outcome of it. In
Dimmesdale's case, he does not reveal his sin, so his morals are weaker than Hester's. In her article,
"A Critique of Puritan Society", Alison Easton shares that "These people's response is both
involuntary and at one level based on a misapprehension of the true state of affairs" (119). The only
reason that Dimmesdale was seen as morally stronger was because of his position as a priest. They
were manipulated to believe that he was not a sinner at all. At the end of the book, Dimmesdale's
morality increased because of his guilty heart, and because of this, he admits to his sin and dies on
the scaffold.

Effects Of Morality And Morality
Memory Effects on Ethics and Morality
Introduction
Memory is one of the essential components of a human being. It affects almost all the aspects
human behavior. Ethics and morality are part of two contemporary factors that affect the human
memory and the subsequent actions in the social domain. It seems that people have lowered morals
in the phase of everyday challenges such that ethical dealings are viewed as a typical mountain in
most situations. In most sectors of the public operation, you find that most of the problems that are
presented there or are linked to lack proper ethics and morality. Well as the action of the population
says that morality is relative and not absolute, I always believe that that there should be a bar of
reference. Additionally, the reason why I considered the topic is due to the divergent discussion that
comes with it in any given forum of discussion. The most critical epithet in the topic is its need of
reinforcement into the society. Talking about this topic will open avenues for more vibrant and
genuine views on the topic. For this paper, I will analyze two articles on morality and ethics from
the psychology today website.
Article Summaries
"Why We Kill, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The author takes a bidirectional approach to the question awarding it both a yes and a no answer. He
says that there has been a continuous evaluation of the nature of the human being .as they evolve the
morality also evolve with it. In his argument, he says that however the evolution process, the
faculties that make the regulation of the morality in the various situation will be evoked in different
priorities depending on which environment that they operate instill he argues that the different
cultures have a specific variance in the way that they define the moral virtue. An example that is
given the article is the eating of pork in by some communities while abstinence of the other side
(Michael,

Empathy And Morality
The golden rule everyone is taught is to "treat others the way you want to be treated". Today, the
rules of morality are argued to be either aided or hindered by empathy. In "Empathy Can Lead to
Short–Sited and Unfair Moral Bias, Author, Paul Bloom, claims it hinders morality, while citing
better alternatives to morality like compassion and reason. Author of "Moral Wisdom Requires
Empathy", Jamil Zaki, disagrees claiming empathy guides morality. Imagine a child stealing another
child's toy and then seeing him cry, but moments later to get it stolen again. At first, he may feel
compassion and dominance. This child may never feel that he did wrong. However, after the same
thing happened to him, he will certainly know he has done wrong. Empathy

Ethics, Morality, And Morality
Ethics and morality may initially seem to be interchangeable words used to describe a code of
conduct that society should follow in order to make informed decisions. However, they are in fact
two separate entities that exist as individual codes of conduct, yet share a symbiotic relationship in
decision making. Ethics can be described as the rules of behavior and demeanor as established by
society, a certain sociological group of people, or a religion. Consequently, due to the nature of
ethics, they can ultimately be viewed as a governing body. This body is recognized by some larger
institution greater than oneself, one that someone is obligated to follow as determined by their
religion, race, or creed. On the other hand, morality is an internal trait that is, in due course, solely
created by the individual. People may recognize ethics as virtues set by their society or creed,
whereas morality regards people determining whether the ethics in their everyday experiences
adhere to individual principles and conduct. With this prevalent symbiotic relationship between
ethics and morality, one can recognize the vital role that ethics and morality partake in when it
comes to decision making. As a result of this relationship, these two qualities become important in
areas of operation, such as business, where decisions are often made by one individual for the sake
of the greater whole. This approach, also known as utilitarianism, can often lead to questionable
ethical and moral

Morality Vs. Morality : Morality And Morality
When Iris Murdoch speaks of morality, she acknowledges it as a gateway to religion. She assumes
that we connect our moral behavior to our own wisdom and experiences or to the control of religion.
Friedrich Nietzsche, a highly pessimistic immoralist on the other hand, believes that our lives should
not be controlled by such religious moral codes set forth by the Church. We, as people, should have
the will to power when it comes to morality. Although Iris Murdoch's Morality and Religion and
Friedrich Nietzsche's Morality as Anti–Nature have similarities as regards to their theme, Murdoch's
very neutral position on the effects of religion toward morality and hopeful attitude to God's
existence allows constructive criticism to be made by Nietzsche. "Morality–religion believes in the
reality of the perfect good. And in the demand that good be victorious and evil destroyed."
(Murdoch 370) In the eyes of saints or religious people, morality is seen as exceptionally good and
is greatly influenced by religious code. Murdoch further explains, though, that although religion and
morality go hand in hand, the "good" in a person can be possessed by basic personality traits and
personal experience. Religion is not the only way to be morally upright. Nietzsche would agree with
this notion. Like Murdoch, Nietzsche believes that the tendency to do bad things and go against
what is right is what seems natural to a person. Instead of being forced by religion, to live morally
upright, people

