We forget that it is God that gives us the things and leadership that we have here on earth. 6. How did David answer Joab’s question about why David did not have Saul killed? He did not want to become like Saul. He did not want to submit to the “King Saul that is in him.” 7.
He says that it is generally better to be frugal because lavish spending will lead to jealousy. It will also lead to higher taxes, and will make the prince unpopular. Machiavelli believes that it is important for the prince to be cruel. It is important for him to punish appropriately in order to have the respect from his citizens and his army. On the issue of admiration Machiavelli states that a prince ideally should be loved and feared, but it is more important that he be feared.
Why did the barons rebel against king john? In this essay I will explain as to why I think the barons rebelled against king john in 1216: In order to be a good king you have to be good at your job you can’t be weak, king john lost most of his empire due to being weak he was a weak fighter and a weak king and if for example England were under attack then they would lose and if the king loses that make that barons lose and that didn’t show to England or the barons that king john was a good enough king .In order to be a good king you have to be trustworthy and King John didn’t prove to be trustworthy because everyone believed that he killed his nephew Arthur and if his as so audacious enough to kill his own family then wouldn’t he be as so brave to kill anyone. Even though, king john wasn’t the best of kings but not everything he did was bad he did win the battles against wales and Scotland and he improved the ships and made them stronger not only that he made sure that the trails in court were fairer and that made England richer. He did help the poor he fed 1000 paupers each year but some people believe that he could have done more to help. He was also a good king because he looked good and he kept law and order yet in the rest of his jobs he was quite a bad king for example when he did help the church etc.
He apparently ‘punished the rich’. This does come from an upper class perspective however and Wolsey giving the poor any kind of privilege would be frowned upon by the rich. One factor that all three sources agree on is that Wolsey would go against law and tradition if it meant being more just. The second source shows this by showing that when the law is acting unjustly, ‘the mayor sent them to Newgate gaol for 11 days’, Wolsey is the man that people would expect to help them. This contrasts with the traditional approach because men such as the Mayor and Alderman should have their way without interference if it meant exploiting the poor.
Socrates uses a rather elaborate argument to show this definition is also insufficient. If the gods approve of something because it is holy, their approval cannot be what makes it holy, he says. If an act is holy because the gods approve of it, we still do not know what makes it holy or why the gods approve. It seems that any attempt to define holiness by the will or approval of the gods is bound to fail. Even in contemporary society, we tend to associate morality with some kind of divine will, but through the Euthyphro, Socrates seems to suggesting we think along another line altogether.
It also puts limits on God’s power. According to the definition of a theistic God, God is omnipotent. If God is all powerful then he should be able to command whatever he wants but by saying that morality is independent of God would mean that God is subject to the rules of morality (Fisher, 359). All in all the main issues with the Autonomy Thesis are that it would only be reasonable if one was not considering the existence of a theistic
Paine thinks the distinction between King and Subject is different from other societal distinctions among people because he says originally the world lived in equality. All men are born equal and has no right to establish his family over another. Other distinctions have religious or natural reasons, but the distinction between of men into Kings and Subjects has no specific reason. Paine says that when Kings were made it was a mistake, because man was supposed to only have god ruling them. He says the reason for this distinction, could most likely be due to sin.
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.
I believe that allowing everyone the same right to build up their own estate and create an enterprise of their own would be the best way to run a great way to make everyone happy and gain the trust of the people. I also believe that people who are incapable of doing so due to things like legitimate mental or physical disabilities and limitations should be supported by the government at least to as much as their health and wellbeing. In order to have this freedom there obviously needs to be a form authority to regulate the actions of the people in the society. There must also be a form of defense to protect the country form an overthrow or attacks by other countries. Because this new government is run for the people and by the people this is what would have to happen.
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”.