Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Nonconsequentialist Theory and Moral Absolutes

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    The rule nonconsequentialist theories essentially state that there are certain moral absolutes that should never be violated (for example, rules against killing, mutilating, stealing, and breaking promises.) To what extent do you agree or disagree with this idea? Are there certain dos and don'ts to which human beings should always adhere? If so, why should they be adhered to and what are they? If not, why not?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com May 20, 2020, 2:16 pm ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    This is a very interesting question, and one which cannot be ignored in the world in which we live. We must answer these questions from an ethical or moral perspective; however, the question is, which moral or ethical standard?

    First of all, let me say right out that I believe that there are certain moral absolutes that should not be violated. The most basic of these rules is to treat others as we would wish to be treated. This has come to be known as the "Golden Rule" being espoused by Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), the ancient Jewish rabbi. However, his words merely echoed the earlier words of another rabbi, Moshe ...

    Solution Summary

    Nonconsequentialist Theory and Moral Absolutes are embedded.