Religion and Morality
RELIGION AND MORALITY
(i)Examine the views of scholars concerning the idea that religion and morality are linked. In this
essay I am going to be looking at all the different view points on why some people may think
religion and morality are linked. I will talk about a few things that link them such as conscience,
divine command ethics, Kant 's view and Aquinas ' view. Many people believe that morality is based
upon religion and the rules written in the Bible and other holy books, although some say that
religion is completely opposed to morality and it is wrong to mix the two.
Some scholars believe there are three views on the relationship between religion and morality, one
of them being that morality depends on religion. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Moral opinions are judged against religious teachings.
Even secular society adopts or is influenced by religious moral teachings, for example, it seeks
guidance from religious leaders in moral matters such as genetic engineering/abortion.
In conclusion the strongest view to me is Social Conditioning, in which morality is independent of
religion. I believe that peoples morality comes from the environment that they are brought up in, and
the people around them such as parents and teachers. From a very young age we are taught what is
right and wrong, and grow up respecting the law and people around us more than God.
(ii)Comment on the view that religion and morality are not linked. Euthyphro 's Dilemma was that
the problem of whether something is good because God commands it, or does God command that
which is good. 'Do that God 's love that which is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the God 's '
– Plato.
Almost all Christians will say something is good because God says so, his commands must be
obeyed. A Christian 's dilemma is that either good is a whim or good is something that dictates to
God. So if a Christian interprets that it is God 's will to murder, they think they are justified because
it is God 's choice.
A.C Grayling believes that religious morality is irrelevant to modern society because what people
value has changed. He thinks that modern morality includes a great concern for human rights,
animal

Morality Play: Everyman As A Morality Play
Everyman is a morality play. Morality play according to (Drama resources:2015) means something
which involves a direct conflict between right or wrong or good and evil and from which a lesson
maybe drown. It probably has seven different scenes. It was written in the late
1400's(Bradford,W:2015). By an unknown author. For me the author could have possible been a
priest or prophet, who was having a revelation from God when he was writing the play. This is the
kind of play that goes with the saying "when days are dark friends are few". Everyman was
unfortunate to learn this the hard way. I am writing this essay to analyze the play. As a performer I
am writing this essay to understand what a morality play is. Also to understand the authors
intentions for writing ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The names of all the characters are also symbol of what and who we have in our lives. And
everyman meeting death is another symbol that his time on earth is up. The other symbol is
everyman's life of sin that he will end up being all alone.
The foreshadowing is goods–deeds because her weakness is an indication that everyman has been
living recklessly. And the warning of his future is good–deeds begin weak. This shows he will end
up in hell because he has not done anything good all his life. Death is also a warning that his sins
will eventually catch up with him.
In conclusion, everyman ends up going to the grave with only good–deeds. The moral in that is that
when you die the only thing you can take with you is your good–deeds. Everyman teaches human
begins that the is more to life than right now the is also life after death. That they need to prepare for
after they die. Because whatever they do now they will have to account for it after death. Everyman
teaches us how most of us live our lives. And the consequences we will have to face when we live
recklessly. It is a play that everyman on earth should read and learn from. Excuse the

Argument Of Morality
The Authors have debated the (de)criminalization of Section 309 on three grounds, morality
constitutionality and rationality. The contention of the Authors is that there is an inherent flaw in the
mechanism of criminalizing an attempt to suicide, the reasons for which are dealt with below.
A. ARGUING THE QUOTIENT OF MORALITY
Christianity puts an 'absolute' prohibition over the attempt to suicide by mortal beings. Suicide is
directly contrary to the will of God, and finds origin in the realm of the demonic host, who come
only to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. Similarly, Hindu scriptures also portray the attempt of
suicide to be against the will of God and therefore, immoral.
The three major religions of India, namely Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, all proclaim that
suicide as unacceptable. Teachings of both the Bible and Quran say that as God is the one who gives
life, He is the only one entitled to end it, and thus ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Hinduism considers human life is seen as the highest form of life and to cut that short would be
considered bad karma and would send a person back to a lower form of life. If this life is cut short
prematurely, then the person will become wandering spirit until the allotted time for them to move
onto the next life. Sati, the outlawed practice of a widow joining her dead husband on the funeral
pyre, could also be seen as suicide, but the cultural and social issues here are somewhat different.
Hinduism does have some acceptable forms of suicide that are considered self–sacrifice rather than
suicide: agnipravesa – offering of the body to fire, prayopravesa – offering of the body to air, and
samadhi – offering of the body to the earth. These ascetic religious practices can only be carried out
when a person has reached a high level of spirituality and has no responsibilities in this

