Moral absoluteism believes that there is an absolute standard for judging moral issues - whether an action is right or wrong. It is contrary to moral relativism, that is, there is no universal moral principle - they are culturally defined. Religion is a perfect example of doctrinal-based tension, as the word "like Romans in Rome" continues. Religion is about the dignity of life and fulfilling our purpose as a human being. Focus on commonality. What is the purpose behind your religious beliefs? We accept that we can share the same goal even if others have different beliefs Many people say morals come from our religious beliefs, and our morals are accepted by our religious practices. Our parents and religious groups taught us morality and unacceptable in our faith. Perhaps this is the reason that countries with certain major religions tend to agree on certain moral beliefs and that other religious beliefs do not agree. But can it really be said that things other than our religious beliefs are not moral? I said that it is not a religion that produces morality, but morality of creating religion. Moral reasoning, also called moral development, is a psychological study overlapping with moral philosophy. Children can correctly make false moral decisions from an early age; this makes morals the basis of human condition. But moral reasoning is part of the morality that occurs between individuals and individuals. Excellent contributors to this theory are Lawrence Kohlberg and Elliot Turiel. This term is sometimes used in different ways. It is inference under uncertainty, such as reasoning normally obtained in court. It is this feeling to produce the phrase "moral certainty"; however, this idea is now rarely used by juries other than fees.

Socrates of the Republic of Plato is usually working on dialogue with people who claim to be experts on ethical issues. By asking simple questions Socrates gradually revealed that these people were indeed very confused and did not really understand what they claim to be experts. Morality is a moral problem raised by the Republic of Plato. Socrates believes that Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus respond to morality. When Socrates and Kefalls were wealthy old people talking about money, a moral problem emerged. The morality of the master-slave is the central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's work, especially the first article of "moral lineage". Nietzsche believes that there are two basic types of morality: "dominant morality" and "slave morality". Masters of pride and power of moral value, slavery morality appraises goodness, consideration, compassion. Unlike the morality of slavery, morality of ethics measures good or bad outcome behavior (ie classical virtue and vice, resultism) and the morality of a slave weighs the behavior of a good malicious image (Example: Christian's virtue and vice, Kant morality) Master is the creator of morals; slaves use the morals of their slaves to respond to their morals. Unlike Master's morality (emotion), the morality of a slave is based on the revaluation of feelings, that is, the devaluation of master and slave. Since the moral of the Lord began with a strong man, the morality of a slave began with the weak. Since the morality of slavery is a response to oppression, it will destroy oppressors. The morality of slavery is the opposite of the master's morality. Therefore, it is characterized by pessimism and sneer. The emergence of slave morality go against the "good" of the master's moral values. Nietzsche believes that there are two types of morality. Active morality that actively appears from "nobility" and slave morality developing reactively in the weak. These two ethics do not show a simple reversal of each other. Moral ethics incorporates action into the "good" or "bad" outcome, and the morality of slaves incorporates the behavior into the "good" or "bad" intent. To my surprise, he looked down on both, even if the first one was considerably less than the second one.

Nouns, nouns, adjectives, nouns, nouns, nouns, nouns, nouns, nouns and nouns that see more ethical synonyms at Thesaurus.coman In the latter half of the 14th century, "moral quality" is an ancient French ethic "moral (story); moral education; moral, moral quality" (13c.), Direct moral morality from Latin (subjective morality) Born from "method, personality". Ethics (see moral (complementary)). The meaning of "good" has been proved from the 1590's Without a free agent there is no morality. There is little demand for virtue where there is no temptation. If the law strictly prohibits day-to-day operations, laws and unincorporated persons must have the advantage of that act. [William H. Prescott, "Conquer the history of Peru", 1847] Universalism is synonymous with moral universalism, and the compromise between moral relativism and moral absoluteism. Utilitarian ethical theory of maintaining behavior is moral only if it maximizes welfare. This is a form of resultism and welfareism. Utopianism is a number of social and political movements based on the idea that heaven can be accomplished on the ground, as well as numerous religious and secular literature. See Utopia. Value pluralism thinks that there is a possibility that two or more moral values ​​are the same (true), but there is a contradiction. In addition, in many cases, we assume that this incompatibility value can be reasonably uncommunicable. Therefore, value pluralism is a theory in meta ethics, not an ethical theory or a series of values ​​itself. Isaiah · Berlin, a historian at Oxford University, was recognized as having completed the first substantial research on value pluralism, attracting the attention of the general academic circles. Value can be thought of in a variety of ways, but discussion on pluralism can cover various kinds of moral theory. Traditionally, moral philosophers have recognized three different ways of moral thinking, a moral approach, a resultist approach, and a moral approach despite arguments about the strength of these distinctions . The term "value" appearing in "value pluralism" is neutral among these three theories. Moralists believe that morals are fundamentally moral principles. Therefore, whether moral theory is pluralism is the question of how many basic principles exist. On the contrary, the problem of diversity is how many basic items exist, as resultualism tends to see value, friendship, knowledge, beauty, and other products of the world accomplishment.

Philosophical paper shipped on the same day $ 9.95 per page / page + free bibliography! More philosophers and philosophical articles 3 / 36previous page Next page Emanuel Kant's "Pure Rational Criticism" [to me take this. In the essay on page 5, I analyze Kant's work and focus on pure rationality as the core development ideal. Other materials are not quoted. File name: Kantreas.wps Analysis of the concept of goodwill by Emmanuel Kant [sent this paper] essay on page 5 exploring the principles of honesty of German philosopher Immanuel Kant, as he did in 1785. It is stated in "Basic Principles of Moral Metaphysics" (also known as the basic principle of morality). Foundations of moral metaphysics The morality of the master-slave is the central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's work, especially the first article of "moral lineage". Nietzsche believes that there are two basic types of morality: "dominant morality" and "slave morality". Masters of pride and power of moral value, slavery morality appraises goodness, consideration, compassion. Unlike the morality of slavery, morality of ethics measures good or bad outcome behavior (ie classical virtue and vice, resultism) and the morality of a slave weighs the behavior of a good malicious image (Example: Christian's virtue and vice, Kant morality) Master is the creator of morals; slaves use the morals of their slaves to respond to their morals. Unlike Master's morality (emotion), the morality of a slave is based on the revaluation of feelings, that is, the devaluation of master and slave. Since the moral of the Lord began with a strong man, the morality of a slave began with the weak. Since the morality of slavery is a response to oppression, it will destroy oppressors. The morality of slavery is the opposite of the master's morality. Therefore, it is characterized by pessimism and sneer. The emergence of slave morality go against the "good" of the master's moral values. Nietzsche believes that there are two types of morality. Active morality that actively appears from "nobility" and slave morality developing reactively in the weak. These two ethics do not show a simple reversal of each other. Moral ethics incorporates action into the "good" or "bad" outcome, and the morality of slaves incorporates the behavior into the "good" or "bad" intent. To my surprise, he looked down on both, even if the first one was considerably less than the second one.

Morality is a difficult term to define and decipher because there are many things to consider. If you rank 10 groups and ask moral questions, you may get different answers. People all over the world have various beliefs and are promoted to support these beliefs. Abortion is one of the topics in our country and it is a big moral matter. Some people think that abortion is murder and that it is a moral error. Then there is no other problem with this, there are people who think that it is not murder. The morality of the master-slave is the central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's work, especially the first article of "moral lineage". Nietzsche believes that there are two basic types of morality: "dominant morality" and "slave morality". Masters of pride and power of moral value, slavery morality appraises goodness, consideration, compassion. Unlike the morality of slavery, morality of ethics measures good or bad outcome behavior (ie classical virtue and vice, resultism) and the morality of a slave weighs the behavior of a good malicious image (Example: Christian's virtue and vice, Kant morality) Master is the creator of morals; slaves use the morals of their slaves to respond to their morals. Unlike Master's morality (emotion), the morality of a slave is based on the revaluation of feelings, that is, the devaluation of master and slave. Since the moral of the Lord began with a strong man, the morality of a slave began with the weak. Since the morality of slavery is a response to oppression, it will destroy oppressors. The morality of slavery is the opposite of the master's morality. Therefore, it is characterized by pessimism and sneer. The emergence of slave morality go against the "good" of the master's moral values. Nietzsche believes that there are two types of morality. Active morality that actively appears from "nobility" and slave morality developing reactively in the weak. These two ethics do not show a simple reversal of each other. Moral ethics incorporates action into the "good" or "bad" outcome, and the morality of slaves incorporates the behavior into the "good" or "bad" intent. To my surprise, he looked down on both, even if the first one was considerably less than the second one. Nietzsche does not necessarily believe that everyone should regard the moral of the master as the action of "everyone, everyone". He believes that moral reassessment will correct subjective and moral contradictions. But he insists that for the individual the moral of the master is better than the morality of the slave. Walter Kaufman opposed the fact that Nietzsche actually liked the moral of master and the morality of slave. He certainly will give more thorough criticism of the morals of slavery, but this is part of the reason he believes that the morality of slavery is a more immediate danger to society.

