A theodicy is seen as a true solution as it defends God’s nature in the face of evil and suffering. A good theodicy must acknowledge the existence of God whilst suggesting evil and suffering are necessary bi-products of life and free will, retain the idea of God’s perfection thus exonerating
“Two things, above all others, fill the mind with ever increasing awe and wonder: the starry heavens about and the moral law within” - Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant’s theory of ethics is deontological. Kant relies heavily on duty and principles. Kant ignores consequences and decides if an action is good or bad by it’s intention. For example, if a person sets out to do something good; but fails and it turns into be something bad, they are not to blame. Their intention is all that matters.
That is, living a moral life by accessing God’s will through reason and employing it through the practice of virtues. Locke argues that such an imperative ability to use reason is only unlocked when exposed to pleasure and pain, hence, the hedonistic intent maintained by addicts is foundational in the development of a moral compass. Of course, that is not to say drug use is an ethical way of doing so. Yet, under this perverse argument, the self-condoning of drug use could be understood. Via the same logic, drug craving is an addiction that aims to heighten self-esteem and thereby uphold human sociality which fosters the common good and therefore goodness, justifying it as a “habitual and firm disposition to do good” (CCC 1803) – a virtue.
He firmly thought that God is a righteous one who at the end of time will deal with those who rejected him. Augustine`s argument that evil is a `deprivation of good` rather than a positive substance created by God has been supported by some modern thinkers. Brian Davies describes evil as `a gap between what there is and what there ought to be`. Augustine`s argument that evil has resulted from the abuse of human free will has also been supported by modern thinkers. It seems clear that humans choosing to act in the wrong ways cause much of the evil and suffering in the world.
The evidential argument from evil is necessitated through the lack of closure provided by another argument - the logical problem of evil, a proposition which attempts to assert that God and Evil are logically incompatible. It is largely rebutted by Alvin Plantinga’s free will defence, stating that for God ‘To create creatures capable of moral good…He must create creatures capable of moral evil’ , thereby arguing that the very presence of evil in the world does not count against God’s existence as ‘He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.’ Plantinga’s defence is thus based on the concept of libertarian free will, that free will is incompatible with determinism and so even an all-knowing god could not stop humans from committing morally wrong acts. This defence is readily accepted by most philosophers, leading to the creation of the Evidential Argument from Evil – an argument that similarly prescribes to a key facet of anti-theistic arguments; that if one can prove the absence of benefits one may expect to be bestowed on mankind under an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good God – namely a world without evil - then one may attempt to disprove such a God’s very existence. It is regularly cited as the most powerful argument against the existence of God, and differs from the logical argument in the sense that it attempts to illustrate not that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil but rather the presence of moral and natural evils in the world damages theistic interpretations of a higher being in the sense that it lowers the likelihood of such a being’s existence. However it should be noted that the evidential argument from evil it is not without its responses – some of which do hold convincing merit.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Only he can redeem, justify, and sanctify us, and we need all three for our salvation. So we understand that our nature is sinful, but through Jesus we can win the battle against our flesh. Paul wrote that through the law we come unto the knowledge that we are sinful. We understand that through the work of the law, that we cannot be justified in the sight of God. We must know that we are justified by grace apart from any works in the
Utilitarian Theories Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others. Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure'). In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?)
In this respect, morality and Socratism are the expressions of a vital drive analogous to those which give birth to the figures of Apollo and Dionysus, as they are both connected to the metaphysical inquiry into the nature of things. Still, the Socratic worldview fails in seeing its dependency and connections to these drives, and thus fails to see its connection to life and its irrational kernel . According to Nietzsche, this mindset is the result of a pathology, as it gives too much merit to appearances while it excludes the Will from its view, making the former absolute and arranging them in a rational but insincere way. Socratism is then made of the same substance of the drives which inspire tragedy insofar as it is an expression of life, but, in both a literal and a metaphysical sense, it is the result of a sick form of this substance – it presents a metaphysical view of reality, just like art, but at the same time causes life to retreat within the safe walls of reasonableness, as by contrast art pushes the person to transcend them . In some respect, we can see here one of the seeds of Nietzsche’s later intuitions, and I believe there is no harm in employing them to elucidate this point.
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