Many people find the system of religious knowledge and ethics convincing in that these two have established rules and evidence to support what they they put or what they judge as TRUE. In this word many people have faith in religion and those who do not follow any religion who can be considered agnostic (which refers to the existence or non-existence of God is not proven, but that one of these truths is a possibility) it they will most of the time follow what is ethically correct so as not to use consequentialism (which refers to the ethical principle that you should judge how morally acceptable an action is based on what its consequences are) as a way to choose what is correct or not. This essay will be more focused on the fact that people can believe something is correct because of their situation or background. From my point of view you can judge what is correct by looking if it is the right thing in your religion or what you think is ethical, so those good explanations are not always correct. Based on the above hypothesis I will use the religious knowledge system and ethics as an area of ​​knowledge and emotion, faith and reason as a way of knowing to try to see to what extent good explanations can be true. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The religious knowledge system is reliable for anyone, depending on their faith in it. Many people find it very easy to accept something because their religion tells them it is correct. Believing in something in our day is already considered a covenant, and believers think that if they don't honor the covenant they won't go where they want to be after death or that something bad will happen to them. Since someone has not truly begun to believe in something, the decisions they will make or the actions they will take will be based on other things whereas when you are a believer you have to accept according to what your religion deems correct. Many people see religion as a form of brainwashing, and their assumption may be true. You may observe that someone who believes in something may be against some aspects of his religion but will still be forced to believe it even while making decisions. Believers may be for something but due to religion they begin to reject or be against that thing. Religion may sometimes have some limitations, but who will you be to change them, so most of the time you are forced to follow them. For example, my grandmother's first decision in favor of our religion was Catholic, she dreamed of being Catholic, she wanted to join a Catholic choir, but at the level of some practices that Catholics were doing they were not really persevering because they were correct for her, not she believed in some of their principles and was forced to change her church now to the Pentecostal church, all this because she perceived the explanations of some facts to be incorrect but they were considered correct by the church. So in this case she had her explanations that she saw it as a good thing and the church also had her explanations that she saw it as a good thing, so one of them is wrong but they both have good explanations. Many people cannot understand something when they would like to, they understand it and they should understand it to build their personal knowledge but they will not understand it because it has been distorted and disclosed to them by the wrong person. The fact that you are ignorant can force you to accept something. An agnostic who does not believe in existence and non-existenceGod has no party and waits for good explanations to convince himself to choose a side. So at this point you don't have any knowledge and you want to gain knowledge but you can get convinced by the wrong person but just because of the good explanation he gives you, you start to believe what he said is true. Since you are ignorant and have not developed any personal knowledge, people can exploit this fact by giving you good explanations to promote their benefits and try to build strong confidence in their principles. For example, my grandmother's sister who never trusted in the existence or otherwise of God (agnostic) made a wrong choice from her family's point of view. She was deposed by a marabou who told her that she will get everything she wants and that she will get in even if she chooses to follow him and give him money and at the beginning he explained it with proof so she trusted what he said but at at one point he started asking her for some extra things that she should do to continue enjoying the benefits and when she refuses he told her that she will go to hell because she follows him and chases her away from his century. So the fact that the marabou gave good explanations pushes her to trust him while he too, in the end, because he is angry, admits that what he said was false. So this is why we can say that good explanations are not always true. In this we have some rules and some things that are already considered ethical and have been proven, so it's already like an automatism and reasonably you will almost be forced by your mind to follow those rules. Most of the time we have people who think that no one should do something unethical and can be condemned for it. Ethically it is wrong to kill someone but someone may have good reasons for doing so perhaps to defend themselves but ethically it is perceived as incorrect. A man should be judged by his act or should judge any action right or wrong by seeing whether it is ethical. Just because it's unethical doesn't mean it's wrong, but for someone to believe that everything outside of what is said is ethical is unethical. A friend of my father was tried for the murder of his wife, he accepted the fact that he killed his wife but explained that it was only to defend himself that it was he or she who was furious and took a knife to kill him and they took him back and wanted to stop her but she was moving too fast and he randomly pulled the knife on his wife. Here in this case the fact that he killed his wife was perceived as ethically wrong but it was simply self-defense and he didn't even want to kill her but from an ethical point of view it was incorrect so they put him in prison. We can observe that even with a good explanation it is not always true that if someone believes in laws that have been considered ethical your action will be judged wrongly if it is not considered ethical. However in this world there are some people who do not care what has been established but simply see from their point of view. They choose what is ethically correct depending on their emotions, their background, and the consequences it may have, so most of the time they use cosequentialism as a way to determine what is ethical or not. Many people don't feel concerned about the laws and things we assume. They think that if you come from a place where you would have to kill to stay alive, then they will kill everyone who tries to play dirty games with them or who tries to make an attempt on their life and it will be ethically correct for them because of where they come from because of the their backgrounds. For example, when my father's friend did what he did, they would consider his act using consequentialism because of the.