Morality is morally relative. Ruth Benedict and James Rachel opposed this contradictory problem. Benedict is "the most important American anthropologist teaching at Columbia University" (Pojman 370) and believes that morality is related to human culture. Her argument is this: 1. 2. There is no objective moral principle and all moral principles are related to culture Rachels' Professor of Alabama University (Pojman 375) does not match Benedict. And believe that morality is not relative. Moral absoluteism believes that there is an absolute standard for judging moral issues - whether an action is right or wrong. It is contrary to moral relativism, that is, there is no universal moral principle - they are culturally defined. Religion is a perfect example of doctrinal-based tension, as the word "like Romans in Rome" continues. Religion is about the dignity of life and fulfilling our purpose as a human being. Focus on commonality. What is the purpose behind your religious beliefs? We accept that we can share the same goal even if others have different beliefs Religion is closely related to morality. But they are different ideas, different reality, they influence the political community and the legislative in different ways. Religion is not morality, religious freedom is not moral freedom. Religion attempts to find correspondence to the transcendental problem including the ultimate beliefs and beliefs. Morality tries to answer questions about intentions, decision-making, and behavior of good-will (good) or malicious (wrong) of people of individuals and communities. Morality has both political and religious divisions. The difference between political morality and religious morality is that political morality should be reasonable, that is, it should be based on moral theory. Otherwise, it can not be applied according to the standards, rules and procedures of the legal system (Constitution, Criminal Law, Tax Law, Property Law etc). However, religious morality can be based on moral theory, based on moral "super rational" (not opposite, but beyond reasonable), even irrational moral claims. The religious prohibition of slavery is based on moral reasons, not moral super rationality. Therefore, political groups and religious organizations can agree to prohibit slavery based on unethical conduct. The religious ban on abortion and euthanasia is also based on moral reasons. There is no need to become a Christian to refuse abortion and euthanasia. Political ethics should be based entirely on moral theory. The reason can not depend on religious claims. Therefore, the political circle should not impose super rationality of religious morality. Such compulsion infringes freedom of religion and goes beyond state power or jurisdiction. The political compulsion of fasting during the period of Lent opposes religious freedom, as well as political forcing to wear kippers and veils or to impose men's circumcision. It is not contrary to reason (to obey the rules of God that it does not go against the reason) to fast for a lunch-off, to wear kippers and veils, to practice circumcision of a boy, even ones based on moral reasons There is none. Unless there is a legitimate political and moral reason, the political ban on religious morality is also against religious freedom. There are no political and moral reasons and therefore do not infringe freedom of religion

Morality: essential to life Russian born American science fiction writer and biochemist said, "Never mind your morality does not disturb your correct behavior." What is correct? How does morality affect the people and the community in which we live. Everyone has certain morals and they are trying to send their lives. People understand what their morals are. What is morality? We can not honestly answer these questions because everyone has its own definition of how to define their right and wrong and their lives. The morality of the master-slave is the central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's work, especially the first article of "moral lineage". Nietzsche believes that there are two basic types of morality: "dominant morality" and "slave morality". Masters of pride and power of moral value, slavery morality appraises goodness, consideration, compassion. Unlike the morality of slavery, morality of ethics measures good or bad outcome behavior (ie classical virtue and vice, resultism) and the morality of a slave weighs the behavior of a good malicious image (Example: Christian's virtue and vice, Kant morality) Master is the creator of morals; slaves use the morals of their slaves to respond to their morals. Unlike Master's morality (emotion), the morality of a slave is based on the revaluation of feelings, that is, the devaluation of master and slave. Since the moral of the Lord began with a strong man, the morality of a slave began with the weak. Since the morality of slavery is a response to oppression, it will destroy oppressors. The morality of slavery is the opposite of the master's morality. Therefore, it is characterized by pessimism and sneer. The emergence of slave morality go against the "good" of the master's moral values. Nietzsche believes that there are two types of morality. Active morality that actively appears from "nobility" and slave morality developing reactively in the weak. These two ethics do not show a simple reversal of each other. Moral ethics incorporates action into the "good" or "bad" outcome, and the morality of slaves incorporates the behavior into the "good" or "bad" intent. To my surprise, he looked down on both, even if the first one was considerably less than the second one.

Morality By evolving rules and regulations that we observe, we lead to separate conclusions that religion and its "morality" have full power to our existence. Morality is quality that meets the criteria of correct behavior or good behavior. However, for most people in the world, so-called Christian morals and religious morals define this correctness and error system. Religion itself is defined as the faith and respect of supernatural power and power considered to be creator and ruler of the universe. The subject of this article is not - at least not a direct moral theory, but rather it is the definition of morality. Moral theory is big and complicated, but the definition is not so. The problem of moral definition is the question of determining the theoretical goal of morality. By identifying this goal, we can see different moral theories trying to capture the same thing. Thus, the difference between moral definition and moral theory is similar to the difference between John Rawls (1971: 9) in the general concept of justice and various detailed concepts. However, Rawls' words mean psychological distinction, and many people have a concept of justice. But the difference between definition and theory is not psychological, only moral theorists usually have a moral theory. There seems to be little reason to believe that a single definition of ethics applies to all ethical arguments. One reason is that "morality" seems to be used in two different broad categories. More specifically, the term "moral" or two "moral" used by a theorist can play a decisive role in the development of moral theory, but sometimes it is not recognized . . If a person uses "moral" in a descriptive sense and therefore uses it to refer to the actual code of conduct proposed by a different group or society, people are almost certainly applied to all universals I deny the existence of moral. The descriptive use of "morality" is what anthropologists use when reporting the social ethics they study. A brief explanation of morality is that it is a clear field of research, including morals of human behavior or behavior. Morality is a mere judgment of human behavior, behavior or behavior, whether correct or wrong, good or bad. Morality can also be defined as research on the basic principles of morality and its application in real situations. The terms "ethics" and "moral" are often used interchangeably as synonyms, but the concept of morality is much broader than the concept of morality. Before we began to learn ethics, we already had a moral sense, and we did a number of moral decisions, and we made conscious the principles on which these judgments were based And there is no need to think obviously. People all over the world seem to have a moral intuition

In the field of iPod, SMS, video chat, online video game, e-mail, what do the average teenagers think about morality? Whether this generation's students are receiving the necessary moral support from their parents, school, and community people. Whether these organizations should be involved in helping students develop their ethics. How should morals be defined, and what is "correct"? These are the problems confronted by vocational school counselors (PSC), and we need to ask ourselves regularly. David Purpel explains three general approaches to moral education. Personality education, clarification of value, and cognitive / developmental approach (The Hidden Curriculum and Moral Education, 1983). Sex education is the oldest model by identifying a set of ethical or moral virtues that have been formed through habit formation from childhood. We model the role using modeling and external hardening and assume it is ultimately reliable and predictable. Number of characters! Character education as a general approach has several weaknesses, but there are also weak points specific to that theory and education plan. In order to highlight the problem of this approach, the following discussion will compare character education with studies of Robert Coles on moral life and children's moral wisdom. Let's criticize the number of people! Curriculum Model as a Clear Moral Education in Public Schools Moral education such as character education is as old as society and education. It involves the ethical aspects of individuals and society and explores how to set up correct and false criteria. Therefore, moral education teaches the core moral value of helping to take care of ethically responsible and self-ordered citizens, including integrity and responsibility, and to develop it. Problem solving, decision making, and conflict resolution are also important parts of a good moral character. Excellent role shaping in classrooms and communities is important in ethics education, because role students and students understand how their actions and decisions affect other people in society through role play and discussion. Therefore morality is caught, not lessons learned, life in the classroom is full of moral meaning and shapes the character and moral development of the students. Moral education has various meanings and meanings. There are many ideas about how to teach ethics and values. The result is often suspicion of moral education. First of all, for some educators, this term has a negative meaning, suggesting a hypocritical behavior like a church. In this understanding, morality means freedom, tradition, Puritan Education, and not Drop. Secondly, moral education seems to contradict directly with social moral values ​​and ways of focusing on welfare. Educators may think that they should focus on positive social features and values ​​such as cooperative social coordination and democracy, not moral beliefs. This dangerous view often leads to educators and citizens completely avoiding moral education in a democratic society and therefore leading skepticism about morality.

Terrorism and ethics emerged following the attack on 11th September 2001 and the US military operations in Afghanistan. We will discuss these issues in this article. Many church leaders and major thinkers in the United States have strongly defended the use of force by the United States since 11th September. But outside the United States, it is about economic and social inequality not just war of justice. The main and top priority inequality currently faced by Americans is such: real killers, these killer architects are still alive, are determined to kill again, and murder Victims are deprived of their lives This article is organized in four parts. Is terrorism moral to answer this question? First we must define terrorism and morality. Therefore, the first part explores problems in the definition of terrorism. I used general rhetorical usage of this term. Someone other than the government or its agent killed for political purposes and destroyed or destroyed valuable things. However, in assessing the morals of terrorism, furthermore, terrorism is considered to be part of politically motivated violence, including government-led violence, and the victims who explore the ethics of such violence I will ask if these factors will affect our moral conclusion. In the second part, we explore the three most widely accepted modern moral theories - resultism, morality, morality - and apply each theory to. Terrorism is considered from the perspective of instrumentism and morality. In the process of suggesting that terrorism is usually an unethical case, the fact that I am arguing is not the case. For example, I believe that violence is morally justified and that we can defeat genocide and slavery. In fact, many definitions of contemporary "terrorism" include slave revolts, but many people now believe that these terrorists are heroes. In the second part, we will examine the concept of moral position by explaining why you propagandize violence and morals and how to do it. In the third part, we criticized the serious dependence on the utilitarianism of the criminal justice system. I am doing the same moral criticism of most forms of utilitarian punishment against most forms of terrorism. Finally, if penalties are not used as a final tool, I imagine how the US criminal justice will be improved.

Americans are deeply shocked and divided about the importance of politicians recently facing personal lives and how they change their political and public image. Americans are bystanders so that drama can be unfolded, but public figures should keep drawing attention, so you can review whatever they can say, what they can do. Society expects them to do better, gives them power, and wishes that they will proactively show it to our country. Depending on the personal choice of politicians, they may have a permanent impact on their future and the future of the country. Politics is not the whole of life. Those who think you are a political enemy are not defined as individuals by their politics. In addition to being "socialists", "nationalists", even "bureaucrats" and "politicians", everyone may become peace trade and community partners. Socialists may be your barista. A nationalist may be your plumber. Bureaucracy is the mother of someone. This politician is someone's brother. If you are already near the neighborhood, you will know that politicians naming things delicately as they are not. As long as you listen to freedom or families in the name of policy, you have to panic. DCRF is the truth division. This is the goal. "Protecting physicians, nurses and other health professionals who refused to receive abortion or other treatments for certain people due to moral or religious objections." Listen to the way you want, and to any band the car driver wants. This is due to how it works. The driver will operate the radio. Religious freedom means that government adults can not force you to change your religious beliefs, pray, or enact a specific law different from other religions. In today's society, there is no concrete social structure of morality or morality. One of the foundations of today's social truth is that there is no truth. "Everyone did what I saw with my own eyes" (ESV) I quote that my philosophical words are ringing in my ears. "What is the truth?" Essentially, today's society has lost all its true appearance. Sometimes people feel that society wants to weaken all the moral structures of the past and create new morals. Morality is not moral, everyone should do what they think is right for them.

