The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God. If morality is independent of God and God’s commands only exist because the moralities of actions are predetermined, then God is no longer sovereign. If morals are independent of God’s commands then God is not sovereign over morality. This goes against the definition of a theistic God which defines God as the creator and ruler over everything. It also puts limits on God’s power.
Therefore, humans may not be morally blameworthy for their actions because all of their actions are determined. Soft determinists believe that some human actions are determined, but we still have moral responsibility. Hard determinism is the view that we are not free and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. “Everything is planned, connected, limited.” Voltaire, 1764. This demonstrates that hard determinism is a concept that has been around for centuries.
We should ask ourselves why certain patterns occur and not just accept that it was by “pure chance”. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determinism Before there was anything called philosophy, religious accounts of man's fate explored the degree of human freedom permitted by superhuman gods. The Making myths often end in ventures of the first humans clearly making decisions and being held accountable. But a strong fatalism is present in those tales that foretell the future, based on the idea that the gods have intuition of future events. Anxious not to annoy the
Moral judgments will vary as much as one individual varies from another individual. As seems obvious to me, due to the fact that moral judgments cannot be purely derived from reason or passion alone, is the notion that both are necessary for the
Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe.
We live in an imperfect world. There are shades of gray in our lives. History, the beliefs of significant people, and my personal experience suggest that utilitarianism is a practical moral code. Different ideas have existed and circulated throughout history especially the principles of morality. Throughout history, various moral codes have developed starting with Hammurabi’s Code in the Middle East so many years ago.
Basically this life is all you have so do what you want. Even those these religions have very different beliefs they do have some similarities. This paper will compare and contrast various aspects of both of these belief systems. “The gods are not to be feared; death cannot be felt; the good can be won; all that we dread can be conquered.” -- Epicurus. (webspace.ship.edu/) An Epicurean mindset is that this life will be over and there is nothing else.With Epicurus's one constant problem with God was evil.
the theory of knowledge, and attempt to discuss the development of different theories of philosophers ranging from pre-Socratic to post-Aristotelian Ancient Greece. 2. Pre-Socratic Epistemology Before any specific reference is made to philosophers of the pre-Socratic era, one must comment on the shifting in the mind-set that was taking place in Ancient Greece at this time. All that was known to the Greeks was that of traditionally accepted and unquestioned truths pertaining to the gods communicated to the people by poets such as Homer and Hesiod. (Lawhead 2011:15-16).
One of the glaring statements that has often been made is the possibility of generalizing human rights without taking into consideration the difference in culture, tradition, religion more importantly human nature itself which vary from each one to another. Is it likely that we can achieve human rights which are universal without the existence of a universal culture? Firstly, the idea of human nature indicates both their nature and their source: they are rights that one has simply because one is human and that a right is a special entitlement that one has to something. They are held by all human beings, irrespective of any rights or duties one may or may not have as citizens, workers or members of families, private organizations and so forth. In the language of the 1948, they are universal rights.
Later, Philosopher Hume came out with his version of the “tabula rasa” principle, the copy theory of ideas. The theory that suggests all of our ideas are either copies of sense impressions and rearrangements of copies of sense impressions. The idea of empiricism, we cannot have reason prior to having experience. Some people often choose to believe in what we cannot see, for example, love cannot be seen directly, we are only able to see the feelings and actions that demonstrate love. In the religious domain, it’s the same scenario the people believe in what they cannot see, yet