Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” (Bible, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, NIV) In reality, love is none of those things. As a matter of fact, the true description of love is much darker, much less romantic or poetic than the common perception. Truth is, love is an inescapable trap. In Maria Candelaria and Doña Flor and her two husbands you have two couples, (Maria Candelaria and Lorenzo Rafael) and (Doña Flor and Vadinho), who have every reason not to be with one another, persisting to be together despite all opposition.
First proposition I will be discussing is “ one thing is intristically good, namely love; nothing else” only good is good, in and of itself. Actions aren’t intristicaly good or evil, depending on whether they promote the most loving result. Fletcher said that actions are extrinsically good depending on the conseuences or circumstances. Natural law states that actions such as lying are always wrong regardless of the circumstances, but according to fletchers first principles actions such as lying can be justified if the outcome is extrinsically good. The second fundamental priniple is “the ruling norm of a christian decision is love; nothing else”.
Joseph Fletcher a theologian, who first articulated situation ethics through the bases of absolute love, agape. He believed that there are no universal moral rules because each case and situation is unique and therefore deserves a unique solution or approach. His ethical theory was based on the six fundamental principles; the first principle is that ‘love only is always good’ which is the belief that “Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all.” This belief that nothing else has intrinsic values, allows flexibility of a moral decision. For example a lie isn’t intrinsically wrong; it’s wrong if it hurts someone but it can be right if it’s for the “best interests” of that person. This explains why Fletcher strongly disagrees with Intrinsic Fallacy which asserts that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ properties are in the actions e.g.
All Lennie actions show his innocence. They way he likes to pet, the way Lennie does not understand the real things and the way of how people treats him is what shows that people do not need to be smart to transcend in life. Or the way George protects Lennie and the way George take decisions in his life and Lennie’s life shows that to exceed in life, you do not need to be the smartest person in life. You only need the
Was Cool Hand Luke Honest? One of the most famous quotes from the movie, “Cool Hand Luke” was, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” I feel that there really was not a failure to communicate, but a failure to conform. Luke’s unbreakable spirit kept him from being the tamed animal the institution wanted him to be. It is because of the spirit he had that I think that he was an honest man. Honesty can be defined in a lot of ways.
Thank you for that well-reasoned informative response. However, as is consistent with your statement that good and evil exist in all mankind, I wish to delve deeper into the question of how and why some individuals able to overcome their "dark side," if you will, and remain "good," while others succumb to their evil nature. It is evident from the text that Simon, Piggy, Ralph, (even Sam and Eric) do not devolve into savages. However, and this is evident in the book when Ralph questions, why the rules just couldn't be followed, why Jack couldn't just ask for the glasses, etc...., does there exist a defining difference between those susceptible to evil and those who can resist it. What prevented the boys from existing peacefully on the island
In the dialogue Socrates asks, “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” (Rachels, 50). This question asks out of two opposing possibilities, which one is true? On the one hand it asks whether God decides what is moral and immoral. Is God the one that determined that it is wrong to steal, murder, and torture? Did god determine that it is good to help the poor, give gifts, and preserve life?
With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so. Also calling god good would not make any sense since he decided what good is or isn't, so how could he be good unless the moral was grounding him? If piety was a certain care of the god’s we could look to do always what is Pious and in return we would be worshiping/caring for the god/s if they exists. If the God’s are looking to something the “moral,piety” then if you act pious in your actions through life you will be in a way worshiping the god’s, because you are honoring what they already honer. The problem with this idea is when people think god grounds the moral
He suggests that evil has an instrumental value in developing human virtues, he believes that sins are necessary many good things would be taken away if God permitted no evil to exist, ‘for fire would not be generated if air was corrupted’ therefore evil has some sort of good. For Aquinas God is good and knows about evil in the world however does not predetermine it. The world is not perfect but it is the best it can possibly be, God can still be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient and still
The importance of honest, morally satisfying, work and respecting the property that is the result of that work is fulfilling. And, he speaks that culture is corrupted by people that allow governments to protect property rather than people. The closing statement of“Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles. (Emerson p. 374)”, is Emerson’s way of explaining the importance of self worth.