Source of Morality

     Morality is an instinctive and adapted quality. Human beings are, by nature, empathetic. But it takes shaping to create sympathy. Morals can change depending on the situation in which people are raised, culturally, personally and traditionally. These can affect what people think are moral or immoral. One the basis that morality is a natural instinct to an extent, there are numerous examples that can be used to show that basic human nature is to empathize or simply following ones lead. One example would be infants crying; one baby cries and if heard, the other baby will also start crying. On the other end of this spectrum we have to ask the question of what is the standrad of morality and what is its' source?

     I beliebe that the source of the standard of morality is something that has to be taught and adapted and influenced by surrounding society. This is an extremely cultural standard. I can not give specific examples because I have not lived in enough different cultures to understand. However this statement can be exemplified by saying what is considered correct or not entirely depends on the situation and society in which you were raised. I was raised in a democratic, atheist family with certain ideals. And although I might not agree completely with their ideas, I can honestly see the influence they had in my life, my ideals and my morals. 

    It can further be argued that morality can not be learned or adapted. That it is solely a self-learned standard and are mostly human nature. I personally do not agree with this statement, I think that it is a combination of everything that creates peoples morals. The only extension that I feel I could agree with the previous statement is in the case of mental disease or defect.  Specifically in the idea of sacrifice. The belief that murder of an innocent human being is justified because "God made me do it", when really in a different society it would be viewed as murder.

Death Penalty

Death penalty is moral because it is how my society has decided is the best way to deter and to punish murder.

     I chose to write about this topic because I find it the most widely discussed and conflicted over. The death penalty, or capital punishment because of the conflist of whether or not it is ethical to "fight fire with fire". From the two different perspectives come justifiable reasons for their opinion, the question lies in which argument is more or less superior. From one end of the spectrum, that the death penalty is moral, it is said that the person in question who committed the crime chose to commit that crime. They therefore have to accpet the known punishment if caught. It can be argued along with this statement that the death penalty being enforced in a state can help to keep the crime rate down because the person who commits the crime knows of the possible repercussions. However this can be countered by the other opinion that it is a proven fact that murder rates decline in those cities/states that do NOT enforce capital punishment. They also are of the opinion that mistakes can be made and therefore the execution of an innocent citizen is more than probable. This is due to the fact that the legal system is no where near perfect and things can "slip through the bars" and a wrongfully convicted man would be put to death.
      From a purely moral point-of-view I am personally split on the question of the morality of the issue.  On one hand I do believe that there are some crimes that need to be punishable by death not only on a safety level, but a psychological reassurance level, for the victims of the crime. Especially when the alternative is a lifetime of solitary confinement, which is both irresponsible ethically, morally and economically. I believe that if the judicial system succeeds and justice is met by the government that the death penalty is not truly morally correct but a much better alternative to solitary confinement.  There are the beliefs that fire can only be fought with fire, and then there is the aspect from which I agree, being, "A eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". The death penalty is not the solution for incarceration and it is morally incorrect. I think that the judicial system is in limbo between these two views and has no where else to turn.