Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.
121 writers online
The transparent window of human predicament and individual evolution: the conscious sense – a vital intuition of substantial intricate and complex function. The essence of consciousness does not merely rely on pensive collect, rather the transcendence of elements capable of yielding a subconscious; our consciousness demonstrates inconsistency at times: the inconsistency to denounce, the inconsistency to detect, and the inconsistency to input our best ‘values’ forward. With our transpiring history and morality hand-in-hand, the examination of progress depends on a spectrum of objectivity and relativity of our law and index of stability in society. Narratives, values, and progress: history is not a zero-sum game. The root of reform, change, and passage that metamorphosize to an assimilated history filled with ups and the downs that universally challenged the moral compass of individuals. Altruistic motives undoubtedly prompts an untelevised revolution; however, are these ‘changes’ ethical? Evidently, when globally we take a step forward, we take two steps back – non-sequiturs. The uncommon path. The struggle. The object of this paper is to prove that in order for history to happen change must occur, but these steps of progress in no means indicate moral revelation. Although our ‘textbooks’ indicate we as the human race came along way, ultimately we fall into ethnocentrism – we do not analyze truth: modern construction of history falsifies righteousness, with great strides there is always a predicament, and interference of our unalienable values kindles debates (in terms of ethicality).
The forces and conditions of modern thought and modern inclusiveness distorts the truth. Muted under the fundamental consensus of contemporary notion of ethical progress, we routinely indicate that “change is good.” In the Age of Transition, we develop certainty that progress deems satisfactory as history spurs a sense of unspecific justice. The vehicle of historic action results in social duty, but with a broad deviation of individuals with various beliefs their propositions and counter propositions makes moving in equilibrium (and coexistence) more challenging. Intergregated illusions of improvements mask the clandestine operations. After the exploiting enterprise that psychologically chained millions of African Americans slavery was ‘abolished,’ seemingly the United States was heading at the right foot; however, Former President Lincoln declared he contended on saving the Union. Misconception paints over the gospel; Misconception inhabits ignorance. While professing the idea Lincoln uphold a new era of freedom, Lincoln did not regard “the citizenship of free blacks”. A reflection of history prisms the continuing racial dynamics. Places such as China, Ghana, and India have yet rationalized the moral conduct of the persistent human rights’ violations. The entailed volumes of unconventional fail to succeed from unethical practices. Appraising actions for the source of historic discharge does not locate authentic morality if it opts out on purposefully seeking one’s best interest – history books continue to teach us otherwise. In this case, historic sentiments are stamped as ethical via current ideologies of ethics: solicitude and advocacy. Social technology fails our complex desires and our ethical lens via history. History is vandalized! Bodies of history do not demonstrate we made ethical progress – we fostered a narrative in which features a collection of decisions: a paradox. Despite efforts of change forges history, the modern lenses oversee motives and no longer defy history with a fine-tooth comb. The social phenomenon on morality depends on bias: mind over heart. The dissection of choice branches to judgment – what ourselves dictate as significant to our moral compass? Hence, exaggeration in fundamental events evokes our own philosophies, but why do we neglect and refuse to prevent geopolitical and socio economic strife that consumes our ethicality?
We are witnesses to a new revolution: intimate steps programmed subscribes to idealistic reform of prophecies introducing moral issues solved via vigorous minds. While history has its flaws, ultimately we made some progress. The use of civil disobedience runs through the name of history’s blood; however the practice of nonviolence subversion is relatively new: the union of organized mass undertaking and political usurper. Conscious changes in the national framework as well as the social constructs that were embedded and internalized a nation recently. The rise of ‘Political Correctness’ chained an epiphanic transition: that wishes the posterity and millennials to place their heart in their minds – and minds in heart. Contrary to the popular belief, evolutionary ethics, political justice propose our history to denotes limited ethical progress. According to our contemporary philosophy, we preserved a practical approach – rational versus irrational. Where our inputs charges outputs in order for the general public to provide feedback, albeit the quintessential marker of whether or not our decisions are ethical deems from the general public – raison d’être. In the scale of gender injustice, strong women “seized control of the feminist narrative” (Staples). Precisely, women of color refracted the bigotry from “classic liberal racist” and demanded suffrage (Staples). The landscape of position and ethics made things to a double ended sword: on one hand, based on religion (prominent in the Nineteenth century) our morals tell our intuition to no longer remain a bystander. On the other hand, our dogmatic scripture, the Constitution, did not recognize citizenship of African American women, as well as questioned the rights of women across the board. The enlightenment of female capabilities pursued on a moral revelation on behalf of men: misogynistic ideals gradually discharge from our cultural platform. On the other hand, men linger on the conception of women’s social responsibility deems invalid or construct a double standard to impede on women’s triumph.
