The relationship between a theistic God (considering there is one) and morality cannot be explained in simply a few sentences. One may immediately come to the conclusion that God decides what is moral and immoral. This is known as Divine Command Theory which says that morality is dependent on God’s commands. However, this gives rise to the other side that says an action is moral because God approves of it. This is known as the Autonomy thesis which says that morality is not dependent on God’s commands.
The voice of conscience acts as a moral sensor, which is triggered whenever we face an ethical behaviour and fires the alarm once the morality is breached. Utterly, It is up to our will whether to listen irresistibly to the voice that is what Kant calls it “moral predisposition” or mute it which consequently leading to immoral behaviour. The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their morals, he considers people as a moral agent and ought to act morally and willingly motivated by the
These issues arise due to the question; if God is all knowing and all loving, should He not then stop suffering from happening? The subject of evil and suffering provides an inconsistency with the traditional image of God and His attributes. Someone whom acknowledged and illustrated this inconsistency is Hume, in the form of Hume’s inconsistent triad. With this Hume viewed God’s attributes; omnipotence and omni-benevolence, and that evil exists. Hume concluded that the three points are inconsistent.
Duty theory is a moral theory, especially connected with Kant, according to what actions are right or wrong because of their inherent content, and the motive from which they are done. Stealing is wrong principally because we can't make taking property a universal law. In general, philosophers usually call duty-based ethics deontology. It focuses on the act and not its consequence. The morally binding nature of a deontological norm derives from the person’s obligation to perform some act in some specified manner, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes it is not.
Examine two critiques of the relationship between religion and morality. It has long been common thought that there is a distinct link between Religion and the fundamental moral laws upon which we base our lives upon. These heteronomous moral codes were used as the basic principles of everyday life. From this viewpoint then, it is hard to imagine a world without the concept of religion, as sure anarchy and suffering would ensure across the Globe. However, if this link between religion and morality is criticised, then there are sufficient grounds for secularist and atheistic ways of life.
This presents an issue with the moral and rational reasoning behind the deeds. It’s understood that the act is warranted by the divine and therefore the ethical is no longer in effect. The next term to define is the one that most of us would be familiar with and can relate to. If you’re a religious individual or have some faith in the ultimate, you might consider yourself labeled under this category. As previously stated, in order to be a KoF, you must be willing to nullify the ethical standards you are most accustomed to in order to comply to the declaration of God or any other divine or spiritual medium.
Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful. They believe that the terms used are able to create absolute rules that everyone ought to follow. It would seem that ethical language is seen by many as very meaningful, although for varying reasons. However agent centred theories such as Virtue Ethics would argue that our main focus of morality should be on becoming as virtuous as possible, rather than deciding what is meant by ethical language. Therefore it would seem that perhaps morality should be more focussed on individuals’ actions rather then defining what is meant by ‘good’ and
In searching for what nonconsequentialist believe, I found that it is the opposition of consequentalism. One view that is in opposition to consequentialism is deontology. Alexander describes dentology: In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that—fundamentally, at least—guide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.
Morality is universally understood as a class of rules held by society to govern the right conduct of its members. Holding strong to this notion St. Thomas Aquinas, brings to light this understanding as personal inclination (or will) to achieve an ultimate end (God); in which those actions become the mean to understandings the human purpose. In his book, A Summary of Philosophy, Aquinas claims that the existence of God allows us to reason with the things around and wills us to act. In a different approach, Friedrich Nietzsche claims that morality is relative to time and power; our actions whether moral or immoral depend on the power they bestow to the perspectives that we hold. He doesn’t believe in a moral definition of what is good and bad; because historically it is contradicted by the men of power.