“Explain what Fletcher understands by ‘Christian love’ and its role in the moral decision-making process of situation ethics” Situational ethics is an ethical theory that was created by an Anglican priest named Joseph Fletcher. This ethical system believed that all humans should make moral decisions based on what is the most loving thing to do. Fletcher didn’t mean any random type of love, he meant the love that is unconditional that divine authorities such as Jesus have displayed. Love that isn’t romantic or sexual but can be from one stranger to another as well as love between two people who know eachother. Situation ethics does have rules and principles to abide by.
Free will means that God does not have any set destiny for us. If God were to create free agents that could only choose good, that would mean that God laid out a destiny of good for all agents. Even though God is omniscient, free will is still possible because while God may know the choices we are going to make, he is not the cause of them. Since God does not choose or cause our destiny, we still have free will. In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist.
God’s righteousness is good. God is good in His entirety. There is nothing about God that is not good (Romans), this is basically saying that the goodness of God is a life-transforming truth and that we should use the words of God in are attitudes and actions. The Ten Commandments are the clear example of God setting the standards of what is morally right and wrong. We follow these laws that God has set because we believe that they show us are sins and if we follow these laws that we will be reward towards the light.
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.
He is self-contemplatory therefore does not think about the world and is transcendent, hence he is not subject to cause and effect. The Prime Mover, unlike God, cannot cause miracles or natural disasters like earthquakes to occur in the world as he is immaterial, otherwise he would decay. The Judeo Christian concept of God is also described as Omni-potent,
More specifically, do texts of this sort imply that ethical egoism is incompatible with the moral theory of the gospel? Ethical egoism claims that one ought to only do what is in his/her long-term best interest. It seems plausible to say that the restored gospel is contrary to ethical egoism since losing oneself in the service of others allows one to serve God as well. While the Gospel teaches that blessings come through obedience to the moral values prescribed, the average true believing member doesn’t go out looking for service opportunities that will bring the bigger blessings. The focus is instead placed on how the lives of others can be enriched through one’s service.
Thus, he believes there is no reason why should you live a moral life rather than for one's self. Fidley asks Seltzer one last question, “what motivation for adopting the moral point of view can you possibly offer without a belief in God and immorality?” which leads us to this quote, “When religion tells us that there is nothing more we can say about morality than that we can’t see the reasons for it, but do it if you know what’s good for you, then I do condemn it. We can do better than that. We can become moral grown-ups. And if there were a God, surely he would approve”.
I believe that if there is a God and He is great and loves us, then He would want us to think of others and volunteer and those type of things more than worshipping how amazing He is. That sounds very selfish to me. So this is why you should do what you think is right and not because someone tells you its right. Because if someone tells you something is right, they can still be wrong. No one can decide what is right or wrong except yourself.
He believes there truly is no comparison. In fact, he believes that there is nothing we can compare this world to because, as far as we know, there is not another world even similar to us. We have no standard in which we can judge our world because our world is all we know. According to Hume, we cannot assume a Christian God as the creator. He was not sure we could even assume a creator, let alone choose one religions God to be the true one.
On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that. Prominence over human welfare and determinative nature regarding human experience –since both deal with human then they can be combined. The strength is that it when we put our lives according to the sacred we are likely to live a life free of problem associated to ungodliness. On the other hand it is important to perceive the true reality that underlies our religion .If we don’t do so we are likely to suffer and destroy what is already positive about our religion hence suffering. In that case religion will be the dividing factor instead of a bonding factor as it should