Moral Responsibility argument Final Draft

Moral Responsibility argument Final Draft - Alexander Hyatt...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Alexander Hyatt 11 – 20 – 06 English 103 026 The issue of legal rights has gotten so out of hand that people are allowed to say and do just about anything they want to, as long as those things are not technically illegal. Whether an action is legal or not, should not always be the issue; but morals and ethics should carry more weight in one’s decision making. A large majority of people feel that it is immoral to harm another person, not including physical harm because in most cases, causing physical injury to another person is illegal. Harm in this context means emotional, financial or any other way of damaging another person. Most of the time, the damage is facilitated through speech, but it is considered legal because free speech is a legal right granted by the first amendment. Legal rights were given to protect the citizens of America. The government did not set up laws to protect against every form of harm that a person could succumb too, mostly because they felt that people were smart enough and ambivalent enough to respect one another. Clearly though, some people are not smart or humane enough to respect other people’s feelings. For example, the group that created the website godhatesfags.com protested the Iraq war in a very negative and demeaning way at the funerals of several recently killed American soldiers. Since it is morally irresponsible to exercise a legal right when that action is meant to harm another person or group in a very spiteful and malevolent way, it should be illegal to exercise that right. Every rule has exceptions, and the right of free speech should have an exception when people use it in a very harmful and demeaning way to others.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Webster’s Dictionary defines morality as, “conformity to ideals of right human conduct.” Therefore, a morally responsible person would conduct human conduct that is right and just. The definition of moral responsibility and legal rights are a little bit different because morals cause a person to think about how their actions will affect both them self and other people. As C. S. Lewis described it, Morality as it relates to our behavior is important on three levels. Renowned thinker, scholar and author C.S. Lewis defines them as: (1) to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals; (2) to help make us good people in order to have a good society; and (3) to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us. Based on this definition, it's clear that our beliefs are critical to our moral behavior. A person with no sense of moral responsibility may choose not to commit an action that is considered illegal only because of fear of the consequences of committing that illegal action” (Philosophy) Basically, the only reason these type of people do not do whatever they want is because of their self-centered attitude, and the fact that they are not willing to risk getting in trouble to commit such actions. On the other hand, a morally responsible person will not execute an action that is legal but that will negatively impact another person. A morally
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/03/2008 for the course ENGL 215 taught by Professor Werner during the Spring '07 term at Clemson.

Page1 / 8

Moral Responsibility argument Final Draft - Alexander Hyatt...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online