Both types of utilitarianism wanted a secular theory to which everyone could use. This is the main reason as to why utilitarianism is not compatible with religion. Another reason as to why act utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to decision making is that it has the potential to justify any act as long as it generates the most happiness for the greatest number even if the act is very wrong. It reduces morality to simple maths when using the hedonic calculus. It doesn’t value human life as highly as religions, such as Christianity does.
If we were not given free will, the lack of freedom and choice would render us similar to robots. Augustine argues that evil is a price worth paying for human freedom as that only by contrast can the beauty of goodness be highlighted – this principle of comparison is called the “aesthetic principle” by some philosophers. Without free will, evil wouldn’t exist, and we wouldn’t
PART A: Explain Mill’s challenge to the teleological argument. (25marks) The teleological argument claims that God designed the world with a purpose. God is often described to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. Mill criticises the idea of the teleological argument, he doesn’t believe that the world is designed by a God because within nature there are cruelty and crimes that are unpunished. Mill argues that if God designed the universe he wouldn’t have created something containing any evil at all it wouldn’t fit in with his description.
Another person who also criticized some of the religious views was Pierre Bayle. Bayle argued that religion and morality were not necessarily linked. The Enlightenment also developed around the belief that scientific thought and expression should be free from religious interference and that the foundations of society should be human reason and logic. The Enlightenment’s relationship with God and the individual was more rational and distant leading to the idea of Deism. Deism became very popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries during the Enlightenment.
A KoF can be the good guy or the bad guy, depending on how you view religion and the story of Abraham and Isaac for this purpose. A true KoF will be the individual or group of individuals who will defy the common worldly law of ethics in order to fulfill a religious duty. This duty may incorporate many different immoralities and negative actions. However, the immoral acts will be justified by the religion or religious figure that gives divine approval for it. This presents an issue with the moral and rational reasoning behind the deeds.
First the paper will introduce the subject to the reader. It will explain its premises and display the little research that has been conducted to determine its validity. This will explain why his practise is neither religion nor science, but something entirely new and perhaps harmful to society. Introduction: The origins of astrology as widely disputed as they variations of this practise is found in many contrasting cultures. In
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.
Question 1 Utilitarianism Ethics It would seem in this instance if “2 Day FM’s Hot 30” was to broadcast the prank, it would not promote the greater good. The greater good could include the company maintaining their public perception of ethical behaviour and being compassionate to all individuals. The negatives could be that the radio station might feel restricted in what they can and cannot do, and this may be another indicator of that fact. Specifically, how they cannot share a humorous prank on air. By using utilitarianism ethics it would seem the benefits of not airing the prank would be more beneficial.
They only believe what they see. Their belief is not sustained by literature theory as from the Bible. “The scriptural geologists were not opposed to geological facts, but to the old-earth interpretations of those facts. And they argued that old-earth interpretations were based on anti-biblical philosophical assumptions, and in this they were correct. Buffon was a deist or secret atheist,12 as were Lamarck13 and Hutton.14 Laplace was an open atheist.15Werner,16 Cuvier,17 Smith18 and Lyell19 were probably deists or some sort of vague theists.
While scientology is not considered a religion on this table, I feel it still lacks things other religions have and believe also that things it claims are facts have been claimed to be wrong through science. I believe it is a sect because they seem to have religious ideas but they also