Debate On Morality And Morality
Morality: Nature vs. Religion
There are many ways that a person could perceive what justice is. This is because justice is a notion
of one's moral rightness based on their ethics, religion and laws. Usually religion is the cause for the
many different views of what should be morally right and wrong. These different views of morals
have sparked many arguments over the centuries resulting in what could be a never–ending feud
between the theists and the anti–theists. Many authors who have dabbled with the subject, such as
Friedrich Nietzsche, argue from a naturalistic perspective, and believe that humanity is responsible
for controlling their nature–given passions, and also states that religion is anti–nature. (Nietzsche)
Then there are other ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Obviously, there must be some correlation between the concepts of religion and morality, and
Murdoch states that, "The most evident bridge between morality and religion is the idea of virtue."
In this essay, Murdoch approaches the subject of morality in a psychological way, and examines the
virtues of duty. According to Murdoch, "Dutifulness could be an account of morality with no hint of
religion", and suggests that duty and reason fit well with each other.(Murdoch) In the essay,
Murdoch constantly is always questioning religious beliefs and how they are related with morality,
but ultimately stating that with religion, morality increases, because "Religion symbolizes high
moral ideas... which are more intimate and accessible than the unadorned promptings of reason."

Kant And Morality
When talking about whether or not consequences of an act have anything to do with morality, one
must think of all the ways in which an individual's acts could be considered morally wrong.
Morality relates to conduct, whereas they both involve some type of action that is partaken by the
individual, which can be mistaken as being "good" even though the consequences are considered
bad (Dewey, 1891).When a person performs an action, and the outcome of that action is a negative
one, we often find ourselves blaming anything other than the individual themselves because we
believe they had no foresight on what was going to happen. Dewey describes that when conduct and
character are involved in telling if somebody is being moral, or immoral, we are unable to say
whether or not the action was good or bad until we know how that action turns out and we know
what the consequences are. (Dewey, 1891).
In order to decide whether or not a consequence of an action is morally good, or morally wrong, one
must first recognize ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Duties and laws apply to an individual and their morality. Kant states that morality cannot be based
on man, we cannot base morality on experiences because morality is unconditioned. (Kant, 1998).
Metaphysical philosophy is pure, much as morality is unconditioned and pure. Metaphysics applies
to our efforts of understanding the world around us, it is independent from all experiences and
knowledge and applies to all, much as morality applies to all. Metaphysics cannot be compared to
the empirical because the empirical is based on our experiences, it is completely individual and
therefore cannot be applied to all morality. Kant states that you cannot understand practical morals
without metaphysics. (Kant, 1998). This is the basis of understanding whether or not Kant believes
consequences of an act have anything to do with

Batman's Morality
Morality is defined as being principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good
and bad behavior ("Morality"). Most heroes are seen in a very controversial light, but Batman takes
the cake. Bruce Wayne, or Batman, is a vigilante hero who is looking for vengeance for his parents'
deaths. Wayne has been known to kill many people in the comics and in some of the movies and TV
shows. Batman is a case of morality because he makes people question what is appropriate in messy
situations. Through Batman's vigilante tactics, which includes killing villains, and the realness of
what a human most go through to accept a death of a loved one, Batman seems to take on the
morality dilemma headfirst. In some of the first comics, Batman ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Batman is also a huge problem for the government, showing how little power even the government
has over it's people. "Batman only wants to better Gotham, which is why he's willing to endure the
hatred of his home if that's what it takes to build the city into something durable," Jamelle Bouie
states (Davidson). Batman is a voice for the voiceless and shows the citizens of not only Gotham but
for the American citizen as well that they have a voice and that they can take control of an situation
they feel that they need to. He makes the government feel as if they are not safe and makes them
question everything they have ever done. Without Batman, some would not have the chance to
speak up and focus all of their hate onto him instead of putting that hate against something that
could harm them. He, in the end of it all, shows that anyone can be a hero and that makes people
feel uneasy and question their own morality. The government wants people to obey and listen, but
instead Batman gives them hope and helps strengthen them by just being a helpful human that he is.
Batman protects what he loves, which in most cases is his city, Gotham. This mysterious billionaire
wants the city of Gotham to stay safe and does everything in his power to keep it safe from villains
like the Joker and Cat Woman. Batman shows his community that they have the power within
themselves to be able to save the day and that they don't always have to

