That is, a person with the character of a murderer has no choice other than to murder, but can still be punished because it is right to punish those of bad character. How one's character was determined is irrelevant from this perspective. Robert Cummins, for example, argues that people should not be judged for their individual actions, but rather for how those actions "reflect on their character". If a character (however defined) is the dominant causal factor in determining one's choices, and one's choices are morally wrong, then one should be held accountable for those choices, regardless of genes and other such …show more content…
There are many disputes between what is morally correct and what is immoral. It is extremely difficult to justify between them because there is such a big grey area in between them and people's opinions are not all the same and vary greatly. This all comes under the topic of ethics and moral relativism. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior or some may define it as moral correctness of a specified conduct. It all concerns principles of right and wrong behavior in everyone and how they choose to act knowing their consequences. Our own personal values are determined by the culture we grew up in and our moral judgments and values are just our natural outlooks brought upon by the society and culture in which we were brought up in. You might share the same values as those that have surrounded you your whole life or your values could have strayed from theirs because of them. Either way the basis of your moral values would have been built up from when you were small and may change along the way. This explains how diverse different people's morals are and why so many of them conflict with each other. This prompts the question, are there universal morals? Are there a set of