The Ability To Choose Right Over Wrong And Vice Versa ✓ Solved

The ability to choose right over wrong and vice versa has become

The ability to choose right over wrong and vice versa has become a challenge to morality. Because some morals claim that people have no substantial reasons to care about others, others argue that if a person has no intentions of harming you, you should have an excuse not to harm them (Nagel, p.47). To say something is wrong does not only mean it is wrong because of the rules, but also because there can be rules which prohibit what is not wrong. For example, the law does not support criticizing the government and supporting racial segregation in restaurants and hotels. From my point, people should care and do right to others.

Because: I) People have humanity, and if a person has no intentions of harming you, you should have a reason not to harm them, which supports doing right over wrong. II) You should do to others what you would like to be done to you. III) Doing wrong shows betrayal and unfairness to others because an individual does not care who gets hurt or how others will be affected by his/her actions. It also indicates that the person has no reason not to kill, steal or hurt others against morality. IV) Inconsiderate behaviors are a threat to other people’s interests.

For example, stealing hurts the victim and brings resentment. V) Every person should have a reason to consider their actions and how the effect is on others' good or harm.

Conclusion There is a different percentage of humanity in every person, which means every one cares for someone. The urge to do right and caring for others shows humanity and differentiates human beings from all other creatures. But in most cases, some people are too blinded by greed and selfishness that they no longer care about anyone else, which is wrong in many ways and does not support humanity.

Paper For Above Instructions

Morality is a complex construct that often challenges individuals in their daily lives. The ability to discern right from wrong influences not only personal choices but also societal norms. This essay explores the philosophical underpinnings of morality, discussing the inherent human inclination towards kindness and fairness, the implications of selfish actions, and the moral obligations individuals hold towards one another.

To fully understand why we should strive to do right by others, we first need to recognize the shared humanity that binds us. According to philosopher Thomas Nagel, moral reasoning involves considering the intentions and impacts of one’s actions on others (Nagel, 1987). When someone chooses not to harm another, they acknowledge the shared experience of being human, cultivating a spectrum of empathy that is essential for societal cohesion. A foundational principle in many moral philosophies is the idea that one ought to treat others as they would like to be treated, commonly referred to as the "Golden Rule." This principle underscores the notion that, at our core, we are all inextricably linked through our experiences and emotions.

Furthermore, the act of doing wrong carries implications that extend beyond the individual. When one engages in wrongful acts, they betray the trust and welfare of others. This betrayal can manifest in various forms such as theft, which not only deprives a victim of their possessions but also engenders feelings of resentment and fear within the community (Walzer, 1983). Such actions are indicative of a moral failure that neglects the consideration of how one’s behavior affects the lives of others. Additionally, it illustrates a broader societal issue wherein the norms of mutual respect and cooperation are undermined by selfishness.

One cannot ignore the societal context of morality. In societies where individualism is highly valued, there often arises a tension between personal interests and communal welfare. Philosopher John Stuart Mill asserts that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; conversely, they are wrong when they produce pain (Mill, 1863). This utilitarian perspective emphasizes the need for individuals to gauge their actions by the happiness or suffering they produce. It raises the critical question of whether or not the perceived benefits of one’s actions justify the potential harm inflicted upon others.

Moreover, the moral obligations individuals owe each other extend beyond mere avoidance of harming others. In many ethical frameworks, such as Kant’s deontological ethics, one's duty is not only to refrain from causing harm but also to actively promote the well-being of others (Kant, 1785). This involves taking responsibility for one’s actions and recognizing the interconnectedness of human experiences. Neglecting this responsibility can lead to a moral vacuum where apathy becomes commonplace, thus threatening societal stability.

One pertinent example of the consequences of selfishness is the issue of wealth inequality. Studies have shown that extreme disparities in wealth can foster an environment ripe for social unrest and moral decay (Piketty, 2014). When the well-off disregard the plight of the less fortunate, they not only perpetuate cycles of poverty but also erode the very fabric of society that depends on mutual care and support.

In addition to ethical considerations, there is a psychological aspect to moral choices. Research indicates that empathy plays a crucial role in moral decision-making (Decety & Howard, 2019). Our ability to empathize with others profoundly influences our willingness to act in ways that support rather than harm; this highlights the need for nurturing such qualities within individual character and consciousness. Therefore, fostering empathy can be considered a moral imperative that has far-reaching implications for social harmony.

In conclusion, the challenge of choosing right over wrong illuminates the significance of morality in shaping human existence. While personal interests may tempt individuals to act selfishly, the overarching imperative to recognize our shared humanity drives us toward compassion and fairness. Choosing to do what is right not only benefits others but also enriches one’s own life and promotes a healthier society. As we navigate moral dilemmas, it is essential to strive towards actions that uplift and respect our collective humanity.

References

• Decety, J., & Howard, L. H. (2019). The role of empathy in moral decision-making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(1), 1-17.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Nagel, T. (1987). What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
• Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.
• Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Basic Books.
• Hirschman, A. O. (1997). The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph. Princeton University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press.
• Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Knopf.