Morality Vs. Morality : Morality And Morality
Although law and morality are two separate issues it is evident that morality plays a crucial role in
the law. Dr. Jürgen Habermas stated "law is internally related... to morality" . The idea of law is not
that it must be moral but that it provides a system to allow people to live together peacefully in a
society. However, as much as it is debated, it is apparent that in order for human civilisation to work
laws must generally be moral. Natural law is a theory that emphasises the role of morality in the law.
Naturalists argue that all legal official and those within a position of power are under a moral
obligation. A Confucian scholar Mencius stated "only the benevolent man is fit to be in high
position. For a cruel man to be in high position is for him to disseminate his wickedness among the
people" . Positivists, on the other hand, argue that morality does not play a role in the law claiming
that people should not be concerned with whether the law is moral or not. In modern times morality
plays a huge part in the law even if it is not recognised. In order for new rules to be brought into
place the sovereign must look at whether or not it is moral. If not this could have serious
implications for the running of the country. I will further discuss these theories and issues in relation
to the role that morality plays in the law.
Morality, simply, is the difference between right and wrong. For most people they have been
socialised into knowing the difference between right and

Religion and Morality
In this paper I will discuss the relationship between religion and morality. I will first address the
question asked by those with religion, how are atheists moral? Then I will examine morality and its
relativity to culture. Next I will explore whether those without a religion are actually more moral
than those with a religion. And finally, I will discuss any possible objections to my claims. This
argument is in no way saying that those that believe in God are unmoral but that those who don't
believe in God, are just as capable of being moral. Being atheist means that you choose to believe
that God, or a god, does not exist. You have no faith or religion, you don't go to church every
Sunday morning, or pray every night before you ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
At a point in the book, Wang Lung kills his newborn daughter because of her sex. During a time of
famine, he steals gold coins from a wealthy family. And after he encounters money and prosperity,
he spends his time in a tea house with a concubine instead of with his dying wife (Sparknotes
Editors, 2012). But, in this story the main character does feel guilt for the things that he did.
Knowing that it wasn't right, and that it didn't feel right to kill his newborn child, Wang Lung still
did it and the act was perfectly acceptable according to their culture. When he stole the gold from
the wealthy, he knew morally that it was wrong but, his family needed the money therefore his
motivation was to provide for them. And when he purchased a concubine, Wang Lung was
complying with the cultural norm of wealthy Chinese men. Whereas in our culture, and its
predominant religion, the idea of adultery and lust is considered unmoral. It is even arguable that
those without a religion are more genuinely moral. For example, the Christian religion. The whole
belief is that you don't sin and therefore are rewarded with eternal bliss. If you do sin then you will
be forever damned. The motivation for all the good that they are guided to do is to have a better
afterlife, selfish isn't it? Well one who has no religion, has no belief in the afterlife. All the actions
and choices that they make in this physical life are all

Morality and God
Can a person be moral and not believe in God
Name
PHI 103 Informal Logic
Instructor
Date of Submission
Morality only exists if we believe in God; therefore if God doesn't exist there is no morality. There
have been so many evil acts committed in the name of God that it is difficult to maintain that a
belief in God equates to morality. There are situations that happen every day where decisions are
made based off of human rights that contradict the word of God. Morality comes from within, it is
an understanding of right versus wrong and the ability to choose what is right. Knowing all this a
belief in God is not a requirement for a person to be moral. (Mosser, 2011)
We are taught that morals are basically the difference between ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
If you do not fear the wrath of God, there is nothing to stop you from committing immoral acts, or
any crimes for that matter. Any situation can be overlooked because there is no fear of punishment
without a fear of God. Only a person with a firm belief in God can be considered moral because they
fear His punishment and desire his reward. God is the only person great enough to enforce moral
standards, without his guidance there can be no binding morals. Moral standards come from God
and without Him a person cannot be moral.
When we talk in absolutes we ignore possibilities that exist outside of our beliefs. There are many
examples of individuals that believed in God who acted immorally, as well as examples of people
who do not believe in God acting with good morals. Their beliefs do not determine their morality,
their acts do. If we are to base morality solely on a belief in God then which believer do we follow?
Do we follow the believer who commits crimes, or only the believer who is an upstanding member
of society?
Adolf Hitler was raised as a Catholic, and in his adult life spoke of his religious beliefs. He wanted
to create a pure Germany, through a religion known as positive Christianity. Positive Christianity
removed the Jewish elements from the standard Christianity doctrine and replaced them with Nazi
philosophy. More than six million Jewish people were killed during the Holocaust in the ideal of
positive Christianity. Bill Gates is

