Television and Religion - Give your response to the view that television always presents religious people as out of touch with the modern world.
Television and Religion - Give your response to the view that television always presents religious people as out of touch with the modern world. I do not agree with this statement. At first glance, I would say that some television writers do stereotype religious leaders and people as out of touch but some on the other hand do not. There are many examples of both sides of the story from soaps to comedies and from dramas to films. I appreciate that some television writers have to make a religious person act in a certain way for the purpose of their production. It is easy for people to say that religious people are out of touch with the modern world, but what is the modern world? I would say that the modern world is the one we live in reality today, where religion is not such an issue for many people compared to 50 or 100 years ago. Out of touch could mean a number of things, but the basic idea is that of being old-fashioned and not being capable of understanding the major issues of modern Society such as relationships, crime and politics. In the soap opera Eastenders, a character called Alex was a protestant priest. The writers depicted Alex's character as someone being committed to his job, a workaholic and out of touch with the modern world. Alex also had a friend called Sarah, a young teenage Christian who acted like Alex in terms of faith. She was very committed,
Problems with Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics. The issue in question is one with regards to morality, the problem of answering such questions as how does one live the good life? What is the good? How does one determine which actions are right and which actions are wrong? It is interesting from the get go that humans seek to answer these questions, one could assume that our own intuition could answer these questions for us, or turn to the respective religions that are overflowing with rules of morality and life laws. Nevertheless, throughout history theorists and philosophers alike have attempted to answer these questions through analysis and occasionally under the influence of their particular religions as well. Today we study a range of philosophies from Plato to Peter Singer, and in most cases we find that the moment a theory seems to be adaptable and just to our own lives, a flaw surfaces and is usually followed by many more which make us question our faith in such a theory initially. Kantian ethics and utilitarianism do just that. The biggest debate in ethics today seems to be between Kant's categorical imperative and the utilitarian's greatest happiness principle. To realistically examine these theories we must recognize that there are significant problems with both ideas, which lead us back to the questions we started with. It is apparent however, that alternatives
"'Right' and 'wrong' are just expressions of preference; they do not refer to any absolute set of values." Discuss.
"'Right' and 'wrong' are just expressions of preference; they do not refer to any absolute set of values." Discuss. (17 marks) The question of the existence of absolute 'rights' and 'wrongs' is a much-debated topic in society. Many argue there is no such thing and that all moral judgements are made by order of preference rather than following a set of moral rules or guidelines. It is natural for us as humans who were built to think for ourselves, to want to portray our viewpoint to others on topics of great discussion. Therefore we can expect personal opinions or preferences to take an important role in decision-making. However, many argue this way of thinking has no moral value at all. It is merely stating what you feel rather than what is morally 'right'. Expressions of preference are ideas that people are inclined to believe to be correct. They are based on our emotions and feelings, and what we would like to see happen as a consequence to our preference. This key idea is mainly reflected in Emotivism, which is in opposition to absolutism. This is where something is seen as intrinsically right regardless of different situations. We need to however ask ourselves whether Emotivism is a useful theory? Should we solely think with our mind, logic and reason rather than the feelings and emotions of our heart? We could view Universability a more useful as well as logical
"Discuss, using relevant examples, why it is important to have ethical guidelines when conducting psychological research."
"Discuss, using relevant examples, why it is important to have ethical guidelines when conducting psychological research." Ethical guidelines are concerns about the impact that research has on the subjects. The effects can be both beneficial and harmful and so the researcher must always think very carefully about how they ought to behave so that no harm comes to the subjects. In the 1960's the ethical aspect of research was barely considered they were accepted as a way in which research was conducted. The need to have some sort of guidelines to protect research subjects was recognised in the 1970's, but it wasn't until 1990's that the first set of ethical guidelines were published. Ethical guidelines produced by the British Psychological Society (BPS) for human subjects in the 1990's consisted of ten principles. Examples of these are deception, the right to withdraw, and protection of participants. These are all important when conducting psychological research to make sure that the psychologists don't cause pain or damage to their subjects as a result of their investigations. Investigators must consider the ethical implications and psychological consequences for the participants in their research in all circumstances. The essential belief is that the investigation should be considered from the point of view of all participants. Foreseeable threats to their
Describe the teachings of the religion which you are studying about war and pacifism. Christians have different views and opinions about war (A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties) and pacifism (the belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully) because of what the bible says in the New Testament and the Old Testament, what Jesus said about it, the just war theory and the holy war. I will explain these in the following essay and Christians points of views on them. One of the main reasons for some Christians agreeing with war is because of the just war theory and this was made in the 13th century by a Christian monk called Thomas Aquinas and he wrote this list of rules out because he believed war needed guidelines. The just war theory stated that war is acceptable but only as a last resort and this must be started by the proper authority e.g. the government, the just war theory also says that the amount of force used within the war should only be enough to win not any more and that no citizens should be killed in this and also that no cruelty or torture must be used. Christians would agree with this because it is as a last resort and it isn't the type of violence that would destroy more then necessary, an example of this is the war in Iraq some Christians would say this meets the
