Morals Based Principles - Coursework Example

Morals Based Paper Introduction Morals can be defined as pertaining to the rules and principles regarding what are considered as right conduct. It also means the principles on which one distinguishes between right and wrong. In fact, there are the normative theories of ethics or the ‘moral theories’ which help a person figure out what is right and what is wrong. The usual and most popular normative theories are Utilitarianism, the Categorical Imperative, Aristotelian virtue ethics, Stoic virtue ethics, and W. D. Ross’s Intuitionism. A look into my morals clearly reveals that I derive the same from the principles of Christianity. Killing and Various Moral Theories To begin with, the first point under consideration here is the morality of killing. I strongly oppose killing. However, a look into the various moral theories proves that none of them is strongly against killing. To illustrate, as Brandt (1984) points out, utilitarianism advocates the greatest good for the greatest number. When one goes deep into this ideology of greatest good for the greatest number, it becomes evident that even killing is permissible under the doctrine, provided it serves the satisfaction of the majority. That means, a criminal can be eliminated for the welfare of the society, a nation can be destroyed if it helps the welfare of many other nations, and so on. Thus, one gains the insight that utilitarianism is not necessarily against all killings. Similar is the case of the Categorical Imperative of Kant. According to the very basis of ‘categorical imperative’, one should only pursue such actions which can be made universal laws (Kant: the moral order, n. d.). To illustrate, when one decides to kill another person for the treachery he committed, the person should think if killing for treachery can be applied as a universal law. In other words, killing people becomes inappropriate only when it seems to one that doing so cannot be applied as a universal law. Otherwise, it is not morally wrong to kill when it is found universally appropriate. Aristotelian virtue ethics too does not seriously oppose killing. According to the principle, the most important thing to be promoted is one’s own personal happiness (Ulrich’s Bimonthly, 2009). In other words, such habits and behaviors should be promoted which are helpful to promote ones personal happiness. That means being an Aristotelian, the question one should ask is whether the action leads to personal happiness. If there is an answer in affirmation, the action is virtuous. Thus, if killing for personal vengeance gives a person personal happiness, it is not wrong under the principles of virtue ethics to kill for vengeance. Then there is the Stoic Virtue Ethics which claims that well reasoned beliefs and thoughts lead to appropriate emotions and actions. It believes in the human impulse to care for others. Thus, according to Stoic Virtue, killing is wrong as far as it is the result of ‘inappropriate beliefs and thoughts’. In other words, in matters like killing for self defense, Stoic Virtue gives the green signal. It is followed by the Intuitionism as propounded by W.D Ross. According to Ross, there is no single overarching principle of morality. Instead, moral values are learned through intuition. According to Ross, there are both prima facie duties which are self evident and duties with intrinsic value. The prima facie duties of a human include the duty of non injury and the duty of beneficence. However, the problem is that these duties are prima facie, and hence can be overridden by other more important conflicting duties. Thus, the problem is that according to Intuitionism, it might seem right to kill a dictator to save the people who are suppressed by him. Similarly, it might seem right to kill someone to keep a promise. In other words, killing is permissible when there is an overriding reason to do so. Killing and Bible However, when one looks into the Christian principles of killing, it becomes evident that my attitude against killing, even killing in self defense, has its basis in Christian religion. Admittedly, the religion is against even killing in self defense according to the New Testament, though there are contradictions as evident from both Old and New Testaments along with the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and Paul Ramsey. In Exodus, God directs “You shall not murder”. Admittedly, it gives one the opportunity to argue that the word ‘murder’ is different from ‘killing’ and that not all types of killing are immoral. However, thereafter, one can see various instances where God gives directions to kill in certain circumstances. However, when one reaches the New Testament, all the doubts are cleared. Jesus proclaims in clear terms “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. ……………and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile” (Mt: 5, 38-48). Thus, though the Old Testament creates some chaos, the New Testament clearly declares its stance against all kinds of killing. After reading this explanation, one gets a clear idea as to what is meant by Jesus when He commands not to resist evildoers. A thorough scrutiny of this information reveals that in Christianity, there are no circumstances when one has to take self defense. Because according to Christ, Christians should promote nonresistance. Admittedly, killing in self defense is against Jesus’ vision of self sacrifice. In other words, for Christians, earthly life is a temporary abode and one is supposed to aim the eternal afterlife. One can see additional evidence in 1 Peter 2:20-24. Peter asks, “If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer fro it, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you…” (1 Peter 2:20-24). Similarly, in the dialogue named On Free Choice of the Will, Evodius, in the argument with St. Augustine, presents some interesting facts about Christian principles on killing. The first point (as cited in Chappell, Loffman and Yaffe (2008) is that one’s love of one’s life is an inordinate desire, and hence, people who kill even for self-defense do so because they love their lives. As it is sinful to act on the basis of inordinate desire, it is sinful to kill in self-defense too (pp. 11-13). Here, one can see one more argument against killing. When Jesus said one should not kill, Evodius points out that one cannot kill even in self-defense because one does not have the right to self-defense. Probably these teachings have their basis in the two greatest commandments given by Christ. The second commandment, as seen in Matthew 22, is “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” When one does not see any difference between oneself and ones neighbor, the issue of killing does not appear at all because one will not kill oneself for self-defense. Thus, regarding killing, I am influenced by Christian beliefs. Mercy and Humility Similar is the case of other morals too. To illustrate, I think I possess mercy. As a matter of fact, the origins of this can be found in the biblical rule that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Luke; 6: 31). In fact, this rule makes the very basis of the kindness I possess. Also, one can see Jesus directing his disciples that “you love one another as I have loved you” (John; 13: 34). Also, Jesus Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, says “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mathew; 5: 44). In fact, kindness and mercy are of the same meaning in practice. Both mean a compassionate forbearance towards a person, an offender, or even an enemy. As already seen in the case of killing, only Christianity is equipped with the moral basis to show mercy and kindness even towards an enemy. Thus, the foundations of my kindness are in the Christian beliefs. Also, there is humility. Evidently, humility is the quality of being humble and no moral principles other than the Bible has considered it as a moral value to be humble. However, the teachings of Jesus gave a lot of importance to humility. To illustrate, in Luke 14:7-11, Jesus advises his disciples that they should not select the best place to sit when they are invited to a wedding feast. He says that those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. Similar is the parable of Pharisee and publican as seen in Luke 18:9-14 in which the publican who humbled himself before God got blessings instead of the Pharisee who exalted himself. Most important of all, one sees Jesus washing the feet of his disciples in John 13:12-17. After that, Jesus points out that his followers should also wash the feet of others. Also, Jesus has mentioned in clear terms that the one who wants to become the leader of others should be the servant of others. Conclusion From the discussion, it becomes evident that the very basis of the morality in me is the principles of Christianity as seen in the New Testament. It seems that New Testament is the only source which opposes killing on any ground. Also, features like humility and mercy towards the evildoers are not seen in other principles of morality. To sum up, I have my morality based on Christian beliefs. References Brandt, R. B. (1984). Utilitarianism and Moral Rights. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 14, (1): 2. Chappell, V. C., Loffman, P & Yaffe, G. (2008). Contemporary perspectives on early modern philosophy. Broadview Press. The Holy Bible. Kant: the moral order. (n. d.). Retrieved from http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm Ulrich’s Bimonthly. (2009). Part 4: philosophy of practice and Aristotelian virtue ethics. Reflections on Reflective Practice (4/7): 1-25. Retrieved from http://wulrich.com/downloads/bimonthly_january2009.pdf Read More