Morality : The Basis Of Morality
Philosophy Essay 2
TOPIC ONE: THE BASIS OF MORALITY
The basis of morality has been major area of discussion for philosophers for many years. In The
Leviathan, Hobbes argues that desire and aversion determine what is good, evil, right or wrong,
believing in a subjective self–interest based view on morality. In The Grounding of Metaphysics of
Morals, Kant takes a rational approach, arguing that it is reason that plays a role in determining the
same, thus having an objective view on morality. In my opinion, Hobbes' account has greater
validity than Kant's in the fact that I believe it is human passion that dictates morality.
Hobbes believes that morality is based upon the laws of nature. He sees humans as machines and
describes the natural universe as a mechanical system. According to him, two motions occur in
living beings; vital and voluntary. Vital motions are innate, taking place unconsciously whereas
voluntary motions are resultant of conscious motions. Hobbes believes voluntary motions to form
due to thought and imagination; calling this process endeavour. It is endeavour that leads to desires
and aversion. Human desires are endless and we pursue them until the time of our death.
This leads us to Hobbes' view on the natural state of humans. He believes that without a common
power to govern them, men are in a condition of war. In this state, all men are other men's enemies.
This brings rise to the idea 'Everyone is governed by his own reason...in preserving his life against

Morality, Religion, And Morality
There are millions of people in the world who use religion as a guide to what is morally right or
wrong in society. They have the perception that morality is impossible without a belief in a higher
power or that religion and morality cannot be separate. On the other hand, there are also many
people who believe that the only real basis for morality should be separate from a belief in a god and
from religion itself. So does society really need to believe in a higher power to have morals? The
answer is no for a few simple reasons. Morality is not necessarily a part of religion, nor is religion
the essence of anything moral. Religion and morality can be separable in many different aspects
along with the fact that not everyone who is moral is religious. Society can in fact have moral values
regardless of whether a belief in a higher power is present or not.
It can be argued that someone who is religious has a higher sense of morality than someone who
doesn't practice a religion at all, but does practicing a religion make you a better person than
someone who doesn't? The world has a large number of people who do not practice any religion but
still live moral lives. "Atheists and agnostics do not behave less morally than religious believers,
even if their virtuous acts are mediated by different principles. They often have as strong and sound
a sense of right and wrong as anyone, including involvement in movements to abolish slavery and
contribute to relief efforts associated with

Morality And Religion : Morality
Morality and Religion: a Response to Does Morality Need Religion (Prompt 1)
Some people believe our life is based off of morals, a belief of right/justification or wrong/ unjust.
Living this way perceives their ways of the world by doing what they feel is good or bad or what is
lead by their conscience regardless of religion. Others believe in religion, a feeling or act of faith,
from God or "gods" ( Merriam–Webster). These acts motivated by faith and God/ "gods" provide a
comprehension between choices, a choice given to all for all based off of a religious belief. In
analyzing this presentation, it will show what the writer of this topic is trying to point out to the
intended audience or its purpose, while conveying to the readers what morality and religion is. In the
beginning of the essay writers Isabelle and Meaghan Miller point out two different moralities, one
being secular morality, which they define as "human logic or reasoning rather than religion". And
Religious morality "which is based on aspects of religion such as fear of God of the desire to do
God's will". These moralities suggested, define ways the world views the options given or taught to
them in life. Further into the presentation, they state that "moralities lie within biology, not only
human but all animals. [Implying that] animals have three basic instincts [such as] kin selection,
attachment to mate, and sympathy; morality helps us survive and thrive". In this case, they 're not
only voicing