The multitude of layers within our perception of historical objectivity questions our universe. Our history comprises of paradoxes. Dreams can become nightmares. The oppressed are slowly conditioned to forget and ignore the daily injustices; our descendants. We are the social product of a corrupted history. In a global scale, one cannot easily identify a universal answer if history proved ethical progress as “different cultures have different moral codes”. The premise of our psychological “compass” unravels the truth of disagreement! It is almost inevitable to get caught midst in the ‘storm’ of an exchanging dispute regarding interfering hypothesis. For instance, Americans reckon in “executing criminals is morally justifiable”; while French counterparts disagree with the practice identifying the act as – “barbaric” (Messerly). In a historic lense, the pattern of differing principles reflects our history. Consider the retrograde in these contradictions: our history cannot fortify ethical progress if debates to execute the solutions cannot act on a ‘subscription.’ An atmosphere of existing anachronism is undeniable. During World War I, the unclear repercussions of Germany sparked more fire to the already extensive flame foreshadowing the diverging rivalry. History moved backwards. As a result of unethical discussions and the consequences of a darkened mind, a second World War broke out – in which World War II garnering the most casualties. Professing and imposing values amongst the atmosphere for society (as a whole) to follow only showcases that distinctive morals are “obsolete”: there’s a double standard in the framework of history. Non-conformists who deconstruct the status quo speak in such desire to incitize citizens to reach the truth. Despite conflicting ideals, one should consider the changes global society deals with contradicting beliefs compared to indulging in proxy wars and ignorance; but in the race of rewriting our history, we are only have way to the finish line.
There’s an old saying that a pen is mightier than a sword. Because of technology, internet trolls and ‘PC’ culture are granted with the responsibility for rousing fruitful debates and discussions on politics and virtues. We are all entitled to vocalize and do what we please as long as we are not undermining other’s the privilege to exercise free speech, but generally American citizens has a tendency to abuse freedom of speech. We arc history to the broaden context of morality. The unionized perspective of modern day history broke our standard of ethics through a president with “crippling conflict” and “unethical” presidency (NPR). If history made an effort to make ethical progress then why is the leader, representative, and fellow American using unprofessional platforms with taunting connotation to those who oppose his beliefs? Presidency is objective. As a new series of history reflects a pivotal moment with the overlapping motifs of ethics and impulsiveness, – “It’s the president’s attitude, his language, his assault on the Constitution,” – that establishes our roadmap of progressive history crashes downward (NPR). The unorthodox background President Trump sets an example that the general public can participate in the process of becoming a president; however, in the sense of great process in the name of history we’re taking two steps back. Invading our “freedom of the press” and “freedom of religion” through his “[dictatorship]” makes the transition of the new course of history lose morality (NPR). Muckrakers and the public eye are positioned into the new game of ethics: challenged to the indecisiveness to denounce the president’s actions or to continue the cycle of an unethical history! An insurgence of those oppressed is not a product of an overnight epiphany, but through the driving forces based on the ideals and principles of the oppressor. Nevertheless, politicians have the power to abuse media in order to promote propaganda for better or worse. But in order to forge process, compromises must be made, our consciousness needs activation, and individual’s virtues must be placed on the table! More people began to indulge forgiveness rather than spoil their vendetta.
The objective of history flourishes on progress; the conscience of our ethicality perhaps cannot generate extensive changes in textbooks, but the degree of channeling advocacy for progress may evolve our participation in democracy and rewrite history. Our moral endeavors indulge on the past, future, and most importantly present: on our own behalf, we should consider bias, principles, and how we define history. Although minor revolutions occur throughout history, ultimately we misguide our definition of moral code, evoke more adversity, and contradictions models no moral progress. Despite universal freedoms and privileges such as women suffrage, legalization of gay marriage, and desegregation in institutions, civic issues rooting from ancient mutiny and repercussions extends the dimension of the essence of a broken cycle. Morals change. History continues. But to insinuate the human race demonstrates qualities of advanced and rational principles, that is an overstatement. Instead of imposing the concept humanity engraved ethic movements, society should remain to do so!
History repeats itself: violence repeats itself, indignance repeats itself, and aggressive resistance repeats itself. Moral convictions and subjectivity hide in front of the deliberations of problem-solving. The notable cultural contrasts vary their definition on ethical progress in their own history. Nations, such as South Africa, may succeed from the Apartheid; however, racial tensions does not seize – -if society was heading in more ethical dimension, should individuals encounter experiences which more of an assertive interaction or passive confrontation? Spontaneous ethical intervention and naivety should not execute on the whether history has proven it to foster righteous progress. Our theory on virtue embedded with our history never seems to satisfy our morals. We establish proxy compromises to avoid a broken autonomy. Nineteenth century slavery was abolished, yet twenty-first century slavery exists in its wicked form. The question “Does history show we have made ethical progress?” now prism to “Is there progress in morality?” Has prevention of repeated history ever taught society to forever put their best values forward?
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you.
Attention! this essay is not unique. You can get 100% plagiarism FREE essay in 30sec
Sorry, we cannot unicalize this essay. You can order Unique paper and our professionals Rewrite it for you
Your essay sample has been sent.
Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.Order now
Are you interested in getting a customized paper?Check it out!