Running head: ETHICS AND MORALITY 1 Ethicsand MoralityNameInstitution
The religious doctrine and thepresence of God are the results of our original creation as opposedto a psychological spiritualization. Religious doctrines, though insome instances incompatible with scientific and philosophicalreasoning, provide a strong proof of our creation and other spiritualmatters that cannot be explained in any other way. Having God as thecentral super being from whom all things originate, and for whomeverything was created, helps to decipher a missing link in thephilosophical reasoning, concerning the beginning of life and itsend.
Most of the religious doctrineshave a similar narration of the origin of creation and principles oflife depicting a picture of an authentic and original stories,explained in different ways by different authors. The relevance andinfluence of religious doctrines are based on the idea of thepresence of God and as such, the extent to which the two explains thepurpose and essence of life make them a more original creation asopposed to just a psychological spiritualization.
Religious doctrine and presence ofGod continue to control the understanding and acceptance of the mostprimitive remains of our human creator. Scientific theories havefailed to gain dominance in the world due to high influence thatreligion has on many people around the world. All religions havetheir own concept of the creation, and the discovery of mostprimitive remains of our human creator is viewed and accepteddepending on one’s religious indoctrination and belief.
The most primitive remains of ourhuman creator have been viewed as a theoretical explanation ofearlier life existence rather than the original stories which arecontained in the religion books. As such, given the high level ofcontrol that the religion, the presence of God and the religiondoctrines have in guiding what is considered true or not true byhuman being, the acceptance of most primitive remains of our humancreator is guided by religion orientation.
The religion represents theexistence of a primitive desire to remove, detach and forget allcenturies of indoctrination by those who have taken advantage insuppressing, manipulating, and castrating our godly passions.Religion has offered a counter argument to the philosophicalreasoning and arguments of those who try to suppress its influence inthe world. People have an inherent primitive desire to have a commonbasis and line of reasoning from which they can see things andexplain issues around them in the world. This makes them relativelyresistance to ideas that by having faith in God and believing in acertain religion concept constitute indoctrination and manipulationof our original reasoning. As s such existence of many religions is aphysical and psychological expression of a human intrinsic andinherent primitive desire to disassociate and delinking from thosewho try to suppress our passions and belief in the existence of God.
Nietzsche Concept Of Freedom
Nietzsche Idea of Human Freedom
Friedrich Nietzsche argues that men are considered guilty for thesole reason of being judged. In other words, Nietzsche reasons thatbelief in free will existence is motivated partly by a drive topunish and blame. It is plausible that individuals in the societywill want to rationalize their judgments of responsibility as well astheir desire to punish. People may do this with an attribution offree will. However, it might be that actions considered morallyvalence might prime the notions of free will and control and therebyby increased attributions, without having this driven by the desireto justify judgments of responsibility.
In evaluating Nietzsche’s statement, one would ask, is it necessaryfor a culture to design theory of free will to rationalize blame?Based on various studies, there seem to be present and past cultureswhich entirely punish people. This is carried out without requiringthat the people being punished had much or any control over theiractions. For example, killing can be seen as relatively innocentabout the ‘sins’ of their relatives.
This shows that presumably earlier ancestors and hominid punished andblamed people with less consideration of their free will. If this isthe case, the essence of justification of this kind of practicesconsidering the free will would have arisen at the time when theculture started to acknowledge it is unfair to punish those peoplewho do not take control of their actions in line with the requisiteways.
This kind of the culture can lead to the development of the free willbut this is not as sort of the post hoc justification for punishment,but by recognizing that there exist varying degrees of control thatpeople have over their actions. Varying responses are suitable(justified) for the actions that are carried out with different typesof control. Free will can be a good label for this kind of control.This certainly highlights many distinctions that are currently usedby legal practices in the Western countries to assess the level ofpunishment and personal guilt. As such, causal agent free-will can bea good label for the kind of control that might justify punishment,exactly Nietzsche`s target.
Nietzsche’s statement on free will respects views of the purpose ofassuming that people are free to behave as they wish. This isbecause, in as much as people have to behave the way they wish, theconcept of free will and control has to be used to protect otherpeople from actions that can harm them, which are carried out by aperson claiming to follow his/her free will. It makes no sense to methat free will is a necessary ingredient for determining guilt. Guiltshould be determined by popular culture and a common acceptance ofwhat it good and bad. The extent and gravity of guiltiness should bedetermined based on agreed code of conduct for a given socialsetting.