Assess The Strengths / Weaknesses Of Virtue Ethics The virtue ethicist suggests that his theory avoids the complicated tasks of using a formula to figure out what we ought to do, by instead focusing on the kinds of persons we ought to be. The trouble lies in determining just how we know what kinds of persons we ought to be. Or, we might put it this way: how are we to determine just what the virtues are? Obviously, if we do not know what the virtues are, then telling people to "Live virtuously!" becomes an empty imperative. So, if we ask the virtue ethicist what the virtues are, what will he tell us? Virtue theorists answer this question in at least five different ways. Firstly, some virtue theorists suggest that we will know what the virtues are, we will know what the good life is. Secondly, some virtue theorists suggest instead that we can determine what the virtues are by figuring out what the excellent human life is. Once we know what it means to be the best human being possible, then the virtues are whatever character traits enable us to live at the heights of excellence. Aristotle suggests this theory too. However, identifying the "flourishing life" is itself a major task. Also, if we look very closely at the notion of a "flourishing life," we will find that instead of helping us determine what the virtues are, it actually begs the question, since the flourishing life
Famine, Affluence and Morality - Peter Singer Explain and critically assess Singer's argument for our obligation to relieve suffering in the third world. Why does the argument erode the traditional distinction between duty and charity? How would deontological and utilitarian theories of ethics view Singer's argument? Singer's main contention in Famine, Affluence and Morality, the article under consideration, is that our way of conducting ourselves morally ought to be revised. He thinks that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything else of moral importance, or without making another bad thing happen, then we have a moral obligation to do it. What Singer means is that each one of us has the power to prevent what is bad and affect the rest of the world, however disparate and remote. Let us say that we are in a situation where we can, and should, prevent something morally bad from happening but we let it pass us by and do not try to prevent it. For Singer, this is not just laziness or cowardice, but moral wrongdoing. We ought morally to prevent it. I agree with Singer's point here; it is true and uncontroversial (although his argument doesn't remain that way when he develops it further). He goes on to say that although everyone in their right mind would agree with this ideal, few people put it into practice by for example
Explain how Virtue ethics might be applied to issues raised by sexual relationships. According to the theory of virtue ethics, the heart of morality is not found in actions, or in duties, but in the person performing the actions, the 'agent'. In other words, morality should concentrate on the person, and not necessarily on the choices they make in their moral behaviour. Ethical questions, therefore, should not debate whether a decision is morally right, but whether the individual is a good person. As a result, virtue ethics considers the personal character of the agent as primary importance: morality is involved with developing one's own virtues in order to become the right kind of person. Virtue ethics, does not ask 'what is the right thing to do?' but 'what sort of person should I aim to become?' It concentrates on being, rather than on doing, and in this way contrasts with other forms of ethics, such as Utilitarianism (the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number') and the Categorical Imperative (Kant), which aim to show how to discover the right course of action. It is important to acknowledge the views of Aristotle, who argued that the best way for people to achieve 'eudaimonia' (complete happiness) was for them to develop and exercise those qualities that are most productive for living in a society. For Aristotle, if we are to cultivate our virtues, particularly
Examine different way in which good is used in Meta-Ethics. There are many different theories in Meta Ethics, which help us understand the meaning and use of 'good'. The theories in question are Ethical Non-naturalism, Ethical Naturalism and Ethical Non cognitivism. These theories are also known as Definism, intuitionism and emotivism. In Ethical Naturalism, or Definism, right and wrong, good and bad are all taken and understood as facts. Any ethical naturalist statements must be verifiable. An example of this is: 'Princess Diana died in 1997'. This statement is a factual statement, in that it did occur and that it can be verified. However another statement can also be considered as factual in the eyes of an ethical naturalist: 'Princess Diana was a kind and caring person.' An ethical naturalist would find that this statement is verifiable in much the same way as the first statement, 'princess Diana died in 1997'. This is because one can find out whether princess Diana was kind and caring by investigating her character and her attitude towards people or whether her actions had kind and caring consequences. If we find evidence that the statement is correct then the statement 'Princess Diana was a kind and caring person' would be considered factual. In another words and ethical conclusion can be taken from a non-ethical statement i.e., generosity makes other people happy,
Hossein Amini 5S GCSE COURSEWORK- BUDDHISM The Life of the Buddha Question 2- Explain how a moral life could be said to be at the heart of Lay Buddhism Moral life, in many ways, can be said to be at the heart of lay Buddhism. However, the first thing to get clear is the meaning of the term morality. The word morality, technically means, the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, in relation to actions, volitions, and character. Essentially, it relates to the nature and application of what is ethical. So by a moral sense, we mean the power, and ability to understand the difference between what is right, and what is wrong. There are several aspects to a Buddhist's moral life. Karma is the law that every action, word, or thought, has consequences. This law of karma, which is the way in which life works, affects a Buddhist's reaction to his or her surroundings, thereby giving the opportunity to decide by moral means. For example, when a Buddhist does something good for the environment, such as setting up a clear up program in parks, this action of his, is 'ethically significant', and thus, this generates good karma, which then consequently, goes towards the next life. So, in this way, moral life can be said to be at the heart of Buddhism, because the law of karma, (one of the most crucial and fundamental aspects of Buddhism) causes one to decide by moral means,