Music and Ethics "Let's concentrate on what the Greeks wrote many years ago, dealing with savage humanity and living kindly in this world" famous Robert Kennedy's famous words are our famous words including music It reminds me of my predecessor. Different aspects of our influence. Throughout history, we have seen how important the music and music morality is for many societies. In the early days of 400 BC, in the times of philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, music had a major impact on the diversity of society (which is quite different from today's situation) in the days of philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. Merriam-Webster defines morality as "beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong action". The influence of Google's quick search of music on ethics has a lot of influence on the negative impact on society, especially in the field of rap music and hip-hop music. However, today's various styles of music have many lyrics such as lyrics, medicines, violence, etc. that may be beautiful. Although studies can not clearly associate the causal behavior of listening to these songs with direct induction of such behavior, many researchers and people believe that it certainly promotes such behavior ing. I am an 18-year-old Catholic girl who likes hip-hop music, but in general it does not affect bad behavior. This moral character determines his / her behavior, not the music they listen to. Hip-hop may have bad news such as sex and alcohol. Wait a moment ... But most of the people listening to music will listen to the beat. You do not necessarily need to listen to the lyrics. Just because hip - hop is a type of music, it has nothing to do with someone 's compass code or ethics. A person who comes from someone's conscience. You must choose to do bad things or do bad things. The appearance is another factor of hip hop. Hip-hop evaluates how specific artists' music is judged and decides their morality as people leaving the music industry. According to Brandon Seymour, a musician and marketer, "The image is essentially the lifeline of the underground music industry." Please look at Miley Cyrus. As early as 2000, she was an idol of country star, lover, and many young girls. Today, Miley Cyrus is known for the provocative appearance at the MTV Music Awards and the horrible costumes she saw. But will this change her personality and her real identity? No In 2015, Miley is active in 40 charitable organizations and supports over 29 reasons, including addiction, cancer, depression, suicide, human rights, LGBT support. Society fired Miley Cyrus as she presented himself in a way that many people could not accept.

From the "moral and unethical and ethical future", most authors seem to promote either morality, internal cohesion or external threats. But moral is good as well. In Somit and Peterson 's Darwinism, Domination and Democracy, the authors say: Natural selection (to underestimate this problem) to give social primates a tendency to rank social structures. The moral condition is the extent to which an organism deserves ethical considerations, and is usually placed at the top of the hierarchy. Although the complete moral status (FMS) is seen in many respects, it is generally thought that fully competent adults have a higher moral status than plants and animals. Philosophers put emphasis on the composition of FMS. Moral status is important as ethical decisions on animal research, abortion, stem cell research, eugenics, and euthanasia are affected. The philosophy to achieve FMS varies from cognitive ability of some degree to species with some level of cognitive ability. Gandhi believes that all lives are equal, but many people believe that certain creatures have a higher moral status than other creatures. Moral status is the concept of linking morality to hierarchy of people, animals and the environment through hierarchy. It includes the extent to which various creatures are worth considering. Aristotle was one of the first people who provided advice on the rank of various creatures. Aristotle concluded that animals are superior to plants, as animals can consciously think. Therefore, animals are better than animals, as humans can use rationality instead of instincts. There is a clear hierarchy here. We are not the same as G - d, the animals are not the same as humans. The myth of equality is only to protect the weak in the world without morality. However, moral creatures with clear moral principles can recognize natural inequality without using nature. Higher the responsibility. Nature is here to serve us, but we are here to serve the G - d. It means to respect all his creatures regardless of whether they are equal or not. Equality is meaningless. Hierarchy is very important. The game is different. Sex is different. Moral problems and corruption are reality. All cultures are unequal and we are not obliged to think that they are. A person is a corrupt creature, and life is more than hollow materialism. Finally, Caucasians are important, civilization is priceless. This is Alt-Right. It is clear that white nationalists are not only serious but logical to achieve their goals (although they are morally bankrupt). Because they know that they are thought to be aggressive, it is "hide your level of power" (ie hide your true intention) from more centralist and progressive whites It is advisable. Their aim was initially to incorporate the phrases and images of Caucasian nationalism into the mainstream story. They also have concrete short-term goals, such as attacks on certain immigration laws.

Republicans are right, but - the "sacredness of oath" (Keillor 102), this is a hot topic of this year 's discussion. This theme not only caused intense debate among Congress members, but also caused controversy among American people. Some people take an oath as civilization and pledge to mankind. On the other hand, other people believe that the morals oaths should represent can not be realized and can not be achieved. In my opinion, Garrison Kilol summarized this in his article "Republicans are right." I think this is a very good article based on the author's moral argument, his use of the symbol, and the overall structure of the article. In this article we analyze in detail whether morality, happiness, and moral quality are necessary conditions of happiness. In the concept of ethics of morality and happiness, individual evaluations of events and actions are used to distinguish between good and evil and specify actions consistent with good deeds. This means that ethics will promote socially recognized social value. In addition, ethics includes the happiness of others transcending our selfish desire, and the responsibility to express morality through care, kindness, kindness. Business ethics is an analysis of ethical behavior in practice and activities, reflecting specific social ethics and values. It is clear that companies will influence our personal lives and social life. But what role does corporate ethics play in the way employers handle employees? How will business ethics affect the handling of competitors, consumers and the environment? By understanding business ethics, individuals can deal with ethical dilemmas and respect honesty, trust building, fair competition, and human dignity. Obligations between employers and employees are as important as sales from advertising to marketing and competition, as well as ethical observations in every business channel. Business ethics focuses on business policies, institutions, and ethical standards applied to their actions. In other words, it is a form of application or practice ethics. It involves not only analyzing ethics and values ​​but also applying the conclusions of this analysis to what we call commercial systems, technology, trading, activities and pursuits. Corporate ethics will investigate three different problems. It is systematic, corporate, and personal. Systematic problems in business ethics concern the ethical issues of economic, legal, political and other social systems in business management. Corporate problems in business ethics are ethical issues posed by specific companies. A personal problem in business ethics is an ethical question caused by individuals or individuals within the company.

Americans are deeply shocked and divided about the importance of politicians recently facing personal lives and how they change their political and public image. Americans are bystanders so that drama can be unfolded, but public figures should keep drawing attention, so you can review whatever they can say, what they can do. Society expects them to do better, gives them power, and wishes that they will proactively show it to our country. Depending on the personal choice of politicians, they may have a permanent impact on their future and the future of the country. Politics is not the whole of life. Those who think you are a political enemy are not defined as individuals by their politics. In addition to being "socialists", "nationalists", even "bureaucrats" and "politicians", everyone may become peace trade and community partners. Socialists may be your barista. A nationalist may be your plumber. Bureaucracy is the mother of someone. This politician is someone's brother. If you are already near the neighborhood, you will know that politicians naming things delicately as they are not. As long as you listen to freedom or families in the name of policy, you have to panic. DCRF is the truth division. This is the goal. "Protecting physicians, nurses and other health professionals who refused to receive abortion or other treatments for certain people due to moral or religious objections." Listen to the way you want, and to any band the car driver wants. This is due to how it works. The driver will operate the radio. Religious freedom means that government adults can not force you to change your religious beliefs, pray, or enact a specific law different from other religions. In today's society, there is no concrete social structure of morality or morality. One of the foundations of today's social truth is that there is no truth. "Everyone did what I saw with my own eyes" (ESV) I quote that my philosophical words are ringing in my ears. "What is the truth?" Essentially, today's society has lost all its true appearance. Sometimes people feel that society wants to weaken all the moral structures of the past and create new morals. Morality is not moral, everyone should do what they think is right for them.

Moral and moral It is immoral for a man to lie to his resume. This question itself poses many questions. How fiction lies, what you are lying about, what is the outcome of this lie, and how does this lie affect stakeholders? How does John Stuart Mill answer this question? Mill's overall position seems to produce the greatest happiness, happiness, and pain. With that in mind, those who forge their resume will bring great happiness to that person and family. According to Britannica, the use of "moral" and "moral" is sometimes interchangeable and will be brought together under "moral philosophy". Both moral and moral try to distinguish whether something is good or bad, right or wrong. The Australian Ethics Center defines ethics as dealing with the question "What should I do?" And how the behavior of people is shaped by their values ​​and principles. Morality is value and principle itself. Morality and ethics vary from person to person, depending on the influence of that person including religion, culture, family, friends, education, etc. For example, in Central Asia the wife's theft is commonly done, but for Westerners My wife's theft is considered immoral. Some philosophers distinguish morality from morality. However, when talking about personal beliefs, behavior, or principles, many people use the moral and moral of words. For example, it is often said that "my ethics will prevent me from being cheated on." It is common to use ethics in this sentence. I distinguish morality from morality. "Ethics" means moral principles, virtues, standards, etc. that people must live or act (or reflect). "Moral" or "moral philosophy" refers to the process by which people participate in pondering morality, its nature and foundation, or the result of reflection. In the latter case, morality and (ideal) moral overlap - at least partly overlap. Because human morality involves various logical and methodological perspectives and is therefore not part of a person's (ideal) morality, they may be considered different.

Morality is universal throughout history, human beings looking back, seeking morals, religion, and how they influence and define the truth of civilization. As the ancient Greek stories and myths avoid many of the temptations of our souls by teaching the characteristics of the "fruit of the sick who harvests" and the value of warnings, we have a view similar to our own Bible is showing. Dante Alighieri revealed in "God's Comedy" that "pride, jealousy, greed is three sparks that burns those hearts (three universally fatal crimes)" (Bartlett 80). An ongoing debate is whether the moral concept itself is universal or relative. In my opinion, at the basic level, understanding of morality is universal. For example, it is honest, honest and other values. However, there are many factors that make the moral understanding and moral development clearer. In my opinion, the structures and phases proposed by Coleburg seem to be universal, but the conceptualization of individual characteristics, cultural and social outlook are different. Universalism is synonymous with moral universalism, and a compromise between moral relativism and moral absoluteism. Utilitarian ethical theory of maintaining behavior is moral only if it maximizes welfare. This is a form of resultism and welfareism. Utopianism is a number of social and political movements based on the idea that heaven can be accomplished on the ground, as well as numerous religious and secular literature. See Utopia. Value pluralism thinks that two or more moral values ​​are equal (real) possibilities, but there is contradiction. Furthermore, in many cases, we assume that this incompatible value may be reasonably unboundable. Therefore, value pluralism is a theory in meta ethics, not an ethical theory or a series of values ​​itself. Oxford University historian Isaiah Berlin was acknowledged in the first substantial research on value diversification and attracted the attention of the general academic community.

