Although there are different sources, morality all depends on teachings from religious sources of authority. There is also evidence in the secular world that there is an association between religion and morality. It is influenced by religion when it comes to making decisions about important issues, such as abortion. Atheists and the secular world may not accept religious teachings, but their consideration of religion having an input on moral issues suggests that there is a link between the two. The divine command theory suggests that an act is right if it has ben commanded by God, and morally wrong if God has forbidden it.
Ward believes religion to be existential. However, not everyone shares my opinion. Richard Swinburne used the principle of Occam’s razor to illustrate that Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument has value for religious faith. Occam’s razor says that the simplest answer is the best one, and as God is the simplest answer for the first cause, it is the best one. Denys Turner makes the point that Aquinas is misread, he says that Aquinas is just clarifying the existence of God for people who already believe rather than in an attempt to persuade non-believers.
Rationality, Sensibility and Ethics Immanuel Kant begins this excerpt from Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals with the claim that nothing can be qualified as good except a good will. He supports this claim by giving examples of things we consider good, such as talents of the mind and qualities of temperament, which are not in and of themselves good because someone of bad will can utilize these qualities for bad things. There are qualities and traits which can be esteemed for their ability to service and facilitate a good will, but this does not allow us to label them as good in themselves. Kant states that, “a good will is good not because of what it performs or effects…but simply by virtue of the volition” (P.1). The conscious decision is good in itself because the decision was not inclined by any desire but the duty to do what is intrinsically good.
He said morality was innate; a part of us (a priori), and it was our moral duty to carry it out for good, which must lead to God. Accordingly Kant says good actions should be universalisable and free, so basically when making our ethical decisions we should ask ourselves a simple question "What if everybody did that?" if the answer is no, then the categorical imperative tells us that the action is wrong. So if I cheated on my AS-level exam to pass and be successful in the future, this would be my maxim, however I would not want others to do the same and therefore this action would be wrong according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. My cheating pre-supposes that most people do not cheat even though they have the same reasons to cheat as I have.
This essay concerns itself with proving that God does not exist, however my personal belief is that God does exist. The argument against the existence of God based on the existence of evil is outlined as: 1. If God were to exist, then that being would be an omnipotent, omniscient, and Omni-benevolent. 2. If an all-PKG being existed, then there would be no evil.
With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so. Also calling god good would not make any sense since he decided what good is or isn't, so how could he be good unless the moral was grounding him? If piety was a certain care of the god’s we could look to do always what is Pious and in return we would be worshiping/caring for the god/s if they exists. If the God’s are looking to something the “moral,piety” then if you act pious in your actions through life you will be in a way worshiping the god’s, because you are honoring what they already honer. The problem with this idea is when people think god grounds the moral
Furthermore, Zagzebski employs an intriguing analogy by comparing one who chooses to believe in God just for infinite gain is similar to someone who chooses a mate with a high income, and then tries to love that person. My own view on this argument is similar to that of Zagzebski’s. I believe that people, one way or another, are selfish. People ultimately want what is best for them, and look towards things that will benefit them the most. There is nothing wrong with this, except when it comes to the issue of believing in God.
a) Analyse the important features of Deontology or Natural Moral Law. b) To what extent is the selected theory persuasive? a) Natural Moral Law is an absolutist, deontological and objective ethical theory which states that every living thing has a God given purpose which must be fulfilled in order to reach God in heaven. It was originally proposed by Saint Thomas Aquinas but has since been associated with the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law was developed from the ancient ideas of Aristotle and other stoic philosophers like Cicero, who all claimed that humans have an inherent and rational sense of right and wrong.
These experiences would be referred to as ‘I-Thou’ by Buber. Due to this, William James has justified this unfamiliarity with defining ineffability as one of his four characteristics of religious experiences. Not only does this help understand the inability to speak of religious experience as it is numinous but it also coincides with many existing perceptions of the divine. For example, the via negative would reinforce this idea as both concepts paint God as a supernatural, immeasurable being; this is a big strength for religious experience as it fits into traditional perceptions of God, making it more convincing for theists. On the other hand, atheists may be sceptical of this feature of religious experience.
The Theodicy of Irenaeus has many weaknesses. For example, the Theodicy states that God deliberately created an imperfect world where evil exists to achieve a higher goal (a world where humans can morally develop), however if it is not acceptable to do something bad to achieve something good, then why is it acceptable for God to do this? Another point to consider is that not all suffering leads to moral growth. Some people do not develop as a result of suffering, but instead morally degrade. This contradicts Irenaeus’ Theodicy because it states that moral development is achieved through the experience of pain and suffering.