Morals, Values, and Ethics Essays
478 Words2 Pages
Morals, Values, and Ethics Morals, values and ethics define who we are and what we believe. Culture, religion, and many other things affect our beliefs. One uses various types off ethics when surrounded by different groups. Knowing between right and wrong is a good foundation to practicing good ethics and morals. These things make morals, ethics, and values important in society. Many things can contribute to what you think is morally right or wrong. Religion, for example, may create a barrier on to what extent you do something. Some religions set rules, or guidelines on which they limit what people do. Cultures, as well, contribute to people’s decisions. Many times our values and ethics disagree with different people who hold different…show more content…
This doesn't mean our values or ethics are wrong it just means we think differently than others. When surrounded by different groups, one uses various types of ethics. For example when one is surrounded by friends and brothers or sisters one forgets what on was taught by our elders about manners and about being courteous, but when dealing with elders or a superior, certain carefulness is necessary. One cannot just say anything that pops out into one’s head, because one can be judged accordingly and would be thought to be vulgar or disrespectful. We develop many values and ethics through past experiences whether it is a positive or negative experience. These thoughts and beliefs are what guide us through our life. Knowing between right and wrong is a good foundation to practicing good ethics and morals. In today's world, individuals can make a single decision that can have an extreme positive or negative effect on their family, their employer, a nation, and even on the entire world. The life we lead reflects the strength of our character. For example, if we choose to steal, instead of earning it that makes one of weak character or morals. Like in The Pardoner’s Tale from Chaucer, “ greed is the root of all evil.” Ethics are different for each person, but for the most part, people want to be known as a good person. One wants to be known as someone who can be trusted, and one is concerned about his or her relationships
• Would you accuse a shark of being unethical?
• It’s nutritious/delicious.
• It’s a free country.
• Would you accuse a Venus’ flytrap of being unethical?
Pointy teeth or tasty dinners are noteworthy, but they aren’t arguments about ethics. And lions or sharks can’t be unethical because they can’t reason that an action might be more or less ethical. (Same goes for plants.) But we can.
Some critics insisted that even contemplating a life without meat was an indulgent luxury, a silly game for a wealthy first-worlder. I found this puzzling — as if the poor feast nightly on roast suckling pig and only the 1 percent eat boiled tubers. Over all, rich nations eat much more meat than poor ones, and raising animals for food takes more agricultural resources than raising crops. In any case, a vast number of the world’s ethical vegetarians live in India. Caviar is a luxury. Ethical discussion is not.
The judges considered 29 semifinalists, and though their votes barely overlapped, they were unanimous in seeing the contest as a cultural indicator.
Several noted the widespread agreement that factory farming, which accounts for 99 percent of the meat eaten in America, is not ethical. “Lurking beneath these submissions,” Jonathan Safran Foer said, “is a shared dissatisfaction with our current system of meat production, a shared anger.”
Peter Singer placed that anger in the context of “a seismic shift of opinion about meat in the past decade.” He added, “The tragedy is that factory farming survives despite the widespread agreement that whether we are primarily concerned about animal welfare, our environment or our health, it is ethically indefensible.”
Mark Bittman suggested that just five years ago that critique would have seemed radical: “Yet 20 or at most 50 years from now, those of us still alive will express incredulity at the way we once treated animals destined to become ‘food.’ ”
Andrew Light observed: “Though there were major disagreements among the approaches that most people took, everyone — committed omnivores, guilty omnivores and charitable vegetarians — agreed that food choices are moral choices.” A hopeful thing, he said, because “if we can’t all at least agree that there is a moral issue at stake then there’s very little chance we’ll be able to discuss our differences on these issues.”
Michael Pollan noted how many essays emphasized the role animals play in making a farm sustainable. “This argument gains authority when it is rooted in the practical realities of farming” — rather than academic theorizing — “which it was in several of our entries, and these to me were the most compelling,” he pointed out. “That said, simply stimulating people to think through their eating choices has a value, since our thoughtlessness in these matters has such a high cost.”
I agree, and that’s what amazed me about the boatloads of essays: people’s willingness — eagerness — to stop their busy lives and wrestle with the ethical implications of what is otherwise so easy to ignore. (By the way, my personal favorite got zero votes from the judges. It was a single paragraph that basically said: like it or not, when we render this planet uninhabitable, we’re going to have to move to another, and the only thing that’s going to make anyone let animals into the spaceship is the chance to eat them. Hey, it’s novel.)
A great many readers prefaced their essays with the confession that they had never before given any thought to these matters, and that they were grateful for the invitation to do so. I am grateful that they accepted that invitation.
Whatever you think about meat — whether you are a rabid carnivore on a Cro-Magnon diet or a dyed-in-the-wool vegan who wouldn’t hurt a fly — we’ve all got a lot on our plates, ethically speaking. So read, enjoy, digest and discuss.
The contest is sexist and racist
The panel [of judges] consists of all white men. . . . And so the cycle of prejudice continues in which white male elite perspectives dominate the production of social facts. LORI GRUEN, A. BREEZE HARPER, CAROL J. ADAMS
The contest is harmless
This is a panel of five, for heaven’s sake, for a meaningless contest. How diverse can it be? Why should anyone care how diverse it is? ETHICSALARMS.COM
The contest is pro-meat propaganda
Do ethical vegetarians . . . pose such a “threat” to the meat and dairy industries that The Times Magazine must now invite its millions of readers to shout them down? . . . We find it disturbing that the magazine would organize such a one-sided contest, and moreover that Ariel Kaminer should introduce it with such frivolity.JOINT LETTER FROM 59 ACADEMICS AND OTHERS
The contest is antimeat propaganda
“Tell us why it’s ethical to eat meat.” What a premise. So the premise is obviously that it’s not ethical to eat meat. And the contest is, “O.K., Neanderthal, tell us why it is so that we can beat you up and tear you to shreds and make a joke out of you!” RUSH LIMBAUGH
The contest is anti-pig-ist
I don’t get why the contest graphics failed to include a pig. Pork is a more popular meat than goat, lamb or veal. Lobster, fish and squid are not meats. Since there was no pig shown in the graphics, it made me feel people who eat pork were not welcomed to participate. BLASMAIC, WASHINGTON, ON THE 6TH FLOOR BLOG
The contest is elitist
It would never occur to us, or most farmers and ranchers we know, to dictate to others what they should or shouldn’t eat. . . . If it is in that spirit the great thinkers of the effete salons of Manhattan have devised this contest, we would be curious how it would play in The Times’s etiquette column. “ELITES DABBLE IN ETHICS OF MEAT,” CAPITAL PRESS
The contest is a conspiracy.
I find it both ironic and highly unethical that The New York Times would use a contest . . . to garner e-mail addresses that they can then distribute to political candidates. Having a Big Brother in New York City with so much impenetrable concrete between his feet and the soil that feeds him, frankly, makes me nervous. D. A. QUINTONContinue reading the main story