This leads to the famous objection that he uses the existence of God to establish his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas, and that he uses his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas to establish the existence of God: his argument is circular. It seems that Descartes says that firstly “I am certain that God exists only because I am certain of whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive” but secondly
Aquinas considered that by using our reason to reflect on our human nature we could discover our specific end purpose. Aquinas used the ideas of Aristotle and the Stoics as an underpinning for Natural Law saying- human beings have an essential rational nature given by God in order for us to live and flourish. Aristotle said even without knowledge of god, reason can discover the laws that lead to human flourishing. The Stoics said Natural Laws are universal and unchangeable and should be used to judge of particular societies. We use this is help us choose the right moral action is situations.
This further reinforces that we have no choice or influence on our lives and the events that happen, so therefore God will know the ethical decisions we will make as he has already predestined them in our lives. Hard determinism is the teaching that denies humanity has free will and believes that all actions have a prior cause. It removes moral responsibility for our actions. Hard determinists would therefore agree with the statement above, and will believe that God does infact know what ethical decisions we will make as he has already perceived it. This idea links to predestination in the fact that it believes everything in the universe- even human action- has a cause which precedes it.
Isaiah 44:6 states: “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” James 2:19 states, “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well:” In the book of John, we can read John quote Jesus saying,” I and the Father are one.” Jesus also preached the Holy Spirit of being part of the Godhead, “"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you." ... "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him." (John 14:16-17, 23). In the above paragraph, you can clearly see how the God is the one and only, and that the one and only God is actually pieced together by three main characteristics. In the Mormon dogma.
Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral. In contrast, teleological ethical systems focus completely on the outcomes and consequences of an act. Teleology is a theory of ethics according to which the rightness of an act is determined by it's end. Also known as consequentialism, actions that result in what can be considered as a good consequence must be good and so the end result will justify the reason that the act was committed in the first place. Both deontological and teleological ethical systems use opposing ethical guides yet they both have the same aim, to help people make moral decisions.
Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices. The libertarianism theory has been explained by CA Campbell, who said that human beings see themselves as free agents and therefore accept moral responsibility for their actions. Humans must accept responsibility for these actions and face any consequences that may come their way. John Stuart Mill - an influencal figure in Liberatarianism – believe we are free and morally responsible for all our actions. Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society.
In this, Boethius’ ensures that God can be both omniscient and omnibenevolent. The basic background of this argument is the idea that God is changeless and does not act in time. Whereas we witness life events on a continuous timeline of past, present and future, God’s understanding of time does not work in this way. Instead, all time is a continuous, simultaneous present for God. For example, God sees a person being born, saying their first words, starting school, taking exams, graduating, having children, becoming grandparents, retiring and dying all in one simultaneous moment.
A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally. Instead they believe that all decisions should be made upon circumstances at the time and more importantly why the action was made. This is called cultural relativism. The theory of relativist morality was first established by Protagoras who asked questions such as, “what is good for you?” He did not believe that our knowledge was all fixed or that it extended depending on our experiences, as Plato did being a moral absolutist. He stated, “Man is the measure of all things”.
The first of which explains that men have a natural right to acquire and possess property; this argument is the most important to the overarching theme of his work. Locke’s overall political theory tells that men have inherent, natural rights in the state of nature, rights which are independent of larger society: they are life, liberty and property (¶124). Locke argues that despite the fact that God gave earth to mankind in common, men own their own bodies, including what we put into our bodies such as food and that which we make from our bodies, so “excludes the common right of other men” (¶27). The example of food actually becomes a cornerstone in Locke’s logic of natural property rights. Locke insists everyone is bound to preserve himself by reason, (¶6) such preservation requires the intake of food; therefore man is inclined to possess private property to preserve himself.
The University of Notre Dame Australia Ethics – ET 100 “Rational agents have a moral obligation toward the environment” Nelson Wisniewski 20112695 Word count: 1726 While humans undoubtedly constitute part of the environment, it is our intelligence, innovation and rationality that have defined us as the dominant species. These qualities are what enable us to be the only agents that can, and must, protect and conserve the environment as a collective whole. My first argument in justifying my claim is one of an anthropocentric position, that for the sake of our own continued growth and well being we must have an inherent need to care for the environment. I will continue my argument with Aldo Leopold’s environmental ethics, in particular his ‘land ethic’ and ‘land pyramid’. It stands to reason however, that anyone’s position on a matter is subject to challenge or criticism.