As a human being, we often measure the virtue we believe on our scale and on our fellow scale; without our moral rulers, it is difficult for us to form a true self-view. The obvious problem of this universal human practice is that our analysis depends greatly on the company we hold. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the poet got over the difficulties of Sir Gawain to explore moral development. The true meaning of moral status. Question 1: Moral relativism suffers from so-called reformers' dilemma. If moral relativism is true, society can not have moral reformers. why? Ethical reformers are members of a society that claims to need to reform and change norms, outside the social moral code. For example during the Holocaust, Colleten Boom endangered his life to save Jews. William Wilberforce tried to abolish slavery in the late 18th century. US Martin Luther King Jr. for civil rights struggle, if moral relativism is true, then these reformists are immoral. You see that if the behavior is right and if it is consistent with the norms of society, the moral reformers themselves are immoral persons. Ethical reformers violate the norms of society, so it is always necessary to be wrong. However, as we all know that true moral reform was done, this view has a flaw. Dr. Martin Luther King writes the difference between the moral law and the immorality law in a letter to Birmingham Prison. His argument is that moral people have moral responsibility to destroy these laws by disobedience of citizens if the law is immoral. Ignoring immoral and unethical behavior, the country is morally destroyed and leads to complete moral death. In the event that the rule of law collapses, our people not only take responsibility for moral responsibility not to obey what is left behind by the law, but also actively contribute aid and consolation to immoral tyrant attacking the United States There are times when you are punished. In this paper we discuss the rationale for moral rights in civil disobedience and explain the moral assumption made in maintaining this right in modern times. It is proved that ethical grounds for civil disobedience exist and that these moral foundations will determine whether a person violates the law in a public way without causing physical damage or loss of life I want to do it. Morality concerns good and evil, and supports the position of good or evil. Authority is the ability to manage, enforce, enforce, influence, or determine the outcomes of individuals, groups, communities, and countries in public and private spaces. Authorities may be lawful or illegal. But moral authority is always considered fair, just and legitimate. Having moral authority is in power

Law and Morality Everyone has to decide the fate of others' lives This is not a daily affair. The dilemma of deciding that someone has to die for the survival of others is obviously an obstacle. The process of ending life may be simple, but to prove that this decision is the most difficult. In this article I will explain the situation where it is very important to decide to take away people's lives. The situation is a nuclear war that destroyed most civilization centers. This article is trying to clarify the relationship between law and moral and how it should be. Given that some laws are immoral, some laws are reasonably morally neutral, and certain aspects of administrative ethics have institutional limitations. But what? It must be. First, even procedural laws may have practical results, making seemingly equal choices virtually different. For example, if it turns out that there is some reason (even statistical confirmation alone), public safety is driving safely better than the right side on the left side of the road, so public safety determines the law. Driving on the left side I cited several examples where legislation and ethics should be confused with the actual existence of law and ethics. Next are some examples where positive laws are confused with positive morals and confused with law and moral science. Through rumors, those who only know Roman attorneys are accustomed to understanding their philosophy. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only part of their work worthy of being despised. Their outstanding strengths are not general guesses, they are interpreters of Roman law. They grasped their general principles with great clarity and penetration and used them to explain the logic of superb detail. But after the philosophy that they borrowed from the Greeks, or the example of Greece, the philosophy they created themselves was a waste.

How much salvation is offered abroad is morally obligatory. This is a good thing, but many people say that there is no obligation to provide something. Some people say that if a person's needs outweigh their needs, he should donate some of what he has. However, Peter Singer did a completely different perspective. His paper "Famine, Prosperity and Morality" focuses on the crisis of Bangladesh in 1971, arguing that people have an obligation to give as much moral as possible. His thesis supports "the idea that we should give it until we reach the level of marginal utility - by giving more than that, I or the same as my family suffer as much pain Will result. Moral philosophy is a concept designed to provide answers to human moral problems. In order to achieve this goal, human actors need to recognize and recruit moral obligations and moral obligations. In his attitude towards human morality, Kant emphasizes basic human morality and moral responsibility based on the results of his famous 'moral metaphysical foundation' work. Therefore, from this platform, the answer given by moral and psychological science clearly shows that morality determines the determinism and behavior of human subjects and also affects human socialization. Therefore, Kant's attitude towards human morality is trying to explain these concepts (Johnson, 2008). In his first moral philosophy, "foundation of moral metaphysics", Kant can provide us a way to determine the moral controversy to provide us with a common moral instinct to us I tried to systematize it. Do not ask various questions or clarify. According to common understanding, he pointed out that the only unconditional good thing in the world is goodwill. Well-known good fortune, health, and even happiness are not unconditionally good. When they marry the bad guys they will be the source of condemnation for fair observers. We will not admire the evil man who achieved his goals and enjoyed the sunset victory. We condemn him and I hope his plan will be dissatisfied. No, it is more important than happiness, with happiness, that is worth having goodwill.

The problem of the lack of God's moral begins with the assumption that morality is created not only by God's approval but by God altogether. It also avoids the possibility that such gods and humans can not create morals using God's inner powers to strengthen them, thereby enhancing the possibility of moral learning I will. Possibilities The ideas presented are directed to those who think themselves as religious beliefs, atheists or agnosticists themselves. The problem of the lack of God's moral begins with the assumption that morality is created not only by God's approval but by God altogether. It also avoids the possibility that such gods and humans can not create morals using God's inner powers to strengthen them, thereby enhancing the possibility of moral learning I will. Possibility The suggested idea is for those who do not have religious beliefs ... Buy gifts and promises. Men usually have a slight disadvantage here when people are dating them to spend money. God in the Bible gives us a clear overview of how to meet his blessings. Today, there are various evaluation methods; stand for the first night, no strings, only for an interesting relationship. These relationships are never blessed by God; a dating relationship should be based on the bond of God of love. Treat your part in the same way you want him / her to treat you Plato raised the next dilemma, Euthyphro, in his conversation. "Is it good for God to master goodness, is that it is good or is it ordered by God?" (4) Dr. Ge's argument or second, morality is God, ie subjective It depends on morality. In any case, this dilemma at least reasonably doubts the first premise and can at best deny it at best. It is unfair to continue if Dr. Craig is not allowed to deal with this dilemma. Many people claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, so there is no morality without religion (especially without God and God). There is a related phrase that religion is motivated to act in a morally correct way and religion is necessary to lead to action, but the inevitable relationship of morality and religion comes from God or God It means that is correct and wrong. . This morality is called sacred command theory. The result is that the behavior is correct or mandatory. If God told us not to do so, unless God instructs us not to do it, moral permission is

Morality is defined as a system or code that we use to differentiate between good and evil. This system can come from many factors: religion, culture and cultivation. It is more ambitious to determine how difficult it is to decide human ethics, but how we have these ethics further. Nonetheless, no matter how difficult it is, this theme consumes many philosophers and psychologists. One moral psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, is evolving the possibility of theoretical evolution. Universalism is synonymous with moral universalism, and a compromise between moral relativism and moral absoluteism. Utilitarian ethical theory of maintaining behavior is moral only if it maximizes welfare. This is a form of resultism and welfareism. Utopianism is a number of social and political movements based on the idea that heaven can be accomplished on the ground, as well as numerous religious and secular literature. See Utopia. Value pluralism believes that there is a possibility that two or more moral values ​​are equal (true), but there is contradiction. Furthermore, in many cases, we assume that this incompatible value may be reasonably unboundable. Therefore, value pluralism is a theory in meta ethics, not an ethical theory or a series of values ​​itself. Oxford University historian Isaiah Berlin was acknowledged in the first substantial research on value diversification and attracted the attention of the general academic community. Abstract: Moral pluralism is basically claiming to have various attributes related to morality (eg from the viewpoint of WD Ross). Some philosophers try to defend moral pluralism by embedding moral pluralism in a one - dimensional moral theory such as result - based or cant - doctrine. I think that such an attempt is destined to fail. Abstract: Laurence Bon Jour (1985, 2003) argues that empirically proven coherence theory must establish a Doxastic estimate that agent's overall belief system proficiency is nearly correct . This form of grip is a belief in human beliefs or metabolism beliefs. After clarifying the role of Doxastic Presumption, I will discuss the objections raised by Alvin Goldman (1989) and Noah Lemos (1989). Designated pronoun seems to be a basic belief Basic principle

What is morality? Over the centuries philosophers around the world have discussed morality. However, this is overly subjective words whether it is expression or definition. Aristotle, often called the father of philosophy, suggests that you can judge moral things by examining the mean of the two "less ideal" extremes. For example, courage is the average between generosity, luxury and jealousy, between fear and recklessness. Plato thinks "to know good is to do good things". In other words, people who show ignorance are simply ignorant, not contempt. Remember that not moral or immoral how we know that we are moral or immoral, but moral argument involves objective moral values ​​and the ultimate cause of duty (moral ontology) It is important to keep it bad or right / wrong (moral semantics). Theological ethicists believe that moral values ​​are based on the nature and essence of God. "Responsibility arises at the request of authorized authorities, for example, I will absolutely not be obliged to do so if some random person instructs to pull the car, but the police The difference between the two cases is if you want to issue such an order is the one who issued the order: one is entitled to do so and the others are not. " Dostoevsky asked us to consider different levels of moral authority. Of course, one source is legal authority, as Dmitry pointed out. 120. Legal authority may differ from the moral obligation we owe to each other as a human being. Please consider this when reading. What is the source of our moral obligation? In this story, can legal authority be a good measure of moral authority? As I said, Dostoevsky offered some of his own for all Karamazov. In the case of Smerkyadov, this is his "degradation disease". Dostoevsky's disease is reported as being epileptic, he usually calls it "ill". According to the record, Dostoevsky is also considered to have given his epilepsy to his son Alyosha.

