Deciding Right from Wrong Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Deciding Right from Wrong - Essay ExampleHowever, even after thousands of years, we are still unable to make universal principles with respect to right wings and wrongs. The rights of almost people are the wrongs of the former(a) people. For example, keeping more than one wife is a sin or a wrong thing for Christians whereas Muslims find goose egg wrong in it. Based on individual perceptions, many scholars and philosophers tried to segregate between the rights and wrongs with the alleviate of some ethical theories. This paper briefly analyses the rights and wrongs with the help of some ethical theories formulated by some eminent scholars and philosophers. The concepts of ethics fall into two main categories notions having to do with morality, virtue, rationality, and other(a) ideals or standards of conduct and penury notions pertaining to adult male good or well-being and the good life generally (Slote, n.d, p.2). Killing of enemies in a war is perceived as a right thing even t hough killing of innocent people are perceived as a wrong thing. Moreover, capital punishment is accepted as a morally right thing by many countries whereas some other countries reject capital punishment, purely on moral grounds. In other words, some people believe that killing of an antisocial element is good for the rest of the people in the society and hence such killing should be made legal, considering the future wellbeing of the other people. Most of the countries give capital punishments to terrorists because of the above notion. However, some people are of the view that taking the life of other person cannot be justified under any circumstances because of the immense value associated with human life. In their opinion, we are only creations and only the creator has the office to make any modifications on our lives. Moreover, killing of criminals will deny them the opportunity to correct themselves. Some of the Muslims have the belief that killing of enemies of their religio n is a quasi-religious act. In short, killing of people is justified under some circumstances by some people whereas others object it under any circumstances. In other words, moral theories associated with killing of other people are widely differing in different places. The categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant, tells us that we may not use or mistreat other people as a means either to our own happiness or to that of other people (Slote, n.d, p.2). Moreover, Kant argued that Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law(Categorical Imperative, n.d). Kant believed that the moral principles were applicable universally. In his opinion, it is unimaginable to have a moral principle right at some places and wrong at other places. Nobody knows from where we come and where we go after death. As per Kantian theory, human being has a special role in the creations and hence moral principles with respect to human cannot be applied t o other documentation things. However Kant strongly criticized the segregation of good and evil based on the personal beliefs or the religious beliefs. In his opinion,Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, only if always at the same time as an end(Categorical Imperative, n. d.) Utilitarian consequentialists regard pleasure or the satisfaction of desire as the sole, intrinsic human good, and pain or dissatisfaction as the sole,