How Are Karl and Simon Feeling Guilty On Themselves and What Would Have Nietzsche Told Them
Karl is feeling guilty about himself because of the horrendous actshe committed against Jews, and many people that he has killed. On theother hand, Simon feels guilty for failing to offer an answer Karl’sdying plea when he asked for forgiveness concerning all theatrocities that he has done to Jews. Nietzsche response to them wouldbe that they are not guilty. For Karl, he had the reason why hekilled so many Jews. As a Nazi, he was doing what was expected of himby his country and his people. The notion of free will cannot be usedto judge him guilty because, in his situation, his free will wascontrolled by what was required of him by his country and hisseniors. For Simon, he had a justifiable reason as to why he did notanswer the Nazi`s last dying plea and cannot be judged guilty byfailing to answer (Wiesenthal,1976).
Murdoch Discussion On Guilty
Importance of Guilt in Any Discussion of Morality and Ethics
Guilt make people have an inside feeling that they have donesomething wrong. Morality and ethics are concerned with actions thatare deemed upright. Inner consciousness is the best judge that can beused to justify the capability of an individual to certain action. Assuch, guilt forms an important concept of morality and ethics becauseit forms the basis against which any action should and may be judgedas unethical or immoral. Guilt guides personal realization ofunethical or immoral behavior and given that it is used to convict orevaluate the acceptability of one`s actions it forms a paramountelement of morality and ethics discussion.
How Guilt Function To Promote Morality
Moralities are the values and tenets that are used in making adistinction between the right course of action and the wrong one.Making this judgment requires inner knowledge and perception of whatconstitute the wrong thing and what constitute the right thing. Afterthe person understands the right and wrong, their guilt convincesthem to refrain from doing the wrong things and encourages them touphold that which is right. By acting as an internal motivator to dowhat is right, guilt plays an instrumental role in promoting moralityin the society. This becausemorality is based on inner-conviction of right and wrong and when itis instilled inside people the society behaves in a generallyaccepted manner.
The Sense of Guilt
A guilt sense does not always denote a religious base and it isnormal to have guilt even if one does not belong to religion. Thesense of guilty is not determined by religion. Actions that make oneto feel guilty in one religion are not necessary deemed moral inanother religion and sometimes people go beyond their religionbeliefs in their consideration of what is wrong. A sense of guiltarises from internal values which can be impacted by the popularculture, personal realization or acceptable social norms and notnecessarily religion. Religioncreate its own values, which guides the action of its followers.However, a sense of guilt does not only emanate from a religiousreligion, but also from other socially accepted behavior. Thebehavior can be dictated by law, governance policy or popularculture. The source of these laws that govern the society and whichcreates a sense of guilty is not necessarily a religion.
A Code of Morality
A code of morality promote guilt, and this guilt is productive forhumankind. Code of morality impacts internal values that help andguides personal judgment about what is right and wrong. When one doessomething that contravenes codes of morality, they feel guilty. Thismeans that code of morality promote guilt. Guilt is productive forhumankind in the sense that it helps to prevent anarchy bycontrolling the willingness of people to do harm.Code of morality spells out the values that guide the society. Thisare the values that guide, the extent to which the person feelsguilt. As such absence of moral codes of morality would mean there isno guilt consciousness.
Karl’s Mom Sense Of Guilty When Simon Paid Her a Visit at the House
I think Karl’s mom felt guilty when Simon paid her a visit at thehouse, and it was a right feeling to have. Karl had committed manyatrocities against Jews (in which Simon belong). Karl mom must havefelt guilty for the atrocities committed by her son against Simon’speople. It was the right feeling to have because the actions of Karlcaused suffering to other people and as a mother, though she couldnot have prevented it, she should have felt guilty for the failuresof her son. Her son failed to stick to acceptable behavior in thesociety and as a mother she ought to have corrected him.
It can be argued that Karl’smother had no role to play in the cations of her sons and as such sheshould not feel guilty. This is because Karl committed the atrocitieswith his own free will and consciousness. However, the socialmorality places accountability not only to the people who committed awrong thing but also to those people who are closely related to theguilty person. This is society has a collective judgment of ones act.As such, given the role that Karl’s mother played in his life, sheought to have felt guilty especially, when she sees desperation onSimon which has been caused by her son.
Wiesenthal, S. (1976). Thesunflower. NewYork: Schocken Books.