The moral philosophy we know today in the Western world is the moral of raising the ideals of slave morality, equity, equality, and democracy. However, in the Middle Ages, centuries ago, moral proficiency was standard and preferred preference for strength, beauty, wisdom, and status. Learning morality takes precedence over the morals of slavery. Friedrich Nietzsche is a linguist who uses knowledge of his words to follow the origin of morality from the ancient definition. Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, moral ontology is the origin of morality, learning moral recognition, and researching moral knowledge. A variety of ethical systems have been proposed, including a moral ethics system that follows a set of established rules, and a normative ethical system that takes into account the merits of the behavior itself. An example of a normative ethical philosophy is the golden rule, stating that "a person should treat others like someone else." Morality studies moral and moral values. Rather, it refers to its origin (the place where moral value appears), its nature (what is moral value), their reasons (to determine whether a particular moral value is better or worse than other moral values) Whether it is possible) and its application (what to do). The difference between morality and other fields (such as religion and social science) is that you can also consider moral or moral norms. As a philosophical field, morality depends on the same analytical procedure as other philosophical fields doing. Religion is dependent on the description and observation of the Biblical authority and social science, moral problems, exploration, debate, analysis and evaluation Discuss the origin of morality before thinking about the cultural differences in human morality and their impact on morality. Because treating prehistoric times, morality does not leave fossils, so any description of the origin of morality will inevitably remain speculative to some extent. Morality seems to be a stepwise emergence of altruistic forms present in social animals and is the result of the process of normal evolution of natural selection. Myth need not explain its existence In the past decade, a new evolution theory has emerged. This argues that moral objectivism is against the moral origin of Darwin. While some forms of moral naturalism may be contradictory to understanding central moral beliefs as having biological grounds, such beliefs are strongly objective moral knowledge I believe it does not reflect. We have to actually choose either Darwin's interpretation or completely objective moral knowledge. Sharon Street (2006) answered this dilemma with careful attention to possible response. She acknowledges that the moral naturalism proposed by Peter Railton (1986) is consistent with the evolutionary rationale of our central moral belief. Moral philosophers often attribute these to them.

For a subjective moral theme, people must have a strong belief about what is right or wrong. However, morality varies from person to person and cultures may differ from culture to culture, but since they are derived from basic human emotions, there are many that are unevenly distributed. You may think that morality is an intellectual exercise, but the more general thing is to try to understand our intuition. So what is moral and morality? Morality and ethics are a set of good principles that helps make decisions. Morality is a moral gathering of a person, a moral or moral person is a person making decisions based on her or his emotions. Peter Abelard says that: "God believes that it is the spirit of action, not action, this is the intent of the act, not the act, the accomplishment or praise of the actor." Before trying to solve it, people must recognize the moral background of the situation. Morality and morality are the principle that spreads as a society that we are trying to penetrate people. Some of these principles may include attention to others' happiness, reliability and integrity, willingness to comply with the law, fairness, conducting good deeds or preventing each other from hurting one another. Absent. If we do not have these principles as a person, can we play a part in society? I distinguish morality from morality. "Moral" refers to a set of moral principles, virtues, criteria, etc. that people must live and / or act (or reflect). "Moral" or "moral philosophy" refers to the process by which people participate in pondering morality, its nature and foundation, or the result of reflection. In the latter case, morality and (ideal) moral overlap - at least partially overlap. Because human ethics may contain a variety of logical and methodological perspectives and therefore not part of a person's (ideal) morality, they may be considered different. We can divide philosophical ethics into four parts. Meta-ethics analyzes the concepts of moral, moral defense, and the meaning of moral language. Descriptive ethics represents a moral system of various cultures. Normative ethics considers basic norms, standards, or moral theory criteria. Applied ethics applies normality theory to law, medicine, business, computer science, and ethical issues in the environment. In the coming weeks we will discuss normative ethics or moral theory. Let's start with relativism

Teaching morality in the night is dark, I am far from home, Jonathan Cozol wrote: "The first goal and main function of the American public school in America is not to educate good people, but good citizens He suggested that public schools do not have any function, vote without protest, pay taxes, only vote for those who comply with national law, if so, I think that it is an individual who should change the philosophy of the public school system in order to create a complete integrity. After graduation, I found a job to teach at a local Catholic high school in Dallas. I was hired to teach ethics and social justice in a few hours and to guide the joint venture baseball team. At that time, morality was the main course of the school, so when I first started exploring my own sexual behavior, I began to solve the principles of behavior among the same age groups. Time has not been lost to me. This time, I participated in Catholic ethics, but as I started making classes, the students challenged and cultivated their conscience when I opened the teaching of the official church. Any teacher will tell you this is an exhausted task. I will late up to plan immigration courses, but I will wind up my sleeves and lead a hot discussion about whether an alien has a soul, inevitably sitting on an empty table. Humans are objectively measurable indicators and can not convey ethics, so moral education of machines is difficult. Indeed, it is doubtful whether we can reach an agreement because humans fully understand morality. In the ethical dilemma, humans depend on intuition rather than a well-designed cost-effect calculation. Meanwhile, the machine needs clear and objective indicators that can be clearly measured and optimized. For example, by learning how to optimize scores through repetitive games, AI players can work well with games with clear rules and boundaries. After trying exhaustive reinforcement learning in the Atari video game, Alphabet 's Deep Mind defeated Go' s best human player. At the same time, OpenAI has accumulated a "life cycle" experience to repel the best human players in the Valve Dota 2 tournament, one of the world's most popular eSports competitions.

Kant 's moral theory seems to be the most viable in determining the role of a person in a moral situation. The basis of his theory may be the most noble, as it is morally correct to act morally. Even if it is ambiguous or rigid, his idea works easily and efficiently in most situations. There are a few exceptions, but by watching how the real situation is presented and how it is handled, the strength of these exceptions can be slightly reduced. One of the main criticisms of Kant's moral theory is that it focuses on rational autonomy. Critics emphasize that Kant 's moral theory does not have a morally independent significance for those who do not have the ability to do rational autonomy. This suggests that in theory it suggests that all human concerns need to be incorporated into ethical considerations. For example, consider the following scenario. You have an immortal candy, two children in front of you want a candy. Both have the goal of wanting candy. It seems reasonable (they all want to enjoy candy). But even if you give it to child A, child B can not help you earn candy, which is your goal (or enjoy candy). In existential Kant ethics, moral principles essentially lead to the intentional behavior of real people. Therefore, this is a hierarchical interpretation of the theory of the moral principle of ontological Kant that I am speaking, not only because in principle itself must be classified like this in principle, but also because of their intentional will It is also a psychological realization. Agents have the same base hierarchy. At the three levels of Kant's moral principles, the lower level or type of principle is based on all principles of higher level or type. In addition, the principles occurring at each level are logically semantic and are normatively equivalent to all other principles occurring at that level. Rational human condition 4, Kant Ethics and the existence of human: study of moral philosophy - Section 2.3, a way to solve the moral dilemma problem Based on Kant's ethical principles described in the first part of this article, the moral value of behavior does not depend on expected results, moral action comes from the right motives, which is "good". Will or 'duty to approve'. Kant believes that the morality of our behavior has nothing to do with the outcome, but it is related to our intent. To Kant, "It is related to our intent and reasons for action, all of these relate to the principle we depend on." Therefore, the rationality of the means can not be proven.

Morality and politics have always been closely related; even in today's politics, morality often plays a role. Morality in politics is controversial to many major political thinkers, and it is a controversial topic. There are many important thinkers about this issue, but Plato and Augustine are interesting and controversial about whether politics should be concerned with morality. Plato and Augustine have different views on the role of political thought and morality in this regard. "The problem of gun violence in the United States is a major moral and political problem, but those working in moral and political philosophy have made little contribution to the public debate so far so far. This praised book provides exactly the moral principles and arguments necessary to explain the significance of the de facto claim, which determines the central ethical problem, thinks carefully, and To present those arguments and conclusions in a calm, fair and unfounded way: White Oxford University McMahan, Professor Moral Philosophy Morality and politics have always been closely related; even in today's politics, morality often plays a role. Morality in politics is controversial to many major political thinkers, and it is a controversial topic. There are many important thinkers about this issue, but Plato and Augustine are interesting and controversial about whether politics should be concerned with morality. Both Plato and Augustine have different views on politics and political thought. Morality has both political and religious divisions. The difference between political morality and religious morality is that political morality should be reasonable, that is, it should be based on moral theory. Otherwise, it can not be applied according to the standards, rules and procedures of the legal system (Constitution, Criminal Law, Tax Law, Property Law etc). However, religious morality may be based on moral theory, or based on moral "super rational" (not opposite, but beyond reasonable), or even irrational moral assertion. The religious prohibition of slavery is based on moral reasons, not moral super rationality. Therefore, political groups and religious organizations can agree to prohibit slavery based on unethical conduct. The religious ban on abortion and euthanasia is also based on moral reasons. There is no need to become a Christian to refuse abortion and euthanasia.

