In Euthyphro, a short dialogue by Plato, the character of Euthryphro suggests that a person or action is pious or morally right if the Gods agree with it and love it. The character of Socrates then raises a critical question: “Do the Gods love what is morally right because it is morally right or is it morally right because the Gods love it?” This question can also be put as, “does God command something because it is already right or is it right only because God commands it?” What makes this question important is that for the Divine Command Theory to be true, one of the two parts to this question must be accepted. But if either options of this question are accepted, then the logical conclusions seem to clash with other views that Divine Command Theorists may have. The first option implies that God loves or commands something because it is morally right. This would mean that God did not create morality but on the other hand recognized that something was already morally good and
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.
humanism vs religion Humanism VS Religion Humanism is a system of thought which rejects the supernatural, any belief in a God, etc, but holds that human interests and the human mind are paramount, that human are capable of solving the problems of the world and deciding what is or is not correct moral behavior (credo reference). The article I found from the opposing view points resource center are “Secular Humanism Is Harmful” by Tim LaHaye and “Secular Humanism Should Be Promoted” by Robert F. Morse. Both of these articles explain their point of view thoroughly and thoughtfully. After reading these articles it was hard for me to decide what I actually support. As mentioned by Tim LaHaye, “secular humanism is a dangerous worldview that exalts man’s knowledge rather than God’s wisdom” (1).
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.
Plato discussed the question of God being good. To say that God is good, a means of comparing God to something external call good must exist. Plato used this argument in Euthyphro1. A morally perfect being always chooses the good action over the evil one. In order to be morally perfect both good and evil must exist outside of God so that he can choose it.
The moral argument poses the question: "Where does our conscience, our sense of morality come from, if not from God?" It also asserts that if we accept the existence of objective moral laws we must accept the existence of who ever gives the laws. This is the observable fact that human beings sometimes appear to act from a sense of moral duty in which there is no self-interest or thought for the consequences of that act. (In an attempt to achieve Sumon Bonum)- The greatest of all rewards. Kant drew an important distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
“Conscience is the voice of God.” Discuss (35 marks) Most people would agree that conscience is the rational voice inside us which tells u the difference between right and wrong; it is an internal moral source which compels individuals to value judgement and morality. However, although this may be widely accepted, it does not help to conclude from where our conscience originates; whether it is innate or whether it develops throughout our lives due to environmental influences and social structuring. Usually, these altering beliefs can be categorized into the ‘religious view’ and the ‘secular view’. It also doesn’t account for how different people and cultures appear to have diverse consciences. The belief that conscience comes from God implies that it is innate: Christianity states that God is omniscient and omnipresent, and also that we are made in His image and God gave every person a conscience at conception so that they are able to make morally right decisions.
According to Kant’s deontology, this would be perfectly reasonable. Although the universalizability system is clear, it doesn’t work and takes away from the adequacy of the theory. Secondly, we can explore the pragmatism of the theory. Again we can look at Kant’s belief that we should never consider our emotions when making an ethical decision. In a real
Whereas, ‘morality’ is defined by the Macquarie Concise Dictionary as “conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct”². Whilst, ‘Laws’ are defined by the Macquarie Concise Dictionary as “the principles and regulations emanating from a government and applicable to a people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognised and enforced by judicial decision”². Denning’s statement is flawed, generally because religion can lead people to unethical or immoral acts. Additionally, religion has allowed people to achieve things that are illegal and often have not faced justice. Finally, there are evident differences with religion and laws and morals of a society, whereby morals and laws are able to change liberally, unlike religion.
Essentially there is a unchanging set of ethical laws which are unbreakable, this means in order for one to live a just life he/she must follow these laws to the letter. It is simple to see how this concept is popular with religious communities for proving gods existence. Essentially arguing, how is it that something used by intelligent beings, and is forever and unbreakable exist without a god or gods? Morality: Do we need a God to be moral? With the above in mind one can plainly understand this concept is complex, and can indeed incite heated conversations, and flair tempers, can objective morality exist separate through the influence of a higher power?