As a broad question, the circumstances usually weigh upon our decisions. If we were to ask any number of people, each would respond differently and according to their own beliefs. The beliefs that people value and are the structure which they live by are called morals. Morals are personal beliefs, and ethics are those beliefs and rules which are set by a larger group for the greater good. Ethics are in place to prevent endangerment of others’ well being.

Although one may hold personal morals above all others, society will expect someone to conduct them self in an ethical manner according to accepted standards. Conviction and self-interest do not usually suffice in determining what is right or wrong. An honorable and decent conscience by many society’s standards, is thought to be one that determines natural justice (what is known to be right or wrong) for its self while incorporating the code of morality already in place.

The Ten Commandments, an ancient text from the Old Testament in the Judeo-Christian Bible, are moral and ethical rules which guide the devout. Interestingly, most commandments explain what one should not do, rather than what rights one has. This may be in

“Every system of morals is a sort of tyranny against “nature” and also against “reason”.

“Virtue, intellectual and moral, is gained through teaching and experience.”

Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill. I think that these commandments are in place for the well being of all people. Stealing what is not yours is supposed to be wrong. Stealing causes distress and potential harm to the victim and the offender emotionally and under governing laws. Now take into consideration the circumstances. A government steals military secrets to protect their countries interests. A man steals another man’s weapon to prevent harm to another. A man robs the rich and gives to the poor. Many will argue that stealing is justified under these and other circumstances. Adultery is much the same in dishonesty. Government and people often justify killing a few to prevent the discomfort or death of many. On a smaller scale, killing to obtain personal satisfaction or justice is punishable by laws.

A.J. Ayer has a very neutral approach to philosophical views of what is the right thing to do. In so many words, his writing on Emotivism simply says, “Nothing is right or wrong by any standard but our own.” Ayer believes that nothing is factual and our own morals define what we think is right on a personal level. He may be saying that all beliefs should be taken into account and not dismissed, but expressing them is purely “emotive”, or based upon our emotion. My personal assertion upon his statements are that his lack of rigidity allows a greater understanding of different points of view, but won’t help in governing ourselves as countries and nations. I believe some order is necessary to make people happy and in guiding what we believe is right or wrong.

Some topics in this essay:
AJ Ayer, Judeo-Christian Bible, Robert Kane, Friedrich Nietzsche, , Stuart Mill, Metaphysics Morals, View Ethics, Huck Finn, Koran Islamic, master morality, thou shalt, slave morality, morality master morality, huck finn, morality master, women understanding, moral ethical, personal level, neutral approach, ten commandments,