Moral Relativism&Plato’s Euthyphro The idea that the truth is relative is that what is true for me is true for me and what is true for you is true for you. For instance person one believes in the existence of god. Person two believes there is no god at all. If the truth were relative that would mean Person one’s reality is that god exisitses and person two’s reality is that god does not exist. Both of them would be right because the truth is relative to what they believe.
Ward believes religion to be existential. However, not everyone shares my opinion. Richard Swinburne used the principle of Occam’s razor to illustrate that Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument has value for religious faith. Occam’s razor says that the simplest answer is the best one, and as God is the simplest answer for the first cause, it is the best one. Denys Turner makes the point that Aquinas is misread, he says that Aquinas is just clarifying the existence of God for people who already believe rather than in an attempt to persuade non-believers.
Rationality, Sensibility and Ethics Immanuel Kant begins this excerpt from Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals with the claim that nothing can be qualified as good except a good will. He supports this claim by giving examples of things we consider good, such as talents of the mind and qualities of temperament, which are not in and of themselves good because someone of bad will can utilize these qualities for bad things. There are qualities and traits which can be esteemed for their ability to service and facilitate a good will, but this does not allow us to label them as good in themselves. Kant states that, “a good will is good not because of what it performs or effects…but simply by virtue of the volition” (P.1). The conscious decision is good in itself because the decision was not inclined by any desire but the duty to do what is intrinsically good.
It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises. Therefore, it is theoretically strong. Anselm proposed in the Proslogian that the existence of God was true for him by the virtue of faith and logical necessity. He proposed a reductio ad absurdum argument that aimed to demonstrate he impossibility of denying God’s existence. His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God.
Outline two key objections to the Ontological Argument and explain the responses made to them. The ontological argument was first introduced by Anselm in the ‘Prosologian’. It is an a priori argument as it is not based on empirical evidence but id deductive and analytic in that it allows one to use logical reasoning to reach a logically necessary conclusion which, in theory, cannot be disputed. Anselm defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (TTWNGCBC) and states that everyone, theist or not, can accept this definition. He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists.
The argument is convincing because it is logical. Although Anselm's Ontological Argument was critiqued by Gaunilo, his argument still remains convincing. Gaunilo critiqued Anselm's argument by replacing the concept of God with the concept of an island. He explained that we can imagine the most excellent island, the 'greatest conceivable' island. Therefore he said, by Anselm's logic, we can go on to say that for this island to exist in our minds, it must be inferior because it only exists in our minds.
What is Wisdom, Really? In The Apology of Socrates, the way the Athenians sees “human wisdom” and the type of “wisdom” Socrates talks about, proves to be two completely different things, which becomes a problem. In fact, the type of “wisdom” that Socrates possesses is not the “wisdom”, that he has a reputation for by people of Athens. The reputation that Socrates has been given by the people is that he is a “wise man” that actually knows something. Actually, when Socrates talks about “human wisdom”, what he really means is recognizing and admitting one’s ignorance about not knowing, rather than one claiming to know.
I mistrust the judgment of every man in a case in which his own wishes are concerned. ~ Daniel Webster. To an extent I agree with this quote, but some arguments I have say otherwise. To a degree a man’s judgment can be trusted if his intentions are altruistic ones, but the pervasive issue still remains in that it is human nature to see flaw in others hopes to make a conclusion in which may or may not be true. The purest judgment lies in those who expect no results and thoroughly analyze the conclusion they wish to understand, disregarding judgments about selfishness due to one who’s own wishes are concerned.
The Theodicy of Irenaeus has many weaknesses. For example, the Theodicy states that God deliberately created an imperfect world where evil exists to achieve a higher goal (a world where humans can morally develop), however if it is not acceptable to do something bad to achieve something good, then why is it acceptable for God to do this? Another point to consider is that not all suffering leads to moral growth. Some people do not develop as a result of suffering, but instead morally degrade. This contradicts Irenaeus’ Theodicy because it states that moral development is achieved through the experience of pain and suffering.
Socrates continued his point in saying that “an action or a man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious” (Euthyphro, 7a). However, Socrates also points out that gods, just like people, can have their differences and disagreements about anything. Therefore, there could be no unification in what is right and wrong, good and bad, or pious and impious. Again, we see Socrates’ doubt in having more than one god. If the gods can have their disputes about piety and impiety, then how would we ever know what exactly is the right course of action?