The Meaning of the Word Morality - Literature review Example

The Meaning of the Word: Morality The Meaning of the Word: Morality Morality is a concept that usually has different understating from different aspects of life and from different ethical, political, and religious understanding. In most cases, the practical and observed agnostic or religious goals and values usually have different application of word and its related principles. However, according to Samagond, he did observe and had practical experience with religion during his life through which he tried to examine morality and the independence of religion (Samagond, 2012). During this time and experience, Samagond concluded that religion among the institutions that embrace false platform in its ethical endeavors. According to Samagond, religion falsehood is pegged on its greed, fiction, and imaginations. In other words, religion usually create a false sense of peace and calm thereby taking credit for morality a trait this only human (Niebuhr, 2013). Therefore, it is worth noting that the notion that religion create and brood morality is just a fallacy that needs deep understanding and evaluation. Hence, this essay aims at understanding different aspects of morality and different schools of thoughts in the application of morality in shaping the society. It is worth stating that religion is a powerful force with immense influence on different aspects of human life; hence, religion may subdue rational thinking of human beings and lull people into false thinking on certain basic life concepts including morality (Held, 1993). However, open mindedness should note that morality has different implications and applications since the word can be used in different aspects of life to relent to different situations and meanings. Notably, within the common implication and application, many people usually have the tendency of defining and emphasizing certain parts of the word thereby emphasizing different things with very different meanings. Nonetheless, the clear meaning and implications of morality that are usually misused and misdirected by religion include honesty, rules of conduct, fidelity, character presentation, personal value, and or system of beliefs. Therefore, morality may be the rightness, goodness, wrongness, or badness of an individual’s actions in relation to the above possible implication of the word (Frankel, 2012); however, religion has since been manipulating the connectivity between the above possible relationships towards asserting its effectiveness to the society (Copp, 2001). In so doing, religion has been imposing different and most inaccurate meaning and application of morality in the society. Different societies usually have different implication of honesty; therefore, according to the degree of honesty reflected by a person, the community will depict the honest person has being moral. The same aspect of morality and honest may differ significantly with another community that has different school of thought of honesty. Honesty may be actually regarded as a measure of morality since it only takes a moral person to honest to him/herself as an individual before being honest to other people (McConkey and Lawler, 2003). Therefore, when a person holds the value of being honest in the society he/she is considered immoral. However, the same may never hold for all circumstance especially when dire situations call for otherwise actions that contradict what may be considered not being honest (Held, 1993). For instance, an individual may decide not to be honest at the expense of salvaging a situation. In the instance that a person saves life for not being honest, shall it be said that such a person is immoral? A person who saves life or lives through whichever means including not being honest is still moral. Therefore, it is worth noting that morality has got no one way means of measurement since different situation that sometime contradict may define morality to its totality. In other words, character presentation may change the meaning and implication of morality at any given point. Different people can do the same thing but they may be judged differently depending on their individual character presentation. The same applies in the corridors of justice; people with same case may have different verdicts. For instance, two people accused of killing or taking lives may have different judgment. One person may be convicted while another may be set free or be placed under light punishment (Samagond, 2012). The main reasons that may facilitate these actions are the degree of morality that the actions were committed. In this case, the person who may be considered immoral will be convicted since the motive of his or her actions may have been influenced by personal gain at the expense of his or her victim (Held, 1993). On the other hand, the other person who may be set free or placed under light punishment may have killed due to the circumstances that propelled him in that his or her primary intension were never close to killing (Reitan, 2010). Hence the latter, may be consider moral based on his or her character presentation and the former on the same character presentation, he will be convicted and regarded as immoral. Fidelity is the most Religious measure of morality; therefore, infidelity and religion are two different things that can never mix, but only on the peripheral levels. At what point can infidelity be moral? I do not think that this can apply in any given situation regardless of the nature and or type of relationship that individuals are sharing. Fidelity is the most intense dishonesty that usually ripe relationships (Copp, 2001). However, there are other schools of thoughts that have different definition and consideration of fidelity. For instance, Christianity never regards polygamy, as one man should always be faithful to only one woman to whom he is married; hence, any extra marital affairs will be regarded infidelity thereby considering the involved person immoral (Samagond, 2012). The same applies to women; however, in other religions including Islamic, defining infidelity remains a challenge among men since they can marry as many wives as they can support. Nonetheless, women are not expected to have extra marital affairs. Hence, fidelity may be regarded as one measure of morality that religion uses to strengthen families and relationships (Copp, 2001). However, from this understanding, Christianity for so long has been regarding morality has keeping once sexuality and faithful while in a relationship. Different religious beliefs usually have different systems of beliefs and these systems of beliefs usually define the degree of understanding and application of different concepts. The same concept applies in the understanding and application of morality. For instance, has discussed above, Christianity has a different and parallel understanding on how men and women should control their fidelity (Held, 1993). For the Muslims, men are allowed to have as many women as they can support while the reverse is never allow among Christians. Hence, men with many women in Muslims can never be condemned due to the system of belief among the members of this religion (Dant, 2012). On the contrary, the same men undertaking the same practice will be condemned among Christians. Hence, different religions have different understanding of different concepts including morality due to different systems of beliefs within these institutions among other institutions and schools of thought. Finally, it is worth noting that personal value is critical in understanding and determining the acts of morality or immorality. Some people will always have weird personal values. Thus, they are always considered immoral. On the other hand, persons with valued personal values may sometimes commit certain atrocities, depending on the societal values and considerations, personal values that depend per person will subject people to different measures and dignity regardless of their positions in the society (Samagond, 2012). In other words, regardless of an individual’s position in the society, personal values may help in defining a person as moral or immoral. The concept of morality is a societal value that is regarded to pay vital role in shaping individuals’ character traits in the society. However, different religions among other institutions have used the morality in a bias manner towards reinforcing some religious values and norms. However, it should be noted at all times that the term morality has different implications and consideration; thus, it must be used sparingly (Copp, 2001). Before considering applying morality in judging a person in relation, it would be vital, that you understand different aspects that tern can apply to a person and a situation before judging a person within the same application (Niebuhr, 2013). In other words, narrowed thinking in the definition and application of the morality will usually lead to its bias application; thus, the religious organizations that usually misuse the word intentionally or unintentionally must have a wider consideration in the definition and application of the same in a more independent manner (Samagond, 2012). In other words, morality should never be pegged on any school of thought, religious understanding, or societal definition and understanding, but it should be left to have independent definition and applications within the society and among different institutions. Any bias definition and application of morality within any institution will only be a means of endangering the society by passing wrong and harsh judgment that may be unnecessary. Reference Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Copp, D. (2001). Morality, normativity and society. New York: Oxford University Press. Dant, T. (2012). Television and the moral imaginary: Society through the small screen. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Frankel, S. (2012). Children, morality and society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Held, V. (1993). Feminist morality: Transforming culture, society, and politics. Chicago u.a: Univ. of Chicago Press. McConkey, D., & Lawler, P. A. (2003). Faith, morality, and civil society. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Niebuhr, R. (2013). Moral man and immoral society: A study in ethics and politics. Reitan, R. M. (2010). Making a moral society: Ethics and the state in Meiji Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. Samagond, J. (2012, 06). Morality, independent of religion. India Currents, 26, 103. Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://search.proquest.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/docview/1022703440?accountid=10361 Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Highlight Color Key Yellow = Buzzwords Read More