Whether morality is related to culture. The basis of this argument is the fundamental question of whether morality is culturally related or has its own desire. The advantage of this discussion is that you can judge whether morality is true justice. As Melville J. Herskovitz advocates the concept of cultural relativism, "morality is a diverse and unique code variant, ethical threat comes from culture, culture, beliefs and beliefs," he insisted . Society, we must have the right to declare society as inhumane. Moral relativism does not believe that moral facts are independent of personal or cultural beliefs or desires. Depending on the version of relativism, the given moral description is correct only when it considers (for moral subjectivity) or culture (for cultural relativism) as one. . In the belief of epistemology, belief that belief as knowledge's position should be judged reliably. For example, scientific experiments are considered more reliable than intuition and speculation. Representationism shows that humans do not directly recognize the outside world (and can not directly recognize them), but instead they only know their own ideas and interpretations of the world's objects It is a philosophical concept. Therefore, a barrier or perceived veil may interfere with direct knowledge about others. There is a "veil" between the soul and this world. Moral relativism, also called "cultural relativism", indicates that morality is related to each culture. When behavior violates ethical principles, people can not judge correctly the members of other cultures in addition to their own cultural standards. Moral principles may be different from their own moral principles. Shweder, Mahapatra and Miller (1987) argue that different cultures define moral boundaries differently. This term is also different from moral subjectivity. Moral subjectivity is the idea that moral truth is related to individuals. Moral relativism can be thought of as a form of moral skepticism and is often mistaken for moral pluralism. It opposes the moral superiority and ethnic-centered attitude in moral absoluteism and moral universalism. Rather than the variability of personal ethics (fairness, justice, rights)

Moral and moral philosophy is very important for personal success. But let me give you some background before why moral philosophy is so important and I will tell you how it will help my life. Rational knowledge has two elements. These components are important and formal. Formal knowledge is based on reason, not object-oriented. Formal knowledge is logic, or the law of thinking. Material knowledge is object oriented and has two elements. These two elements are natural and ethical. Moral philosophy includes a moral ontology, a moral ontology where the moral ontology studies the moral origin, moral recognition. A variety of ethical systems have been proposed, including a moral ethics system that follows a set of established rules, and a normative ethical system that takes into account the merits of the behavior itself. An example of a normative ethical philosophy is the golden rule, stating that "a person should treat others like someone else." Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a philosophical field to solve moral problems. The term "moral" is often used interchangeably with "moral" and sometimes it is used more narrowly to express the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual. It distinguishes between ethics and morality. "The morals and ethics of people are the same, but there is a usage that limits morality to institutions such as Emmanuel Kant, based on concepts such as responsibilities, duties, principles, etc. To further advance Aristotle's practical inference approach, Concepts based on virtue often protect ethics and often avoid separating "moral" considerations from other practical considerations. Universalism is synonymous with moral universalism, and a compromise between moral relativism and moral absoluteism. Utilitarian ethical theory of maintaining behavior is moral only if it maximizes welfare. This is a form of resultism and welfareism. Utopianism is a number of social and political movements based on the idea that heaven can be accomplished on the ground, as well as numerous religious and secular literature. See Utopia. Value pluralism believes that there is a possibility that two or more moral values ​​are equal (true), but there is contradiction. Furthermore, in many cases, we assume that this incompatible value may be reasonably unboundable. Therefore, value pluralism is a theory in meta ethics, not an ethical theory or a series of values ​​itself. Oxford University historian Isaiah Berlin was acknowledged in the first substantial research on value diversification and attracted the attention of the general academic community.

Abortion morality Abortion has been the hottest topic in the United States over the past few decades. There are three things to consider when considering this topic: ethics, emotions, and law; all these are important to the problem. As with other arguments, there are two aspects to this problem. To support selection and support life. Abortion stated that the mother is the last candidate to decide to stop pregnancy and the government should not intervene. Many discussions of abortion arguments argue that abortion morality depends on the moral status of the fetus. I think that the moral status of the fetus is important, but the moral justification of abortion is not a central issue determining its central problem. Although the fetus is given some moral status, this condition is not a prescription for moral judgment. - True name Today, abortion is a political issue in the United States, not a woman 's intimate choice. The struggle of women's rights against the uterus is becoming hopeless. Both sides of this problem are working hard to constantly motivate and react to people. Nonetheless, abortion is not a new problem because of Roe v. Wade in 1973. The moral abortion of abortion is the Supreme Court Roe v. It was legalized through Wade and one third of pregnancy was accepted to end in abortion. This means 1.5 million abortions annually in the United States (Flanders 3). It is one of the most complicated and controversial issues that caused intense legal, political and moral arguments. - An abortion right organization announced to the 50 - year - old federal appeals court judge Roberts. But so far, he did not ask him directly to refuse any of the 44 Democrats in the Senate. There is a close relationship with the recognition of the legality of abortion and the moral view of abortion. The vast majority (80%) of people who oppose legal abortion believe abortion is morally wrong. On the other hand, most legitimate abortion advocates say abortion is morally acceptable (18%), or it is not an ethical problem (42%). But more than a quarter of people think that abortion should be legitimately morally wrong (28%). Consistent with this, the most viable group often says that abortion is morally wrong. Three quarters of conservative Republicans stated that mild or liberal Republicans (51%) and conservative or moderate Democrats (55%) are minor. Nearly one-third (31%) of the LDP believes that abortion is morally wrong, and 40% think abortion is not a moral issue

In Webster's dictionary, morality is defined as "principle of good and evil in action; moral." The moral principle has made countless evolutions. Previously, death was a simple punishment for many crimes. These crimes of today are considered to be minor and punished by slap in the face. This is considered incorrect. It is the correct authority for anyone to consult correctly or incorrectly. In today's society, two main factors are related to the behavior and behavior of members of society. Morality and politics have always been closely related; even in today's politics, morality often plays a role. Morality in politics is controversial to many major political thinkers, and it is a controversial topic. There are many important thinkers about this issue, but Plato and Augustine are interesting and controversial about whether politics should be concerned with morality. Both Plato and Augustine have different views on politics and political thought. Morality has both political and religious divisions. The difference between political morality and religious morality is that political morality should be reasonable, that is, it should be based on moral theory. Otherwise, it can not be applied according to the standards, rules and procedures of the legal system (Constitution, Criminal Law, Tax Law, Property Law etc). However, religious morality can be based on moral theory, based on moral "super rational" (not opposite, but beyond reasonable), even irrational moral claims. The religious prohibition of slavery is based on moral reasons, not moral super rationality. Therefore, political groups and religious organizations can agree to prohibit slavery based on unethical conduct. The religious ban on abortion and euthanasia is also based on moral reasons. There is no need to become a Christian to refuse abortion and euthanasia.

Progress is the natural occurrence of human life and society. Natural curiosity, coupled with the desire for self improvement, brought humanity into the era of science and technology. As society progresses, human life continues to improve constantly. Advances in medicine have made it possible for humans to overcome diseases and diseases, and ultimately human life. For example, the success of stem cell research has provided doctors resources to replace damaged cells and begin repairing serious injuries. There is no morality in science. Science is a way, a tool. Scientific products can also destroy the earth as it recombines it. The question of how science is used in society is accomplished through philosophical research and measurement of the power of moral argument, through the results of past political decision making and history and derived from literature and human research Yes. Understanding The application of science in social production benefits from a series of unfounded subjects by scientific methods. Most moral science accepts and uses physical sciences, but the physical science uses ethics science to gain support. On the other hand, political economics uses two kinds of science to build that concept. It continues to leave the place in the physical science of moral science including complex phenomena. To further explain this point, we can see that the creation of wealth is not only the subject of political economics and physical science, but also various laws that govern human behavior. That is moral science. In his study of political economy, J. Simonde de Sismondi pointed out that political economy is the name of government science. The goal of the government is to bring the ultimate happiness of mankind. As born is a complex existence, you must satisfy the moral and physical nature before he is completely satisfied.

Olympic morals are effective in ancient Greek society, but today's moral standards are incomplete for what is acceptable. Modern morals are taught not only through actions, stories, experiences but also through inner feelings. Outside actions are most important in "Iliad" and "Herciard", but if there is no logo you do not have to choose and decide. Ellis, the power of division and its driving force Eros, is an important part of the traditional Greek social morality. Most of the material in this book talks about the inner side of the individual and the moral significance without hesitation, embarrassment. Today we talk about value and how they possess them as if they are beads on the rope or marble in a small bag. However, these stories are not about morality and virtue, not about what human beings are, but as something, as something, as the most important thing, as the central part of mankind. To live in these chapters is to imagine yourself in different places and times, where the children are undoubtedly the era of moral and spirituality, and the central job of education is virtue. This book reminds readers old things - not too long ago - the truth at the time was a moral truth. Therefore, it is an antidote against some distortion in our current living era. If the book achieves this goal, it will be very worthwhile. Morality explains the principles governing our behavior. Without these principles, society can not survive for a long time. In today's world, morality is often regarded as a specific religious point, but by definition, morality is not so. Everyone insists on some kind of moral doctrine. The ethics related to our behavior is important at three levels. CS Lewis of famous thinkers, scholars and writers defines it as follows: (1) ensuring fair competition and harmony among individuals; (2) our goodwill for building a good society Our strength maintains a good relationship. Based on this definition, it is clear that our belief is essential to our ethical behavior. In today's society, there is no concrete social structure of morality or morality. One of the foundations of today's social truth is that there is no truth. "Everyone did what I saw with my own eyes" (ESV) I quote that my philosophical words are ringing in my ears. "What is the truth?" Essentially, today's society has lost all its true appearance. Sometimes people feel that society wants to weaken all the moral structures of the past and create new morals. Morality is not moral, everyone should do what they think is right for them.

