07 Jul response paper Moral Theories
Part 2 – Your response to two students: Choose two students to respond to. You may agree or disagree. Your posts are due by midnight on Sunday and need to be a minimum of 200 words each.
You may find that this subject evokes some strong emotions for you, especially if a classmate disagrees with you. Pay attention to this. Ask yourself why you feel anger if someone does not share your belief system. Make sure to use critical thinking skills to justify your position. Your two posts or responses are due by midnight on Sunday and need to be a minimum of 200 words each. You must use references from your text or from another source (website, book or journal article) to support or negate your position on this topic.
Criteria |
|
22/ 25
|
20/ 25
|
17/ 25
|
15/ 25
|
0/ 25
|
Peer Responses (25 per post) |
|
Promotes further discussion on the subject matter through meaningful comments that demonstrate understanding of topic and peers post. Source support may not fully use proper APA format, grammar, punctuation, spelling, mechanics and usage with fewer than three errors
|
Engages peers but does not promote further consideration of the material so that additional learning takes place. Source support may not be scholarly or in the appropriate APA format, grammar, punctuation, spelling, mechanics and usage with fewer than five errors.
|
Peer engagement does not encourage depth of academic thought or is based on personal opinion only. Source support may not be scholarly or in the appropriate APA format, with fewer than ten errors in grammar, spelling, mechanics and usage
|
Peer responses do not add substance or promote engagement in the discussion in a meaningful way; comments are superficial or off topic. Extremely limited or no source support noted; improper or missing APA format, and grammar, spelling, mechanics affect clarity |
Unable to score because there was no engagement in the discussion. |
THIS THE STUDENT I NEED RESONSE TO I did not know that there were two types of morality. Morality is universal vs. Morality is relative. After reading the chapter and further researching to find more information on the two kinds I came to conclude that Morality is universal matches more with me. According to Boss, Moral theories provide frameworks for understanding and explaining what makes a certain action right or wrong (Boss, 2017, p. 281). My interpretation of that quote was that moral theories give a basic overview of things that are acceptable. I found an article Morality: Universal or Relative? written by Saniya Bedi. Saniya explains that Morality is often understood as an adoption of rules that are considered right (Bedi, 2017) which ties together with what Boss said in her writing. A weakness for moral relativist would be that fact that in some cultures they believe morality is deemed only by socially accepted customs. This means that every culture could have different views on what is morally acceptable. This is backed up by Boss, Something that is regarded as morally wrong in one culture such as polygamy, slavery, and spousal abuse, or homosexuality may be morally neural of even praiseworthy in another culture (Boss, 2017, pp. 281-282). A strength could be that language is not neutral. By this I mean that various parts of the world have different languages, thus making it easier to create different definitions of what is morally correct to them because words have different meanings in different areas. A strength of universal morality would be that they believe it applies to every individual, not really emphasizing on the distinct cultural views. Consequences would be a weakness of universal morality. In making a moral decision, we need to weigh the benefits of harms (costs) to those affected by an action (Boss, 2017, p. 285). My view on morality is universal because truthfulness and honesty are universal. I believe this to be true because no matter where I am these are universal values that cannot be differed by cultural beliefs.
References
Bedi, S. (2017, August 9). Morality: Universal or Relative? .
Boss, J. A. (2017). In THiNK Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life (14th ed., pp. 281-290). McGraw Hill Education.
word count: 372