Morality And Empathy
Understanding morality and empathy exhibited in a population may grant a great insight into its
dynamic. However, surveys may be susceptible to bias; a more accurate method may be by
assessing one's morality and empathy through one's unconscious behaviors. In the peer–reviewed,
Emotion article "The Empathy Impulse A Multinomial Model of Intentional and Unintentional
Empathy for Pain," researchers from Pennsylvania State University and the University of Iowa
experimented to see how the conscious and unconscious aspects of empathy for pain contribute to
the process of identifying pain in others. Subsequently, Cameron, one of the researchers,
summarized his findings in the Time article "How Science Can Tell Whether You're a Good Person."
Then, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Both started out with an introduction, followed by the experimental description and the conclusion.
The introductions both laid the groundwork with definitions. The section "A new measure of
empathy," coming after the introduction in the Time piece, is the equivalence of the "Method,"
"Result," and "Individual Difference Analyses" in the Emotion paper. Both concluded with either
"Where do we go from here?" or "General Discussion," detailing the application of the findings.
Furthermore, Cameron provided very concise description when discussing the experimental images
to prevent the readers from misinterpreting the tasks. In Time: "The images depict hands being
pierced with needles or brushed with Q–tips, which are implements that are considered respectively
painful and nonpainful by most people." Similarly, in Emotion: "Prime and target stimuli were
images of hands being pierced with a needle or brushed with a Q–tip, which are consensually judged
as painful and nonpainful,

Ram 's Morality And Morality
Cullen Lemieux
Period 2
World literature
Mr. Neely
Ram's Morality Many people struggle or debate over the topic of morality, and many people are
mistaken as to who really judges what is moral or immoral. The only person who can decide
whether an act is morally right or wrong is God. Within Slumdog Millionaire, there are many
actions and ideas that can be considered morally good or morally bad according to the Christian
views of morality. Ram Muhammad Thomas is debated over when it comes to the topic of Christian
moral views. He shows aspects of both sides in the moral boundary. Within Slumdog Millionaire
Ram shows that he is an immoral person through his thoughts, actions, and motives. Morality is
often referred to as decision–making and the difference between right and wrong. There are many
aspects to Christian morality such as the practice of freedom, the understanding of moral acts, the
formation of conscience, and above all realization of sin. Additionally, when referring to the practice
of freedom when it pertains to the topic of morality, it is usually talking about the responsibility that
is gained to be created in the image and likeness of God ("Morality"). In order to practice
responsible freedom we must do things that would keep us in a more intimate relationship with God,
such as going to church and getting baptized ("Morality"). When God created us he gave us the
knowledge so we may choose to act "good" and ultimately share in his plan ("Morality"). Freedom
is

Morality Essay
Plato Republic
Socrates engages in conversations with people claiming to be experts, usual in ethical matters. By
asking simple questions, Socrates gradually reveals that these people were in fact very confused and
did not actually know anything about the matters about which they claimed to be an expert. Morality
is the ethical matter that is brought up in Plato's Republic. Socrates argues the response of Cephalus,
Polemarchus and Thrasymachus on what morality is.
The question of morality came up when Socrates and Cephalus, who is a rich old man, were having
a conversation about money. Socrates asks Cephalus if being rich makes it easier to enjoy old age.
At first, Cephalus ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Polemarchus says what Simonides was trying to say was friends owe friends good deeds not bad
ones. Socrates responds by saying, what Simonides meant was we give back to people what is
appropriate for them or owed to them. Socrates makes a point that morality only seems useful when
something is not being used, for example when money need to be saved. Socrates asks if a moral
person can harm anyone and Polemarchus agreed that a moral person could harm an evil man. What
Socrates was trying to get at was well if this man was really moral why is he trying to harm anyone.
Polemarchus agreed to this, which basically went against everything he said in the opening of this
conversation.
Thrasymachus interjected by saying that Socrates is taking the easy way out. He said if Socrates
wants to know what morality is, then don't just ask questions and look for applause by refuting any
and every answer that is given. He says Socrates feels that it is easier to ask questions then to answer
them. Thrasymacus sounds so intelligent but falls in to Socrates trap anyway. Their arguments were
about craftsmen, designed to show that humans don't always act out of self–interest. And an
argument about whether the life of an unjust or immoral person is "superior" to that of a
just or moral person. Also whether injustice is "stronger" than justice. Finally an
argument about

Morality, Moral, And Morality
Introduction As part of leadership, morality has been seen as a fundamental part. Among the
leadership traits, morality is has been defined as a very significant reality in how the leaders would
interact. By extension, various definitions have been brought forward in the attempts to understand
morality. However, moral relativism has been defined as a "theoretical approach under which what
is right and what is wrong is effectively studied," (Sergiovanni, 2013). Therefore, it is very difficult
to distinguish ethics from morality. Ethics and morality seem to augment each other in emphasizing
the guiding principles of life. Clearly, morality encompasses almost all aspects of the human life
starting from an individual level and extending to the societal level. In the same light, there is no
agreed definition of leadership. Gini (2011) in the article, "Moral Leadership: An Overview," asserts
that leadership entails numerous points of view that seem to all be centered on the fact that a leader
will prioritize efforts so as to realize positive results for others. Thus, leadership is a social process
that involves positive influence between a leader and their followers (Gini, 2011). The fact that
leaders would have to be in touch with their followers; emphasizes should be morality. Moral
leadership entails a leader who is concerned with their principles regarding rightness or wrongness
of their human character (Sergiovanni, 2013). Moral leadership is important since its

