The concept of morality is mysterious is saying that just because god says its right to slap a child doesn’t really make it right. It’s just one way of looking at it. This conception of morality makes God’s commands arbitrary. This is saying that God is the only one who can create reason for his sayings. This conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for moral principles.
Second, he asks the following question, if God created evil and goodness, why can he simply make evil disappear? In a conclusion taken from the Euthyphro dilemma, this question demonstrates a limitation in God’s power, which is indicating a mayor flaw in the Divine Command Theory. Because the Divine Command Theory is based on faith, Mortimer, the main proponent of this theory, could find difficult to respond to John Arthur’s arguments. In other words, faith does not have a scientific explanation which makes it hard to be understood by some individuals. But one of Mortimer’s strongest arguments could be that the DCT is the only theory that explains and distinguishes between right and wrong in a simple and clear
One has a moral |Morality is a misleading concept, varies from person to person, | |responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” –by Dr Martin Luther King Jr in |basing laws on morality would mean imposing someone’s moral views and| |1963, the importance of morality in man’s actions even if the man might |values upon others, especially about sexuality –gay marriage etc | |have to stand against laws, morality is more important than legality |(Chappell). | |(Brinkley). |Which vision of morality will be enforced and by what sort of | |“Why would we outlaw rape and murder if they were not wrong?” (Chappell) |government –creates conflicts (Watson). | |Morality is a social phenmenon and it reflects the values and judgements |The domains of law and morality are different –law cannot be used in | |of public. Therefore basing the law on morality would favor the public’s |minor moral issues (Chappell).
There are situations in which God would have to compromise in terms of his attributes in order to be all-knowing. The first difficulty is that there are some things that are impossible for God to do. For example, Can God know lust? As we know, God is, and has to be morally perfect and morally right. If God breaks this, then he is not being omnibenevolent (all good), which is another of his attributes.
But also Absolutism does not take other situation into consideration, things change and people change, so should the rules change as well? Personally, I think that they need to be amended; this could cause even worse conflicts than they are in this day and age, although it might be necessary, Common sense isn’t that common. An example of the Absolute theory is the Divine law theory; this is all stated in the bible, it dictates what’s good and what’s bad, according to the will of God. Everything we do, has the question behind it: Does it follow the will of God? This is the question absolutes ask before making any decisions.
If my reason erroneously commands me to do something evil, can I have a good will? Why or why not? In this essay I will support the claim that one can have a good will if their reason erroneously commands them to do something evil if the evil act is antecedent. It was also asked if the statements “I loved evil even if it served no purpose” and “Evil would never be sought, not even incidentally, unless the good involving evil were to be sought more than the good evil takes away” could be reconciled. Why or why not?
The words of the Bible as they have been translated from language to language have been proven unjustly and their meaning no longer holds true valor to the argument that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God. It is clear to see the changes that occur in the meaning of scriptures as the verses are restated in their true context without outside influence set upon them. The end result proving that society has been taught through smoke filled mirrors the lessons and laws of the Bible. Making it easy to point fingers at those unnatural without truth and living a life where their own stones are overturned without consequence. With these facts, gay marriage should not be considered an abomination nor a sin.
I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all” (15), “To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law” (16), “Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation” (16), and most of paragraph 21. Some more examples are when he says, “Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?” (25), “I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle” (28), “Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” (31), “ I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it.
DOUBLE EFFECT, PRINCIPLE OF The Principle of Double Effect is a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad and the other good. Conditions. Theologians commonly teach that four conditions must be verified in order that a person may legitimately perform such an act. (1) The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. (2) The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it.
INTRODUCTION The book Truth and Tolerance by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is one that captures and tackles the tensions that arise from rival claims to ‘the truth’ by different religions of the world. It is a response to the criticisms by modern society and non-Christian cultures against the (Catholic) Christian claim on the “Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church”. How can Christianity insist it is true in the face of other religions and philosophies making competing claims? Is Christianity not being religiously arrogant by imposing its teaching, and thus intolerant to other religions of the world? As such, central to this thesis is the theme of truth- truth in the Christian religion expressed in the faith and teaching of the Catholic Church which Ratzinger sets out to address together with the questions above.