Which follows on from which? Do the Gods make piety, or fit in with it? Euthyphro states “Is what is pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?” Essentially what Euthyphro is saying is ‘Does God command what is good because it is good, or is the good “good” because commanded it?’ This dilemma leaves us with an argument based upon circular logic, and no matter how we seem to go about answering it we are left with the same predicament. We could side with the latter half of this
A KoF can be the good guy or the bad guy, depending on how you view religion and the story of Abraham and Isaac for this purpose. A true KoF will be the individual or group of individuals who will defy the common worldly law of ethics in order to fulfill a religious duty. This duty may incorporate many different immoralities and negative actions. However, the immoral acts will be justified by the religion or religious figure that gives divine approval for it. This presents an issue with the moral and rational reasoning behind the deeds.
He starts off by saying that concerning punishment for one who has committed murder, there would be no difference of opinion among the gods about that (Plato, 7). In response, Socrates tells that regarding men, there are sometimes when a person may argue for a murderer to be let off (8). He tells of when someone has done wrong, he will not admit his guilt, but when it comes to the idea of doing wrong, they would they that the doer should be punished (8). And since this applies to man, he also states the same go for the gods as well, for they to have quarrels among themselves concerning whether someone has wronged another, and yet they may seem to have the same opinion about the evil-doer should not go unpunished, the one who has committed the act may not admit to his crime (8). And still, some may also see the crime as just or unjust, and not everyone will have the same opinion about the matter (8).
Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings. Privation may also concern itself with things not concerned with morality, such as natural evil. For example, a person may have eyesight that falls shorts of perfect eyesight – his eyesight is therefore ‘evil’. This way, God’s omnipotence is justified because evil is defined as an absence of certain qualities. Hence, it doesn’t exist.
The Torah suggests the death of a murderer. Killing a murderer does not bring any answers that make us understand what the reasons of the murderer were. Nietzsche says that we should follow our own instincts. In this case, it would be difficult to use his suggestion because neither the murderer, nor I would know if what we are doing is right or not. Even when Nietzsche suggest more freedom to make decisions, it is easier to follow the morals already created.
Colonialists place "...the book of God's Word over the book of God's Works, and theology over psychology." (Entwistle, 2010, p. 145). Neutral parties keep psychology and theology separate for fear that one will contaminate the other. And then there are Allies, those who believe that both psychology and theology belong to God and that "all truth is God's truth". They believe in total integration and know and respect the two books of God.
Even in contemporary society, we tend to associate morality with some kind of divine will, but through the Euthyphro, Socrates seems to suggesting we think along another line altogether. Is something moral because God commands it? Does morality depend on religious belief? A common view among religious, and even some secular, philosophers is that just as conventional laws require lawmakers, morals also require some ultimate source. The Divine Command Theory is the view that moral actions are those that conform to God's will.
He explains that the death penalty is just an act of torture and is too horrible to be used by our civilized society, stating that it is “torture until death” (220). He goes on to argue that the death penalty is unjust in its practice because it is applied in arbitrary and also in discriminatory ways. Quoting, “Remain grants that the death penalty is a just punishment for some murderers, but he thinks that justice does not require the death penalty for murderers” (221). He goes on to say that life imprisonment can be an alternative decision that stratifies the requirements of the justice
Some however may question, how do you name a conscience if it is not a physical matter and one cannot distinguish where it originates from? One of the two main philosophers to support that conscience is the voice of reason is Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas believed the conscience primarily to be a substance of reason; a moral guide that has been placed in us by God in order to make us more inclined to do his will here on earth. He believed that at conception or at some later stage, God gives each person a conscience to be able to discern morally right and wrong. Does this mean then that people who do not have faith or a believe in God are consciousness?
Written In Stone After reading the article “Some Moral Minima” by Lenn Goodman, I must admit that I agree that there are certain things that are flat line wrong. Living in today’s society with so many different cultures, religious and political beliefs we are bound to view some aspects of life differently. I must say however, some should never fall in that category. Genocide seeks to destroy a race, a culture even a class. Slavery allows one man to imprison another man that is his equal, to a life he doesn’t choose.