Morality Essay
Morality
Is morality relative? Ruth Benedict and James Rachels have opposing views on this conroversial
question. Benedict, "a foremost American anthropologist who taught at Columbia University"
(Pojman 370) believes that morality is relative to one's culture and that one's behavior which is
deemed moral or immoral is dependent upon cultural norms. Her argument is as such: 1. Different
cultures have radically different moral codes 2. There are no objective moral principles i.e. all moral
principles are culturally relative
Rachels, "a professor at the University of Alabama" (Pojman 375) disagrees with Benedict and
believes that morality is not relative. Furthermore he holds Benedicts "Cultural differences
argument" to be ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For instance, some African tribes are known to sew a woman's vagina closed when she is young to
prevent her from being able to have intercourse before she is married.; If she is not sytill sewn shut
on her wedding night, she is cast out and considered a filthy whore. To our culture, this seem
entirely too drastic, but to those tribes, this is a ritual that has been practiced throughout their history
and is considered a rite of passage when a girl reaches puberty. Benedicts also gives an example to
further prove her point that morality and or normality is culturally relative. She gives the example of
a man in a Melanesian society who was referred to as "silly and simple and definitely crfazy"
because he liked to share and to help people and do nice things for them. In the United States , these
are virtuous qualities. If you are stingy and not helpful you are looked down upon, but in this
contrasting society, to share and be helpful is so disgraceful that one is ridiculed for possessing
thaose traits or even condemned for them. One who believes that morality is relative could give
further example of traits that are despised in one culture but admired in a different culture. History
and evolution provide codes of what is accepted in a culture, things such as sorcery, homosexuality,
polygamy, male dominance, euthanasia, these things are completely dependant upon its society to

Morality and Happiness
Morality has been a term of debate for several years by intellectuals who have not come to the final
conclusion of its definition. According to Damon (5), morality is an existing, multifaceted construct
that may not be pinned down by any single definitional criteria which is flexible. The moral
character has long been associated with happiness which is that state of having achieved one's
desires although there are some disconnections. Several theories have been forwarded in connection
to morality and happiness as far as the society is concerned. In this argumentative paper we shall
give detailed analysis of morality and happiness and whether or not moral character is a requirement
to happiness.
Morality and Happiness
The concept of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
An example is if we go out to have fun with friends we will end up being happy in the long term
(Delattre 137). Thus it becomes a requirement that good moral character be observed always in
order to gain a long–term happiness without any struggle.
Moreover, the morality, good character and happiness cannot be separated from one another. This is
because to a huge extent we tend to offer as the best individuals to our families, friend and
colleagues who are the source of our happiness. Therefore there is an understanding that we can
enjoy their company when we offer our best morals and support. With this understanding, we realize
that a good moral character is a requirement to true happiness irrespective of the people we are
dealing with. This understanding enables individuals to realize and prevent any moral deviation so
as to maintain happiness with all persons (Delattre 137).
According to the philosophy of happiness (14, 15, 16 & 17), Aristotle stated the factors that
make happiness as good health, money, relationships and good moral behavior. Aristotle pointed out
that happiness was the ultimate desire for human being leaving nothing more to be desired. The
happiness is sought for its own sake unlike other things which are sought in order to achieve
happiness. Aristotle understood that for an individual to be happy one must be of good morals and
can suffer to achieve the greater happiness later in the long run. Many individuals believe that

Morality Is The Product Of God's Morality
Samuel Pufendorf argues that morality is the product of God 's will primarily, and human will
secondly, and is directed at the peaceful organization of humanity. "Moral entitities" are
metaphysically superadded to physical entitites, so they are dependent on intelligent beings. Moral
obligation, then, is grounded in the command of a superior (human or divine), and commands are
morally compelling due to the dual factors of fear and respect for the "just" reasons behind them.
Gottfried Leibniz, in contrast, grounds morality in God 's intellect. He offers two major objections to
Pufendorf: first, that he threatens the goodness of God by failing to make justice an attribute he
possesses, and, second, that his argument that justice consists in obeying a superior 's command is
circular since a superior has authority in virtue of their "just" cause. This paper will first detail
Pufendorf 's position on moral entitities, the nature of obligation, and moral necessity. Leibniz 's
criticisms will then be expounded, and it will be argued that Pufendorf holds intellectualist
commitments complicating the voluntarist aspects of his philosophy. Pufendorf defines "moral
entities" as those which are imposed onto physical beings to "direct and temper the freedom of the
voluntary acts of man," and contribute to the structuring of the universe and betterment of humanity.
Moral entities are dependent, existing only in the physical substances they are "superadded" to by
beings with intellects.

