Morals and Ethics as Guiding Principles in Persons Conduct - Essay Example

College Morals and ethics Morality is a philosophic discipline that entails standards and principles which evaluate the conduct of an individual in regards to his or her actions. It focuses on how bad or good ones conduct is. It is regarded by society, religion culture and family setting. On the other hand, ethics is about the decisions which we make. When an individual takes an action with conforms to the societal beliefs and standards, that action are regarded to be ethical. Morals and ethics are guiding principles which assist in giving directions to a person’s conduct. Many at times, people tend to make conclusions that will be of favour to them (Nietzsche, 4). It is essential for a person to act and make ethical decision at all times, even when experiencing a difficult moment. It is also important to choose for a resolution which will be fair to everyone since we will be liable to our actions and deeds whether good or bad. The ultimate goal of these societal values is to make the world a better place. The evaluation of the good and the bad of a deed is based on a couple of issues which pertains to the values of morality in the society (Nietzsche & Arendt). The presumption of an issue by the entire community is a worrying trend. A person can be timid about reprimanding a certain perpetual societal evils, if the society approves it. It is argued individual absent at the instance of an occurrence should not be allowed to deliberate on the issue. No legal proceedings in court would be a success if we allow ourselves to be deceived by this notion. Substantive measures must be enforced to ensure obedience of the law to the letter. A person can use his capacity to ascertain the truth of the matter without necessarily being a witness to an action when it occurred. A verdict is not passed based on hints at that point in time. A good judge should gather effective and concrete evidence that will help him doubt an eyewitness submission or to disregard inappropriate judgements made by those who witnessed a happening of an event. Passing out judgement without ones presence might be considered to be an element of arrogance. In a moral and ethical perspective, it is basically pointing out what is right or wrong and is totally acceptable since it conforms to codes of ethics. Our society is engulfed in fear of judgement that has been confused by a biblical point of view. “Never judge and you will not be judged”. This approach is intertwined with throwing the fast stone. Reluctance to judge the right and wrong prowls that there is no voluntariness to an agent. Anyone is accountable and answerable to their deeds. Rising up of the issues of morality even as a by the way, is accompanied by confrontations to the persons who instigated them. Many people tend to keep quiet due to fear as a result of inadequate self-consciousness, confidence and being ego centric. The modesty attitude of saying a person is not worth to judge is also an impediment to the conformity to morals and ethics. This reflects the resemblance in people’s attitude and mentality. Those who make an effort to uphold to decency are considered to be hypocrites or consecrated therefore, they are marginalized. Thus, the immense outrage and the uproar in the attempt to correct particular blame on an individual, rather than rebuking all actions or historical tendencies. One can get an insight by recalling on what Hitler did to Plato, Nihilism, Giacchino da Fiore, the French revolution. Hitler was a considered to be murderer, politically powerful and strong. His historical traits and background cannot explain exactly who he really was and his general exercise of authority towards people’s agreement .In the context passing that verdict by a person is regarded to lack sophistication in ethics. There should be a prohibition of interference connected to historical interpretation. In Rolf Hochhuth’s fairy-tale “the Duputy”, Pope PiusXII is blamed of his proverbial failure to act accordingly during genocides of the Jews. He was opposed by the Catholic family which might be logical to a certain extent. It was also opposed by the propagated lies of the birth of image makers. Many at times, it has been cited that one should exonerate Hitler and the German community by shifting blame on the pope as the foremost guilty party, which is falsehood. The notion that all Christian fraternity will be laid blame on if the pope is indicted is misleading since the fall of one person cannot sabotage the whole community. Collective guilt is a misleading idea as pointed out towards the Germans in the sense that they all are accused from the historical range of Hitler’s fall. This as a result ends up being unjust and deceptive to all who have put in some efforts to stand for the truth and do what is right. It is unethical to place judgement to anyone in terms of communal guilt. Currently, the Germans have been exonerated by ethical morals and values. A variety of Christianity generations have survived well regardless of the worst popes the community has encountered since. Not all the entire fraternity should be blamed for this misfortune. It is not right to through to waste all human races at the expense of an official in office to save him from accusations of injustice related to ethical values. Fortunately, no sets of rules or law exist in favour of the wrong dowers, besides; there is no court that presides over judgement of such omissions and negligence of moral values. Everyone is subjected to the universal law and he or she is expected to obey. Moral conduct is a matter of course Two authors, Arendt and Nietzsche have varied understanding in relation to memory and remembering of ethics in a political perspective. Arendt’s artistic works on politics have lots of references to memory values in politics. The author continually makes quotations based on leaders in power that were prominent in during the historical era. On the other hand, Nietzsche citations have phrases full of honour for the good qualities of forgetfulness. The significant s of memory in politics is emphasised in Arendt’s writings drawn from her past encounters and the element of totalitarianism. These experiences should be memorized at all times. Due to the fact that it cannot be forgotten, it will always linger in our minds. The solid existence of the memory regarding the concept of totalitarianism is vital for the writer because she argues out that the political outlook and destiny is dependent to it. Conversely, Nietzsche’s approach point out that political future exists on the ability of memory and also on forgetfulness. For a precedent memory to be preserved which is important for future orientation, poor memory is needed. Different policies have been supported by both Arendt and Nietzsche for the purpose of dealing with the lingering question of ways of preserving a past that is needed for future orientation. Arendt brings out the issue centralized promises in modern politics of philosophy (Arendt, 245).Promises are measures of unpredictable processes set off by human acts. These moral values are not are relevant to the outside action, rather from higher encounters outside the action‘s reach. In the absence of actions, airing of birth rite, we would be regarded as being useless (Arendt, 246). A Promise calms human affairs of human and defends it against impending implications of human acts because it is instrumental in controlling the future. The success of future control is due to a specific type of memory. Arendt suggests that a sense of promise is basically a sense of memory which has the capacity a person back to the time they made an agreement of an objective. A promise reminds a group to keep on sticking together and acts as an interlink between individuals and a past. Future control is exercised by the promise by ways of pushing the future father into the past, with changes time flow. In turn, one is born into secured past instead of uncertain future. Arendt exhorts the aptitude of man of making promises and to regard the future as a past. Nietzsche acknowledges that memory of freedom is responsive to a necessity of life (Nietzsche, 38).The will of memory doesn’t have the pleasures of promise making. Memory of will is basically recognised for its cruelty entailed in the making. Contrary, Arendt applauds the significance in greatness which is as a result of abiding by the promises. He does not react on inherent cruelty to “memory of the will”. According to Nietzsche, a promise is an investigation of force from a life point of view. It reveals a memory is not an instance of a promise. Every promise is a memory involvement against forgetfulness. The issues of collective judgement, ignorance are among those that contribute to a breach of ethical values. Individuals within the society should play a role of collective responsibility to ensure that rules and regulations are adhered to. A person who is spotted with ethical issues should be held accountable. This step will help make reform and finally make a world a better place for the entire human generation. Work cited Arendt, Hannah, and Jerome Kohn. Responsibility and Judgment. New York: Schocken Books, 2003. Print. Nietzsche, Friedrich W, and Douglas Smith. On the Genealogy of Morals: A Polemic : by Way of Clarification and Supplement to My Last Book, Beyond Good and Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Read More