Christianity teaches that people should not work on the day of Sabbath as God himself didn’t and that it should be the day of rest. However, Jesus didn’t follow these rules and decided to do the most loving thing and heal a sick person on this day even though he wasn’t supposed to. Some could argue that situation ethics and its ideas about love fit into Christian theology perfectly because even Jesus broke rules to do the most loving thing possible. Johns part of the gospels state that “God is love” and from this we can interpret that Christians must live their lives by trying to be Omnibenevolent and doing the most loving thing in all situations no matter how extreme. Fletcher incorporated the quote from the gospels into his ethical theory and devised six propositions and four principles.
This ethical theory aligns itself with a Christian worldview, arguing that an action is good only if the principle behind the action is moral law (Giersson and Holmgren, 2000). In other words, actions should only be done in accordance with God’s will. For instance, clearly stating how outliers are addressed when drawing conclusions based on the statistical analysis is ethical in that it is the right thing to do so that the probability of misinterpretation is minimized. Additionally, Kantian ethics also require autonomy, which is often required in relationship to dealing with clients and the subjects from whom data is collected (Tittle, 2000). Again, this ties back to the Christian worldview of loving ones neighbor.
However, if someone following situation ethics wasn’t a Christian, then they would be forced to make a decision based on a religion that they don’t believe in; but it could be argued that Christian love is similar to religions all around the world. The third presumption is positivism, which states that moral commands must have a chance of a successful end. This guides the situationist due to the fact that it states that it helps
Rand says “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears…” (qtd. The Ayn Rand Institute 1). Consciousness, therefore, is to distinguish reality, not to fashion or form it around a personal belief. Consequently, Objectivists reject all forms of a supernatural or any beliefs unfounded in fact. In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach.
However, if this link between religion and morality is criticised, then there are sufficient grounds for secularist and atheistic ways of life. Why is religion needed when it is not the source of moral guidance? Two famous critiques of the link between religion and morality are the Euthyphro dilemma and the many critiques od Richard Dawkins against religion. Both essentially come to the same conclusion; that we do not need God to be good. The basic concept of religion and morality, especially divine command theory, is very simple: what God commands is good, therefore only do that.
The Disguised Truth About American Christianity In “The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong,” Bill Mckibben argues that the way Americans view the messages and teachings Christianity displays are far from what the Gospels of the Bible actually say and teach. McKibben points out how our nation is the most outspoken when it comes to Christianity. However, he later goes on to claim that as the most outspoken of the Christian nations our actions and decisions do not reflect what we preach. It is this contradiction that McKibben insists is the paradox of our Christianity in America. According to a statistic laid out by McKibben, seventy-five percent of the American population is under the belief that “God helps those who
Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is- his good, pleasing, and perfect will.” Paul was speaking about how as Christians, we should not strive to follow the mold of society, but rather follow the will of the Lord. At times, this can be difficult for a Christian business owner, yet the rewards for the Lord will outweigh the financial gains from following society. Kotler and Keller explain that one area of marketing that Romans 12:2 applies to is that of social responsibility marketing. “Because the effects of marketing extend beyond the company and the customer to society as a whole, marketers must consider the ethical, environmental, legal, and social context of their roles and activities” (Kotler and Keller, 2012, p. 22).
This worldview is quite similar to Christianity. Both Christian theism and EPM’s goal is to reunite with God or Brahman. In EPM there is no right or wrong while in Christian theism one must follow Christian moral values. Furthermore, the major difference that I can notice is that in Christian theism, God loves us as individuals while in EPM individuality means nothing. The best way to be one with Brahman is to do nothing, to achieve nirvana.
Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists. If it did, you could evaluate other ethical systems meaningfully. A moral relativist would ask such questions as ‘what do we mean by wrong?’ when making a decision on something deemed wrong. Relativism is in direct contrast with absolute morality that is deontological, referring to looking at the action in itself. A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally.
Christian love essentially unites persons with the ontological good – originated from God – and transforms the self to be concerned both for oneself and the good of others on the level of identity. This article presents a more subtle critical analysis of self-interest – an sich a-moral - while it proposes self-love not only as a necessary condition to undertake genuine morality but also as a guarantee for the moderation of self-interest. KEY WORDS: Agape, love, self, self-interest, selfishness, self-love. Introduction In most ethical discourses, one may observe confusion between an act of selfishness, self-interest, and self-love. Some seem to intentionally mystify their meaning while others inadvertently employ them interchangeably to explain one’s act in relation to oneself.