ARE THERE MORAL RULES THAT HOLD WITHOUT EXCEPTION?

Moral Rules are regulations that we create for ourselves and have developed over centuries of experience and changes in culture. We formulate each of these moral rules by learning through cultural norms and the examples others have set for us. Since these rules are a formed through our own experiences and judgment, they can vary widely from person to personthey are in essence quite flexible. This flexibility allows other thoughts and emotions to invade our judgment, and it is these emotions that make it seem almost impossible to have universal moral rules without any exception. For example, some may say taking a life is never tolerable, but put in a situation where death seemed like the lesser of two evils, these same people might choose to kill. And they might come to this conclusion using the moral rules of earlier generations and earlier thinkers. In this particular example, it would be a utilitarian view to kill in favor of the greater good. Truly everyone hopes and often assumes that they will make the right decision; however, right can mean so many things to so many people. Beyond the utilitarian view that I has been displayed above, there are traditional views, objective views, and countless other philosophies that contribute to the conversation of morality. But without knowing those specific definitions, would we be able to risk our own conscious in order to save the thousands? If the answer is yes automatically, I think people are fooling themselves to some extent. Perhaps, with time to make a decision, it can be made through educated and un-biased self-reflection and with the guidance of those that we are closest to. On the contrary, when the task is put in front of them, without time and reflection I firmly believe that people might not follow through. Situations bring exceptions
Peter Singer! 10/11/13 12:36 PM
Comment [1]: !"#$"%#&'()#*")+*,')*'-# ./#*")+*,"%+)'++-#

for each individual and I believe it is at the point of exception that a completely different set of rules emerges: ones emotions. As simple as this seems, we make decisions that we can live with. One might say our emotional views are embedded into our moral philosophies, but that statement does not resonate with me. Right and wrong are taughtwe know not to hit people or steal or break the rules because these are the norms that have been implemented in our lives since birth, but the fact is that people still break rules. For example, Ted Bundy, serial killer, might have had a hard childhood, but it is safe to say that at some point there were moral rights and wrongs taught to him. At the end of the day, he chose to kidnap, rape, and kill young women throughout the period of a decade. I cannot deny that outside forces contribute to this choice, but if he felt any remorse or regret he would not have continued to do what he did. His choices were made clearly because at that time, I speculate, he felt it was the right choice for him. The lack of change in his mood and attitude towards the end of his final days showed that, to him, what he did was satisfying enough to be okay with his decision. It made him feel pleasure and he lacked remorse. Morally, he was content with himself, and this clearly illustrates that his code of ethics is very different from that of the average person.1 Almost explaining that each person has an individual set of moral rules that they are able to live by. To continue my line of questioning, there are also those people that believe that faith is their driver of Moral Law, but even that is questionable. Do Catholics actually seek to do the work that Jesus does? Or are these personal vendettas justified using religious doctrine? Yes or no, right or wrong, all are things that Catholicism teaches us. But what the religion cannot do is make the actual decision. Everyday religious people make decisions that stray away from their ######################################################## 0#Ted bundy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy #
Peter Singer! 10/11/13 12:40 PM
Comment [3]: ?/'#$"%#(/=%,)=#54(5#7'*(%+'# ;'";2'#2,@'#A%)3$#4(B'#3,::'/')5#&"/(2#B,'8+<# 54'/'#,+#)"#7(+,+#:"/#+($,)=#84'54'/#4,+#B,'8+#(/'# 7'55'/#"/#8"/+'#54()#()$")'#'2+'C+-##D4(5#3"'+)C5# :"22"8#:/"&#()$54,)=#$"%#4(B'#+(,3#+"#:(/>#

Peter Singer! 10/11/13 12:38 PM

Comment [2]: 1'(22$-##./#3,3#4'#3"#,5#6(+#$"%# +($#7'2"89#:"/#4,+#"8)#;2'(+%/'<#8,54"%5#*(/,)=#,:# ,5#8(+#/,=45#"/#8/")=>#

faith, and some even try to rationalize socially wrong decisions through religious views. But this only occurs because even the most pious people have to feel goodness in their hearts in order to live with him or herself. Sometimes I question whether or not our moral laws should be changed to our emotional laws. Our emotions drive our actions, our passions shape our futures, and our feelings allow us to decide what is right and wrong. Because at the end of the day, we have to live with ourselves, be content and be proud what we have done.
Peter Singer! 10/11/13 12:41 PM
Comment [4]: E"8#,+#54,+#/'2'B()5#5"#54'# F%'+5,")-#

Bibliography Ted bundy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

Comment: There are several reasons why this is not a good essay. First, and most important, it doesnt really address the question. As I said in the first weeks of this course, we are not trying to describe how people behave, but to ask how we ought to behave. So in discussing whether any moral rules hold without exception, you should not have been writing about whether some people, whether it is Bundy, or some Catholics who do not live up to their beliefs, break moral rules. Thats obvious. But that doesnt show that there are no moral rules that hold without exception, in the sense that it is always wrong to act contrary to them. (Just as the fact that some people steal doesnt mean that the law against theft is not a valid law.) Second, and relatedly, this paper doesnt refer to any of the reading or other materials weve come across in the course. Relevant to this question, for instance, was the passage from Dostoevesky that I used on one of the early lectures: would it be justifiable to torture a child in order to bring about utopia? That is a test of a moral rule (Never torture or perhaps Never torture an innocent child) that many people think holds without exception. The fact that Bundy, say, might torture a child for fun, does not answer Dostoevskys question. Its a question about justification. Thirdly, the paper doesnt have a clear structure you should make it clear at the beginning what you are going to argue for, and how your argument will proceed. Then you should carry out that plan. Instead, this paper seems to move from one topic to another without any logical progression that I can see, and without getting closer to an answer to the question.