In this sense it is a consequentialist theory. This contrasts with religion, as religion is more absolutist, meaning moral views have a complete and universal authority that derived from God. Religion focuses on the consequences in the after life for example heaven, hell and purgatory. Unlike religion, utilitarianism thinks about the consequences in the present. The first kind of utilitarianism, developed by Bentham was designed to be secular (non-religious).
In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
Situation ethics is a Christian approach in dealing with ethical problems and moral choices. Joseph Fletcher, who published his theory in his book ‘Situation Ethics’ in 1966, primarily developed the theory. The theory is teleological due to its belief that actions have no intrinsic value. Instead, the theory focuses on one intrinsic good, agape, the Greek word for self-sacrificial, impersonal love. Agape is believed to love as God loves and Fletcher described it as ‘an attitude not a feeling’, therefore separating it from all other forms of love.
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 It’s understood that the act is warranted by the divine and therefore the ethical is no longer in effect.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.
He noticed a lot of schools focusing on sport success and not academic success . They wanted kids with exceptional test score and grades that also cared about others , to be just as important as the all-star basketball team . Ben and his wife started giving out scholarships from all backgrounds for such superior academic performance and demonstration of humanitarian qualities. He expresses how important it is for us to educated our people so that we don’t go down the pathway as so many pinnacle nations have preceded us. Health care is another significant issue that Carson believes could use some serious morphing .
The absolutist's view is that some statements are "objectively true," that is, true independent of whether anybody recognizes their truth. Objectivism is another name for absolutism. The general relativist denies that are any objectively true statements; general relativism is the view that statements are true only from a point of view (individual, community, or culture). As with scepticism and dogmatism, many people are relativists only about some areas. You might be a relativist regarding ethical matters--saying that moral correctness is merely in the mind of the individual, or maybe the dominant group in the society, but remain an absolutist about mathematics, saying that 1+1=2 regardless of whether you or I or anybody else thinks so.
Explain moral relativism. (25 marks) The theory of moral relativism is an ethical approach to situation ethics which asserts that there are no universally true moral principles, as all moral principles held by a person or society are relative to their circumstances, culture and religion - this means that there are no actions which are and will always be wrong. Instead, if an action seems good to you then for you it is morally right and vice versa, however there is no way that we are able to objectively identify which opinion is the correct one. A soft form of moral relativism is Cultural Relativism which states that moral codes differ from culture to culture or from religion to religion, for example some cultures believe polygamy or arranged marriages to be morally right, whereas a catholic society would believe that monogamy is the only moral way of life. Subjective Relativism on the other hand is a much more extreme stem of moral relativism as it is based on the view of an individual alone and therefore then can be absolutely no debate as all values are relative.
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
And then philosophers such as R.M Hare, Paul Tilich and Aquinas, arguing that Religious Language is meaningful, however I will be arguing both sides of the arguments, coming to a conclusion against the statement. A.J Ayer famously came up with the Verification Principle which states that any statement must be verified against valid evidence. He made a statement saying ‘A statement which cannot be conclusively verified cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any meaning’. And so Metaphysical claims such as ‘God is omnibenevolent’ are meaningless, the Statements they did find acceptable were analytic statements, which are true by definition and those which are synthetic, which is confirmed through the senses.
Ethics Essay Ethics Essay 3a) i) examine the arguments for and against the view that morality is independent of religion? ii) To what extent are these arguments convincing I am going to examine the arguments for and against the view that morality is independent on religion, by examining the argument from both sides, then looking at their strengths and weaknesses and then I will conclude with my line of argument. The first argument I am going to examine is for the statement, which is Plato’s Euthyphro. Plato stated that “is something good because God says its good or does God say it is good because it is good”. This means that do we do good things because God says is good or do we do good things so than God says that it is good.