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.
Which Aquinas believed reflects the Eternal Law. The Natural Law refers to the moral law of God which has been built into each human nature; however it can be seen by everyone as it does not depend on belief in God as long as you use you reason when faced with a situation then you have done the
Dissect the four-part definition of “sacred” in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. Set apart-The strength is that the sacred is holy which I support and should not be mixed with worldly staff on the other hand its weak because all things set apart do not necessarily mean they are sacred. Beyond what human can violate-The strength is that human beings cannot affect the nature of it in terms of origin and birth. They cannot kill it because of the nature associated to it. On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that.
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.
Kant devised two different types of imperatives which allow us to make our decisions, hypothetical imperatives are the rules that we follow to attain a personal outcome or a selfish wish whereas categorical imperatives are intrinsically right. His first categorical imperative was meant to establish that humans should only act according to a law that can be universalised. ‘’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’’ – (Kant the moral order). The second of the imperatives is that we as humans should never use another human as a means to an end, treat them all with value. ‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’.
Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther King Jr. placed his faith in the goodness of God and morality of the people, believing that one day, with patience, they would see his vision of a world of peace and equality. King was a strong believer of natural law, the belief that “law and physical nature cannot be separated; universal order is independent of human will, habits or political degrees”. He also strongly encouraged peaceful civil disobedience, stating “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty or imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law”. His words of faith and promise of a better future came at a time when the oppressed African- American culture needed his guidance the most. Martin Luther King Jr.’s views of laws and the judicial system were not
Natural moral law says that we should follow the 5 primary precepts that apply to everyone and must be followed in order for a person to be deemed morally right. A Strength of absolute morality is that it provides a clear and fixed rule that removes any confusion as an action is either intrinsically good or intrinsically bad and it cannot be anything else. While this form of morality has its strengths there are also serious flaws such as by applying it too strictly could allow people to un intentionally commit evil acts because they are not required to consider the consequences of their actions. An example of where it could be used un intentionally used for evil would be if you believed that stealing was intrinsically wrong but you saw a starving child on the street but you had no money on you, an
He explained that everything has a purpose – “a good knife is one that cuts well, that is what it is designed to do”. Aristotle believed that it was universal and could be applied to all cultures, religions and genders. The Stoics were a group of Ancient Greek philosophers who further developed the concept of natural law. They stated that if we wanted to fulfil our purpose we must behave morally and “fit in with the overall plan of the universe”. The Roman lawyer Cicero also utilised the concept of natural law.
In the Old Testament, God asserts that humans should follow the law “thou shall not kill” . He however, instructs people to kill one another several times, showing that killing itself is not always immoral or unjustified in the eyes of God. Killing is not justified unless it is for a purpose that values life such as for food, survival, self-defense, warfare, or as a deterrent for murder. Killing for food or for survival is not wrong, as it is part of the natural order and is done in the interest of preserving the life of oneself. Since the origin of the first complex organisms on Earth, creatures have depended on other living things, plants and animals, as means of sustenance.
It stands to reason however, that anyone’s position on a matter is subject to challenge or criticism. Taking this into consideration I will explore Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism and it’s potential to challenge my thesis on our moral obligation to the environment. While I find the anthropocentric view selfish in nature, it can be used to great effect to justify my claim. Anthropocentrism puts forward the claim that humans are at the centre of nature, and in order to sustain our existence and continue to advance, every living thing and resource exists solely to serve that purpose (Cochrane, 2007). Yet this does not imply that we should mine every mineral and strip every tree, for if we were to consume and take every resource to meet the demands of our ever advancing and growing civilisation, the planet would be devoid of all resources that humanity cannot exist without.