'Morality Play Essay\r'

'In lifespan people strive consistently to choose betwixt what is right and legal injury. most never take sequence to critically evaluate what factors drive their honourable compass. Most live with never taken the time to recognize the conflicts that arise within their object lesson decisions. Analysis of the philosophic prove â€Å"Are you a incorrupt realist? ” moments gave me the luck to scrutinize my give birth moral compass. To follow I will discuss my opinion on the results of the quiz and the impact it had on my foundation of morality. I find out completely with the analysis.\r\nUpon completion of the quiz I conditioned that I was a moral objectivist and a moral relativist. Questions number both and eight provided me with the most blazing obvious evidence of my moral horror. I matte up very industrial-strengthly that what is right or unseasonable depends on individual viewpoints and golf club supports this statement. When the Supreme administration is hearing parapraxis a group of justices choose on what is right. They don’t always the same(p) opinion but the perception of what is cosmos told is what makes a law and dictates what is right.\r\nQuestion number eight is in direct conflict because in no unsealed terms I believe it is wrong no matter whom you are, where you are, to torture innocent babies just for fun. My strong feelings in that regards completely nullifies right and wrong being based on individual viewpoints. The quiz result stating my position is inconsistent is correct. I was surprised by the results of the quiz; it opened my eyes to the truth of my honest principles. I understand now that morality is some(a)thing that I use up failed to evaluate.\r\nThe truth that I have notice of my morality is that it is in conflict. This conflict exists because I have been command by outside factors in my views of what is ethical. For example, government tells me that freedom of religious belief is a right protect in the constitution so in my spirit it became wrong to challenge someone’s unearthly views no matter what their views made them do. Being that I rationalized it is not justifiable to challenge someone apparitional views then a woman put to finale in another country in the happen upon of religion is not wrong due to the religions moral authority.\r\nI can rank I have indeed fell victim to the distinguishing between descriptive ethics and normative ethics. Individuals have a divers(a) array of moral beliefs, which vary from soul to soulfulness and culture to culture. To say this is to simply describe what is the case (Chaffe pg. 225). I have come to realize a person being killed in the name of religion is something that happens but it doesn’t mean that it is something that should happen. One could say my moral compass pointed north on some occasions and south on others.\r\nI befool clearly that in every circumstance when a question was asked I thought how it applied to me. In truth my ethical judgment comes from a self-centered place. In each scenario my determination was made by reflexioning at what is appropriate for me and secondly society as a whole. I think the inconsistency in my morally can be attributed to two facts. The first is what is good for me always comes first and that I am torn between allowing descriptive and normative ethics govern my decisions. With morality there is what is and what should be, and with my own personal morality the same applies.\r\nMy personal conflicts ethically stem from failure to consciously asses my moral compass. pietism is much more than someone’s beliefs government their actions, it’s about an acceptance of what is right and wrong universally no matter a person’s culture, religion, or background. By assessment of my moral compass I have uncovered that I must take a closer look at what should be and stop being guided by what is. Bibliography Chaffee, J. (2011). The philosopher’s way: thinking critically about profound ideas (4th ed. ). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.\r\n'