What Is The Relationship Between Morality And Morality
Freedom and morality is connected to each other. We have freedom to do things and to decide things
for ourselves. But morality teaches us to choose from the right and the wrong behavior. Morality is
concerned about the values, conducts, and principles of a certain person while freedom is being able
to make your own decisions and getting it done. These two have a big relationship with each other
because they must be given importance in our lives. What is the deeper relationship between
freedom and morality? And what can be done to have them both? Morality falls under the concept of
dictum which tells us, "to do good and to avoid evil." It can be observed in our everyday living. We
can see it even in the simplest act that a person is doing. For example, a student decides to study and
take a review at night. Morality comes in because that student has a choice and she has chosen to do
the good thing rather than doing other things. Morality and ethics both focuses on the human
conduct. It deals with the standards of right doings and the wrong ones. But there is also a big
difference between the two. Morality talks about the right and wrong doings while ethics are the
moral principles. Meaning ethics is can be considered under morality. It is like a step where a person
chooses from doing the right or wrong thing. When she already had a decision and she stands for it,
ethics will come on its way. The moral ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
We always have the freedom to do things but we often forget about choosing the right from the
wrong doings. We become selfish that we only think of our own good and pleasure. In that case,
freedom leads us to different paths in our lives. It can slowly destroy us and the plans we have for
the future. So it only means that with freedom, we should have the responsibility. We should possess
the responsibility to be morally aware of the things and the choices that we will pick up and make
for

Difference Between Morality And Morality
Freedom and morality, once we act a form of freedom we should always consider morality. Morality
plays a big role in our actions and freedom, why? Because once we acknowledge our freedom or
free will as a human person the morality sinks in and it identifies if our freedom must be
acknowledged as the real freedom. Morality causes the world's internal and external peace. Being a
human person who always considers the real morality and identify correctly what is good and what
is bad, or sometimes what is true and what is false, can keep the community at peace, nature of
peace and world at peace. Freedom is a right or power to do something. For all we know we have
many advantages in freedom like we can speak for ourselves, we can eat what we want, and we can
do whatever we want, but we have also disadvantage it's when someone push to the limits and
ruined others freedom. Differentiating morality and ethics are a big process of analyzing, because
according to the formal research morality is the principles of concerning the distinction between
right and wrong, or good or bad actions, while the ethics is a moral principle that governs the
person's or group's behavior. Morality and ethics is both something to do with identifying what is the
correct action or behavior to apply each scenario in our daily lives. We are all blessed because of
being a democratic country. We ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
While we are experiencing pleasure sometimes did you ask yourself? Did I do the right thing? Is my
happiness is worth it? Or did my will threaten other people? Once we act something according to
your freedom, willingness and freewill you are responsible for that and you will never be exempt to
that thing. Doing vice thing is a kind of crime and if we commit in that kind of action we are the one
who is responsible and have the liability for that. We have our law to protect the freedom of

Speech On Morality And Morality
Morality refers to the concept of proper human action in terms of "right and wrong," also referred to
as "good and evil. According to Hobbes (1994:11), morality is simply a declaration of rules and
beliefs that are considered absolute guides for human behaviour. According to Hare (1981:27),
"Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical
concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions, are right or wrong." Moral
values and graciousness, in the past, were prominent in most teenagers. Every individual has
capacity for growth. But a seed cannot grow without nurturing. And farmers don't get to neglect
their crops. So moral values has to be inculcated from infancy. Many years ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Pre–school children seem to be most vulnerable to the effect of divorce and adolescents the least.
In most modern industrialized countries, the proportion of working mothers with children under 18
greatly increased in the last few decades of the 20th century, to the point that one–half of all mothers
with children under 5 are in the workforce.
3.Cause biggest, chief, clear, fundamental PEER PRESSURE: Sometime, the child comes to rely
heavily on the peer group for support and guidance during a time when parental nagging about the
child's declining morality begins to be more pronounced. The children of permissive parents often
fall victim of peer pressure and since perhaps only others experiencing the same transition can be
relied upon to understand what that experience

Kant On Morality

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Katyana Londono

More from Katyana Londono (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Kant On Morality