What is it to be moral? The two articles that talk about how ethics and morality depend on life, has a message on what the authors think about. On one hand James Rachels wrote the article, "Can ethics provide answers?" which agrees that there are answers to ethics. On the other hand Bertrand Russell wrote the article, "Science and Ethics" which disagrees on ethics.
Rachels said that ethics could provide answers. In his article he says that ethics can provide answers. He says, "No matter how important ethical questions might be, no definite answers are possible" People can both agree and disagree to Rachels because everyone has its on way to think. Rachels gave many example of ethics, like one of them he said, "We cannot say that X is right, but that Y is wrong, unless there is a relevant difference between X and Y" This one can explain why ethics can give answers.
Is like saying yes, but you don't know why you are saying yes. If a friend takes his best friend out and he asks if he wants to drink, he (best friend) will probably go with him because he is his friend. But, if he had ethics he will say "no" because he know it is bad. This example would be the same as X is right and Y is wrong. In other words, people should know what are the good and bad, and the right and wrong. In addition, there is another example, "When experts disagree, the rest of us may not know what to think" This example is like following the leader, not knowing what to do because the great one is wrong.
Bertrand Russell who disagreed with Rachels. Bertrand said that there are no certain answers to ethics. The man...