"Because people live in society, it is a moral existence, social life will all disappear, moral will disappear." - Emil Dürkem The word of Emile Durchem is valid in many ways and I I believe it is a lot of fun. . The nature and guidelines of those who lead him throughout life are affected by society. In addition to tracing a certain path from society, we are beginning to realize a truly correct viewpoint. "Right" can also be objectified in various ways, but it is society itself to separate morality from immorality. The core of morality is mutual relationship and love. This is two distinct features of morality. A moral society is also a fair society If you do not first cross the love, you can not find justice. Since greed is a decisive feature of capitalism, our human society continues to fight against conflict and oppression, and the two go hand in hand. This is not to say that I am promoting Marxism, pure socialism, or other complicated economic / governmental structures. I believe that the fair world supports various structures evolving over time and can respond to changing human needs. Moral principles are created in human society through cultural evolution. These ethical guidelines are often universal and lead to a successful society. From a long time ago, human society has tried moral system. Other moral systems still exist in various human societies, but some have succeeded and are widely spread among humans like the Ten Commandments. Many of the past moral systems must have been extinct because they were replaced or because the society they owned has become extinct. Currently the human moral system is supported by cultural evolution. They may spread to a particular society and may be difficult to understand, but they must include individuals who believe that a particular ethics system is good for them by promoting social stability, at least to some extent. And success (25, 32). Language ... is an obvious example. "(References 4 and 66)

Huckleberry Finn - Ethics Association has established its own ethics, but it is accepted recently. For example, in the novel "Huckleberry Finn" Mark Twain says that society is not a series of degenerate rules or rules contrary to logic. The logic of this error appeared very early when a new judge in the town allowed Pap to deposit Huck. "The law supports the Thatcher judge and helps me leave my property," the judge considered Pap's "right" for his son beneficial for Hack. People who criticized Huckleberry Finn did not gain potential information, ethics, or themes. Some criticize Huckleberry Finn that threatens the morality of young people. On the contrary, should Huckleberry Finn not promote personal morality? Throughout the novel, Huck made several important ethical decisions that will provide the reader with greater value. In addition, people accused Huckleberry Finn's aggressive genotype. Twain depicts the characters in this novel in a realistic way. He uses a stereotype to show how social morality is wrong and how moral education is important. Some stereotypes have to get angry from Twain's point of view. Others criticize not to educate Jim by making a fool of it. Indeed, Jim is considered to be the only true adult. Because he is strongly resolved, it is an example. He taught Hack inner strength and the difference between people is not as important as each other's individual respect as individuals. Mark Twain's Huckleberry Many critics have not seen the blessings of moral support mentioned in racial equality and novels. June Edwards, author's "moral and what Huckleberry Finn" Also, the approach taken by most critics thinks Twain's satire understands or does not ignore the entire novel being fully in use It is. Twain has adopted a unique approach to express ideas including racial equality and Hack's highly ethical personality. In June, Edward's critic tried to confirm Huckleberry Fin, Hack considered a model for young people. They judged this because of the misuse of grammar and the ability to repeat lies. In Edward's article, she points out the moral and novel things of the table Magnolia to support racial equality, which is very different from those who want to condemn Huckleberry Finn. Unlike most of the novel's critics, I agree to Edwards' position for this novel.

When reading "Prince" of Niccolo Machiavelli, you can only grab Machiavelli's idea that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, if you drill down on the various concepts of Machiavelli, you can conclude that the proposed violence and evil are probably brought about by various results of morality. First of all, this book is only for the prince or the emperor, and its obvious purpose must be understood to help him maintain power. Therefore, it is essential to master the concept of his wealth and virtue. The Prince of Niccolo Machiavelli For many years many rulers and prince have tried their best. Some people think the standard for the prince is "Prince's Morality" by Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli said: "So, you need to know how to make it wrong and wish for a prince or not to use it as needed." ) - Prince Machiavelli and Simone de Beauvoir's Second Gender Name Effectiveness People give up their name to guarantee that whatever they are trying to achieve. This strategy is particularly effective in business but can also play a part in the discussion. Influenced people's name has influence. "I know Don Corleone," Mario Puzo's The Godfather will definitely do anything. One of the main premises of Leviathan and Prince is morality. Where does morality come from, how it affects people under political structure, and whether humans affect morality or not. Hobbies and Machiavelli are very different on their theme. Based on the literal interpretation of a satirical prince, Machiavelli's view on morality is a practical and realistic approach to the nature of morality and humanity. - During the Renaissance it was characterized by the awakening era of humanism. The prince played one of the most important roles in the dramatic development of the Renaissance politics and still have a general influence on today's politicians. But that view is argued. Machiavelli maintains an essential idea for the success of a successful leader.

Defining a paper: What is morality? When you need to write a paper about it, I will tell you that morality is probably one of the biggest and most confusing. After careful consideration, I summarized some of the morals and their meanings. Morality is one of those words that you can not hear often and that they are not used too often. The Webster Dictionary fully describes a series of guidelines for managing human behavior. Without such codes, anarchist principles will dominate the dominance. The so-called "moral relativism" is three times. The first is descriptive, which states that some people do not agree with moral and immoral. The second is meta ethics, and there is no universal morality when there is a disagreement, so we say that no one is objectively correct or wrong. Third, at the normative stage, we believe that morals of all forms and forms should be tolerated, since no one is objectively correct or wrong. We may all agree to the first stage - there are many differences in moral fix. The second and third stages are not clear. If there is no objective justification or error, should suicide bombers or rapists be tolerated as their morality is completely different from our morality? What is ethics? For the most part, scholar's conclusions on moral evolution are determined by criteria that believe actions must fulfill. If scholars assert that an action must be genetically selfless in order to be morally feasible, they will almost certainly conclude that moral tendencies can not develop. On the other hand, if they define morality with personal selflessness, they almost certainly will reach more positive conclusions. Therefore, it is important to clarify the meaning of morality. Everyone makes moral judgments about the right and wrong of people, the correctness and error of actions, and the rights and obligations of group members. At the phenotype level, most people agree on which behavior is moral and immoral. But if you ask people to be moral or unethical, they may give different reasons to reveal the big difference between their potential moral values. This is controversial if certain actions (such as aiming for specific benefits) are moral. According to different standards and concepts, the way to judge moral, real moral, and not so much is not so clear. Furthermore, why should we be moral or obscure the reasons and benefits? This article discusses all ethical theories advocated by various philosophers from the past to the present and how they can help finding out what they should be a moral answer Let's see. Emanuel Kant's ethics may answer questions of interest to us. But before he gives answers, some basic ideas must be taken into consideration. Kant studied his moral theory by first distinguishing those gentle items from simple means and itself as good or better. He thinks that goodwill is only informative as its value is unconditional and does not depend on what kind of result it will yield.

Morality and morality are related to "right" or "wrong" behavior. In most cases, people confuse these terms in the same sense, but usually it is not. Ethics is provided by various sources and rules that guide someone's specific functions. For example, the religious principles and code of conduct of a specific occupation or workplace are called ethics. The morals of hand explain the principle of thinking people thinking whether they are right or wrong. Morality is an action defined as a moral (correct), immoral (wrong), or moral meaning (neutral) behavior or behavior. These two are the rules and principles of behavior and indicate the necessity of being recognized by a particular class or individual, or correct or incorrect. There are many sources of moral and ethical use. Morality is mainly brought about by Christian Bible, Jewish law, and theologians who explain the Bible in the Islamic Quran. The conclusion that believers of these religions accept theologians is an absolute truth. Evolution theory social biologists believe that human behavior and moral factors are derived from primate society and early human beings. They believe in the evolution and adaptation of the ethics of small hunting groups in countries that exist today. Another cause of the current discussion is moral science. By studying human culture and then applying scientific methods to maximize people's well-being, we can obtain objective and superior moral and moral system concepts. Morality opposes morality and depends on different professional insights. For lawyers' moral reasons, homicide is stipulated as punitive and proxy. The customer is guilty. Another example is the medical field, where many doctors are not allowed to euthanize patients, even if they are ethically required by medical professionals. However, according to his morality his doctor may have different views depending on his personal beliefs about the patient's right to die. Both morality and morality are related to "correct" and "mistake". But morality and morality are different. The principle that an individual is right or wrong is called morality. Meanwhile, obeying a set of rules provided to individuals, such as occupation and law, means ethics. From the day we were born, we spend most of our time with our parents. More than anyone else, our parents became the most socially active people. As a baby, we begin to learn by imitating everything around us. We imitate the way we eat, from eating habits, conversation habits, and from parents' opinions and things. As our growth and parents have a direct impact on all our actions, we develop our own emotions and begin to form our personal ethics. The word "moral" comes from Greek "ethos" (meaning "custom" or "custom"). Morality is different from morality and morality, while morality indicates their practice, while morality refers to correct behavior and better good theory. Morality is not limited to specific behavior and defined moral principles, including moral ideals and actions, human life philosophy (or Weltanschauung). The question is "How should people act?" (Normative or normative ethics), "Do you think that people are right? (Writing ethics)," How to practice moral knowledge " Applied ethics), "What does it mean" what "? Meta ethics. For details on these categories, please see the following. We can divide philosophical ethics into four parts. Meta - ethics analyzes the concepts of moral, moral defense, and the meaning of moral language. Descriptive ethics describes the moral system of various cultures. Normative ethics considers basic norms, standards, or moral theory criteria. Applied ethics applies normality theory to law, medicine, business, computer science, and ethical issues in the environment. In the coming weeks we will discuss normative ethics or moral theory. Let's start with relativism

The history of Thucydides' Mytilenian debate and Melian dialogue reflects the reality of moral dependence on the period of power exercise and the exercise period of power. The theme going through these two arguments is that those who have the ability to act according to their wishes have the right to decide morality. The argument for determining the fate of Mychiren is not strictly based on morality but their power is based on the way they allow them to exercise the moral path of their choice. There is no doubt that the force is dangerous. But powerless morality is meaningless. This is what Friedrich Nietzsche called "the morality of slavery". In other words, they think that the morality of unprivileged people, the lack of their power will make them better, and those who own and control power are not well defined. Nietzsche compares it with "dominant morality" that emphasizes courage, value creation, and value of life. As I already quote Nietzsche, I believe that some of those readings immediately condemn me as an encryption fascist. Let's pause so that they can rush to social media and cause social exclusion. In a moral strain Nietzsche interprets morality as a system designed to tame human animals. The purpose of ethics is to eliminate the instinctive creativity of animals and to build a life in the bondage of asceticism. These "ideals" are all values ​​and ideologies that are brought about by protecting humanity from the dangers of nihilism, which is a state where humans can not answer their existence. Morality firmly holds the protection of the species 'human'; morality stubbornly denies the possibility of a human being who opens the future. When Nietzsche 's philosophical anthropology is summarized in a few words, for Nietzsche, it will be said that it is necessary to try to regard the human being as a sort of self - ending and as a simple means. Perfect, complete, happy, powerful, and victorious, this is still scary! "(Nietzsche 2007: 25) At Nietzsche 's autobiography "Ecce Homo", he pointed out that his morality acquired his impulse. One of them is as follows. Sympathy of sympathy - This part is for strength, Partial His humanity is more self-centered: this is "permanent self-conquest". This is his moral view. Personal ethics Nietzsche is an avid individualist. Unfortunately, it has not been strengthened - whether it is Pittier or Pitti. In summary, we need to remember the problems that Nietzsche is solving. His work is for his disciples, his followers, and he acknowledges that they are few and between them. In this case, he is not upset and he is stubborn to a poor position. But he wrote a letter to The Strong. Therefore, in this context Nietzsche tells his followers about those who are not - not strong people:

