‘Utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making.’ How far do you agree? Despite there being some areas of compatibility; overall I think that utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making. Utilitarianism as a whole is not compatible because, utilitarianism is not particularly close to religion. Utilitarian theories do not make reference to religious rules and principles, and are more driven by pragmatism by focusing on the outcome rather than the morality of the action itself. In this sense it is a consequentialist theory.
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. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
They are either planning for a war or preparing for one to happen. The reason for war is not specifically stated. After reading this, I still believe that religion and principles are not justified by
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility. This is a false analogy, and where Scott uses the term “discrimination” in an inappropriate manner. Racial and ethnic discrimination is different because people do not choose to be a certain race like choosing to be a smoker. Furthermore, people do not negatively affect others in their vicinity with secondhand ethnicity. By stating that nonsmokers “force their beliefs on the rest of society,” Scott suggests that smokers are victims of violences, and are threatened with restriction of the First Amendment.
A pacifist being someone who is opposed to violence and war. Although he was a Roman cavalry man who after his conversion to Christianity refused to fight be stating “I am a soldier of Christ, i cannot fight”. I personally don’t believe in war. I don’t understand the need for it, the crave for it, that actions within it being done, and in general don’t understand how one could be so cruel. War in general along with violence is such a horrible thing that I just don’t understand why people would ever support it or want to start it.
It is a debate that has no right answer, and two justifiable sides. Gun-lovers need the NRA to stand up for their rights yet those opposed to it are just looking for a safer America. Pro-gun or not, we must remember that it is not the weapon that kills it is the person holding
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Harry Williamson Response Paper Letter from a Birmingham jail In the article Disagreements About Civil Disobedience Divide America's Anti War Movement we are presented with several views of civil disobedience present in todays society. The sole goal of these organizations is to end the war in Iraq because the members believe what is happening overseas is unjust and immoral. The feud between the organizations is simple; what are the best steps to help end the war? The cultural relativism aspect of this situation is that America (our current day society) wants war with another country, these two organizations are attempting to change that view. On one side you have people like Patrick Reinsborough who is an Organizer of Direct Action Against the War.
A Just War can never happen? A Just War is one which has to be fought but is conducted according to certain conditions. These were developed by Thomas Aquinas (c1225-74) and Francisco de Vitoria (c1483-1546) and are still referred to by Christians today. The theory is not intended to justify all wars but to prevent them by showing that going to war - except in certain limited circumstances - is wrong. The intention was to motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts, prevent war and to limit its effects.