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.
In Teirsias’s mind he would probably say they were all good people because when they did something wrong they tried to fix it. I don’t see it that way and that’s just me people see things different. You can chose whether to think they are good or bad
Plato concludes that there are four kinds of life. We can either seem just and be just, seem just and be unjust, seem unjust and be unjust, seem unjust and be just. Glaucon concludes that the best one is seeming just but actually being unjust. In this way people can have power to determine what is just or unjust. If you can be unjust and still get away with it, if you can steal lie, and still make people believe that you are not and that you are doing the right thing, it would be a better life according to Glaucon than to be just and have a reputation of not being .
According to Nagel, there is a paradox in moral responsibility caused by two concept: moral luck and the Control Principle. Moral luck designates blame on someone for actions outside of their control. The Control Principle, on the other hand, is the belief that blame should only be designated on someone for actions within their control. These two ideas are in direct contradiction of one another and it would be foolish to believe both. However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them.
Do you agree that only a person whose habits are good can have knowledge of the good? ( in other words, does having good habits make you a good person, (or bad habits, bad))? For John Dewey, Habits are inevitable. We are born with foreseeable fate, habits are part of our nature. Now differentiating between what a good habit and what’s bad is interesting.
This raises problems for Boethius' argument, however he addresses this and creates a counter assertment. As argued above free will is needed for just rewards/punishments, some people say this because it would be unfair to punish people who could not choose to do otherwise. Others such as Augustine believe that free will is necessary because without free will there should be no evil in the world as there is no choice to create evil where as evil does exist, without free will this must have been created by God, contradicting God's omnibenevolence. Irenaeus' view is simelar to Augustine however he adds that human beings could not be perfect, God is all that is perfect so we were given an imperfect world and free will, so that we would be a reflection of God but not perfect. Hick's approach to the necessity of free will grows from the idea that God wants humans to genuinly love him and show faith, without free will we could not make a decision as to whether or not we had faith, belief or even love for God, we would merely be robots designed to love him.
You are claiming that I am older than you yet are you wiser than I am in acknowledging the fact that people, who do harm, harm those whom they are closest to whereas good people do good things to their neighbors, but I am ignorant to understand this. This means that if I make one of my associate’s evil, I run the risk of being harmed by his evil intentions. Overall you are claiming that I am deliberately putting myself into danger. This Meletus is not true and I don’t believe you and I don’t think anyone else will. I do not corrupt the young, I do so unwillingly or you are lying.
Relativism relies on personal and cultural norms to determine what is right and wrong. This is not a valid source of morality because what is socially acceptable is not always what is right. There was a point in time when slavery was socially acceptable but that does not make it right. Furthermore, the secular humanist is a consequentialist, which means ethical choices are judged by their results (http://www.secularhumanism.org). The result of this moral compass is an unstable platform for truth; as a result secular humanism supports gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia.
Although, whenever an unusual cultural practice is encountered the first reaction is disbelief and rejection. Negative reactions like this mean we can not effectively understand what we are experiencing. Philosopher John Cook observed that cultural relativism "Is aimed at getting people to admit that although it may seem to them that their moral principles are self-evidently true, and hence seem to be grounds for passing judgement on other people, in fact, the self-evidence of these principles is a kind of illusion". Once it is realised
Consequentialism assumes that if human being would weigh the outcome of their taboos and beliefs, then happiness can be achieved and pain reduced. But utilitarianism assumes that people can only value a virtue if it is deemed beneficial in accomplishing human happiness. For example utilitarians believe that truth will make a better society while consequentialists believe that truth will make a better society only if the outcome causes no harm. Basically utilitarianism assumes that the wrongness or rightness of an act depends on the moral good produced as a result of doing that act. This implies that an act is right if it minimizes violation of a certain moral right thus no one should violate moral rights for happiness sake and be justified.