موضوع عن الاخلاق باللغة الانجليزية

موضوع عن الاخلاق باللغة الانجليزية

برجراف عن الاخلاق

برزنتيشن عن الاخلاق

موضوع عن الاحترام بالانجليزي مترجم

برزنتيشن عن الاحترام قصير

تعبير عن الاخلاق الحميدة بالانجليزي

برزنتيشن عن الاحترام قصير بالانجليزي

برزنتيشن عن الاحترام بالانجليزي

موضوع عن الاخلاق الحسنة باللغة الانجليزية

True morality mocks morals, "said Blaise Pascal in Pensées. The moral conscience, specific to each individual, is indeed different from morality, accepted and respected by a community, and allows its maintenance through the grouping around common and recognized principles. But can we say that morality is the engine of a society made up of individuals, endowed with a moral conscience? It is therefore legitimate to wonder whether one can get rid of morality and follow only one's moral conscience while forming a community. "Is morality necessary for the life of men in society? "

We will see first that it appears theoretically impossible to form a society without morals, and then in a second part that of a practical aspect morality and society seem incompatible. Finally we will be interested in the moral conscience which could be an alternative as for it necessary to the life of the men in society.

Thus, we are going to put in tension terms close, moral and moral conscience but which differ and do not impose all to a life in society.

If "man is a wolf for man", morality would appear as the border separating us from animality, the enclosure surrounding the sheep in green pastures. And if these ewes escaped from the enclosure, they would be confronted with the natural jungle and, after a few days at most, would be reduced to a mass of proteins circulating in the stomach of a predator that only responds to his primary needs. History can testify

many experiences of human society without morals, where the recognition of others would be based solely on physical, religious, ethnic, subjective criteria. The corporate mass then takes the form of a single predator, regulated by the law of the strongest where the remaining ewes, now devoid of the moral enclosure, are exterminated one after the other, such as the inexorable rhinoceritis of Ionesco in Rhinoceros . Morality is the basis of human society, on which many institutions, such as justice, merge. It is in the name of morality that one claims to build a better world. The recognition of the individual by society is done through this morality, the differentiation of the "good" and the "bad" character also.

Morality is that continuous line drawn on the road of each individual, and anyone who tries to overtake another self would be sanctioned by a marginalization, an indifference of the society to which he belonged. The world, deprived of morality, could be summed up in one night, as in the film "American nightmare", where one night a year all crimes are allowed, and would turn into a battlefield where everyone fights for his survival. But morality remains an ideal to reach, and to respect it in its totality seems utopian and impossible. As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, "Morality makes us so cowardly". Although she makes us so cowardly, she makes them civilized cowards, and better fleeing humans than fleeting humanity. This metronome represented by morality would thus make it possible to regulate the life of men in society, and suggests that it is the basis of it. Every man recognized by society is distinguished, but Morale does not seem so respected in practice, in everyday life. It appears almost as absent when one is interested in more frequent examples, even banalized, as the attacks, aggressions, and crimes evoked by the press on a daily basis.

Thus, although morality is recognized as a framework, a guardian of society for it to grow right, would it not be more accurate to say that it would be only theoretical and flouted daily? It would then be legitimate and necessary to ask oneself is very indispensable to life in society.

If society represents a group, a community, a whole, it is above all a long chain of links that are each of us. Individuals are like atoms seeking priority and in an instinctive and natural way to equilibrate, by any means, and whatever the repercussions on the "societary molecule".

Thus in a society advocating individualism and personal success, it seems both hypocritical and foolish to pretend that it would be inconceivable without morals. Every day in the name of personal profit, speculation, and other exclusively subjective parameters, we put morality aside, yet society continues to exist, evolve, and appear more and more sophisticated and human. Indeed, being no longer upset by world conflicts, but simply shaken by local revolts, society seems outwardly conformable to morality and its virtues, defined by the whole of past humanity. But we know that morality no longer "studies" on these international scales, covered by organizations considering peace, justice and equality as elements acquired and integrated into the present humanity. Collective morality appears definitively with an individual society, and of a questionable necessity to its functioning. If every member of society succeeds in becoming an integral part of it, while flouting the morality that is supposed to govern it, then this society is nothing but a sign stating the principles of morality, passing in front of each day without to pay more attention to it, like a well-known advertisement or a homeless person who has adopted our street as a fixed address.

But if morality is not necessary to society, then it seems legitimate to break away from it, because it would only constitute a set of principles no longer acting as a guardian but as a straitjacket, a vice that would tighten around each individual, preventing them from expressing themselves fully. But if the individual detaches himself from collective morality and accepted by all, how can he still form and be part of society? It is therefore that morality is not the true and just term designating the engine capable of gathering individuals into a civilized and human group. There is thus another form of morality, derived from collective morality, which would allow each member of society to limit himself, without a "corporate" morality.

The moral conscience, specific to each individual, represents the capacity to think and act morally but also subjectively, because we do not react and do not all interpret this moral conscience in the same way. It would therefore seem more legitimate to obey and follow his moral conscience than morality. We can observe this phenomenon in modern society, where each member, with the exception of a few philanthropists, puts their personal interest before that of the community, but while respecting limits of behavior not to be exceeded, because as Rousseau said "The freedom of some ends where others begin." It is this moral conscience that regulates an internal balance in society, and thus allows it to be kept in place. This individual moral conscience is different from morality in the general sense, because although moral consciousness is influenced by morality, it depends on many other subjective parameters related to the experiences and experiences of each.

This aspect of moral diversity seems much more rational and reassuring than a morality encompassing society under one eye, such as George Orwell's 1984 Big Brother, which would monitor us and weigh on the conscience of every individual.

The strength of the moral conscience also seems incontestable, because one can not really detach oneself from it, one can only learn or try to ignore the consequences which are remorse and regret. For society, this form of reflection and automatic judgment that is the moral conscience appears as a necessity. Indeed, even if, as we saw earlier, morality does not appear to be necessary for society, a form of morality, here the moral conscience, is nevertheless necessary for the functioning and life of men within this society. group. This moral consciousness differentiates us and separates us from animals, subject to the simple vegetative consciousness, and obeying only the rules of natural law. The moral conscience thus takes the place of morality in society, because it is personal and therefore much more representative of the individualistic society to which we belong. If only personal interest counts in society, composed of many other individuals, then a form of internal and personal morality is needed for the human bases of community life to be respected. It is the moral conscience that imposes itself as necessary and logical to the life of men in society.

Morality thus regulates only the major events of the life of the individuals, and it is the moral conscience, less thoughtful and more spontaneous, which influences the choices of the members of the society, and this spontaneity is necessary and logical because each choice made can not be the subject of infinitely serious considerations in determining whether or not it conforms to morality. But the fact that, thanks to the moral conscience, every individual acts in a manner relatively in conformity with morality, makes this moral conscience necessary and indispensable to the life of men in society. And the moral consciousness, as systematically present in each individual, no longer takes a possible or conceivable form, but becomes and unites with the life of men in society. The life of men in society would therefore be the moral conscience.