Democracy depends on three important issues and each one has to be considered in light of the impact of a large administrative organization that has a major impact on the development of public policy. First, democratic morality assumes that an individual is a basic measure of human value. Let's judge that our political and social systems are achieving the greatest potential of individuals. We believe that principles should be used to judge institutions, policies, and human behavior. Humans are the greatest value of all human values. Second, publicity is inherently immoral or immoral. Every bachelor degree understands that the concept of morality is not fixed, but we recognize that general democratic morality, love, and of course these elements are intended to be oppressed by publicity Did. Stanley B. Cunningham wrote as follows; for example, this may be an example of a document or publication that insists to suppress the rights of minorities under the law. Whether you are conquering a minority or recruiting soldiers to die in war, it is absolutely clear that most advertising definitions considers it to be an abusive force. The moral reasons and political agreement within the constitutional framework for the protection of minorities should define public morals of democratic society. Even more or less. The consensus of the citizen is supported by common political values ​​brought about from secular, religious values, culture, historical experience. The morality of human rights can be the minimum rational morality imposed by the consent of the human society of the world, but there is no moral reason to limit the smaller political community to the same minimal morality. The possibility of diversification does not mean there is an obligation to minimize public morality in political society. If the nudist community decides to move to downtown Atlanta, this does not mean that nudist doctrine should be allowed to respond to new communities based on diversity. Diversity is the fact that it can be worth protecting when it leads to the benefits of the community

Morality is an article related to James Rechels and "not morally it is not relative" is incorrect. The discussion he offers can not be logically applied or irrelevant to the argument. His view seems biased towards some of the ideas advocated in cultural relativism, but he has problems with other parts of cultural relativism. The first mistake is an example of another moral code after his comparison. In the summary and explanation of cultural differences, he cited an example - he began to write articles about the difference between the Holy Land Kai Lily and the Greeks, and their funeral customs. What specific ethics are relative? Usually, morals are considered in relation to groups and individuals. Therefore, we distinguish between two kinds of moral relativism, such as beliefs, emotions, opinions, desires, desires, interests, preferences, emotions and so forth. Cultural moral relativism and personal moral relativism. It is moral relativism to believe that the moral truth is related to a particular individual or a particular individual. People who speak moral truth are related to what we call personal relativism and those who speak moral truth are related to a specific group that can be called cultural relativism As long as it is "culture"). . But this is a mistake. Imagine that all countries in the world are making different answers to "1 + 1 = ____". In this case, the fact that the answer to math questions is different does not mean that there is no correct answer. Likewise, simply having cultural differences does not mean treating morality as a subjective argument. Moral relativism, also called "cultural relativism", indicates that morality is related to each culture. When behavior violates ethical principles, people can not judge correctly the members of other cultures in addition to their own cultural standards. Moral principles may be different from their own moral principles. Shweder, Mahapatra and Miller (1987) argue that different cultures define moral boundaries differently. This term is also different from moral subjectivity. Moral subjectivity is the idea that moral truth is related to individuals. Moral relativism can be thought of as a form of moral skepticism and is often mistaken for moral pluralism. It opposes the moral superiority and ethnic-centered attitude in moral absoluteism and moral universalism. Rather than the variability of personal ethics (fairness, justice, rights) Society around the world is different from what I think is wrong. Moral relativism is the concept that moral principles are independent of culture and society from other cultures and societies, and according to this custom there is no universal moral standard. This moral belief has been widely rejected and is considered inappropriate in today's world society. One way that moral relativism is useful in today's society is to compare our society with yesterday's society.

One of the biggest problems people suffer is sexuality in various situations. Perhaps we are very concerned about it as it is such an intimate and important event. From a purely biological point of view, sexual intercourse is a means that may be considered the most important biological function of man - breeding is the continuation of our species. However, since life is related not only to the biological aspect of life but also to morality, we must ask questions about when it is morally appropriate to tackle sexual activity. Regarding sexual ethics, there are many discussions such as sexual intercourse with multiple partners, teenage sexual behavior, pre-marital sex, loving sex, pre-marital sex, rape and homosexuality. . President Clinton was plagued by a 21 - year - old young intern, so discussion began in the United States in 1998. Many conservatives have argued about this issue and many conservatives have agreed freely to have personal relationships (Haidt and Hersh). On the one hand, people are entitled to live freely, they must be independent in personal relationships, regardless of morality, on the other hand they have a personal relationship from social restrictions I will talk about sexual ethics to keep it. (Who said this - where did we find this - do you have to quote it?) A normative discussion involving religious aspects of many people includes which relationships are essential. The main problem is the matter of objective moral reality. Homosexuality is morally equal to homosexual relationship, or homosexual relationship is related to good things that homosexual relationship can not be shared? On this subject, Americans are divided and different groups adhere to two different moral values. According to the idea of ​​heterosexual marriage, gender may be morally appropriate, simply because it has a place of infertility. Even infertile heterosexual marriages, they form an infertility type of alliance. From this point of view, gay marriage campaigns are a mistaken attempt to deny fundamental moral differences. Morality can roughly be defined as "good personality". The value is "faith or standard". The immediate problem is whether gender violates moral value. Sex is everywhere. Not only bedroom but also TV, movie, signage, office building, white house are included. Open discussion and research on gender can be traced back to Sigmund Freud's work for only a century. Freud believes that sex has been born. It is present in humans when born. Freud thought that sex was irritated and lived when all polite conversations and social interaction were avoided. His revolutionary thinking influenced social practice and therapeutic practice. In Freud's own era, "The moral mist that covered sexual desire during most of the nineteenth century did not begin to advance until the end of the First World War" (Janus, 11)

Kant has a different moral system based on reason. According to Kant, reason is a fundamental authority to determine morality. Everyone has reasoning skills, and there are two basic instructions outside this ability: command and absolute instruction. By focusing on absolute instructions, I will reveal potential relationships between reasons and responsibilities in this article. Absolute orders indicate that a series of actions must be taken due to their accuracy and necessity. Emanuel Kant's moral system was built around the sorting order. Classification order is a universal and absolute ethical standard. These orders build moral ethics, or what Kant calls "moral order". According to him, they must be applicable to all, all situations and all occasions. The decision does not change according to the situation. The order of classification is an important feature of the Kant 's order and he believes that true morality depends only on the principle of guiding action, not depending on the final result. Kant believes that morality is absolute and provable; the right thing can be determined by putting actions or maxims into the equation. Moral theory was developed by Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant believes that the ultimate outcome is not the most important, but on the contrary, what really matters is deciding the ethical intent of the decision or the action itself. Kant evaluates the morality of human behavior and ignores the result. He further believes that, regardless of the expected outcome, we have the necessary responsibilities and should not give up their responsibilities. According to Kant, these obligations are absolute and must be applied equally to everyone. Special virtues and malice are based on Kant's system of responsibility; these obligations are based on moral law, the highest principle of morality. According to Kant, the moral law highlights that it is an absolute command (CI) for incomplete and limited rational creatures such as us. Our responsibility ultimately comes from this highest ethical principle. In the basic work, Kant described in detail some of his CI statements. According to the universal rule order formula, "According to the saying that it can be a universal law at the same time" (G. 4: 421). The universal natural law formula, "The motto that appears in your action is the universal natural law through your will" (G. 4: 421). The last expression is the command itself. "So, regardless of whether it's for yourself or for someone else, it's always the last place as a use of human behavior, not just as a means" G 4: 429)

One of the most persistent questions in psychology that has been asked so far and can never be answered is morality. What is it, how it developed and where did it come from? The basic definition of morality is "beliefs about correct behavior and wrong behavior" (Merriam-Webster). By definition, the problem becomes more complicated; how to decide how people are right and what is bad. This study studied this from many different perspectives and created two different schools. The so-called "moral relativism" is three times. The first is descriptive, which states that some people do not agree with moral and immoral. The second is meta ethics, and there is no universal morality when there is a disagreement, so we say that no one is objectively correct or wrong. Third, at the normative stage, we believe that morals of all forms and forms should be tolerated, since no one is objectively correct or wrong. We may all agree to the first stage - there are many differences in moral fix. The second and third stages are not clear. If there is no objective justification or error, should suicide bombers or rapists be tolerated as their morality is completely different from our morality? What is ethics? For the most part, scholar's conclusions on moral evolution are determined by criteria that believe actions must fulfill. If scholars assert that an action must be genetically selfless in order to be morally feasible, they will almost certainly conclude that moral tendencies can not develop. On the other hand, if they define morality with personal selflessness, they almost certainly will reach more positive conclusions. Therefore, it is important to clarify the meaning of morality. Everyone makes moral judgments about the right and wrong of people, the correctness and error of actions, and the rights and obligations of group members. At the phenotype level, most people agree on which behavior is moral and immoral. But if you ask people to be moral or unethical, they may give different reasons to reveal the big difference between their potential moral values.

The morality for God's faith and the moral demands of God remain the widely existing moral norm. In particular, it is a fundamental assumption of Christian fundamentalist social theory. Fundamentalists claim that every social problem, from AIDS to children born out of wedlock, is the result of moral collapse. It is due to the decline of God's faith. This article examines various examples of ways that God will be bad and shows that humans can create rules and ethics themselves. The only religious reaction to this is that "religion does not produce morality, but God creates, so that if God creates animals and humans, of course they are moral." Opinion, we agree that ethics are essential, not based on religion, not even human being. In this case, obviously I can become an atheistic morality. In fact, if you are telling the truth, why do we need faith? You have effectively proved that your religion is unnecessary for moral equations. The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a multidimensional series of arguments, from the particular characteristics of moral or moral life to the existence of God, often understood as a morally good creator of the universe . Moral argument is important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their robustness requires attention to almost all important philosophical issues dealt with in meta ethics. They are important because they occupy an important position in people's defense theory for religious beliefs. Evidence for this is C. It can be found in an amazing epidemic of Lewis 'pure Christianity' (1952). Many ordinary people believe that religion provides some foundation or foundation of morality.