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
Did god determine that it is good to help the poor, give gifts, and preserve life? Or on the other hand did morality come about because of something independent of God. Meaning that the determination of that which is good or that which is bad came from something other than God and the reason that God agrees with certain actions is because the action is already morally right. The former of these two is known as the Divine Command Theory and the latter is the Autonomy Thesis. The clash of these two options is the Euthyphro Dilemma.
Soft determinists therefore believe that events to be determined but also believe that free will does exist and still can be applied to our actions. Soft determinists defend compatibilist and say that even though they accept determinist thesis, we still believe in freedom. If we cannot establish that actions are completely determined then soft determinists have to believe in free will. If we knew everything then we might be able to predict a person’s actions but since this cannot be done and is a big if, which is the heart of the determinist thesis, turns out to be unobtainable in practice; this simply means that in theory we are still determinists but we can also believe in free will and hold people responsible for their actions. (Solomon, Higgins, 2010:235) Soft determinism maintains that we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, and that this is compatible with determinism, even though determinism is true a person can still be deserving of blame if they perform a wrongful act.
It doesn’t value human life as highly as religions, such as Christianity does. The Christian faith believes that human life is very valuable as it is God given. Act utilitarianism can
However, if this link between religion and morality is criticised, then there are sufficient grounds for secularist and atheistic ways of life. Why is religion needed when it is not the source of moral guidance? Two famous critiques of the link between religion and morality are the Euthyphro dilemma and the many critiques od Richard Dawkins against religion. Both essentially come to the same conclusion; that we do not need God to be good. The basic concept of religion and morality, especially divine command theory, is very simple: what God commands is good, therefore only do that.
Natural Moral law is an absolute ethical theory that states that there is natural order to the world we live in. It is believed that is order is established by some supernatural power. Natural Moral law originated in the philosophy of the ancient Greeks, especially that of Aristotle and Aquinas. This theory that is being tested to see if it is the best approach for decision making is not rooted in duty, or an externally
He based his argument on the statement “Does God will something because it is good or is something good because it is willed by God?” There are two ‘horns’ to this argument which stem from the statement; these both critiques of the link between religion and morality. Horn one questions “Does God command x because it is good.” This argument suggests that God is inferior to good, or perhaps good could even be temporally prior to God. In addition both God’s omnipotence and omniscience are damaged; he cannot claim full responsibility for creating the world and therefore cannot possibly have full control as it is not his creation. He also may not have the knowledge of right and wrong if it is independent of him. An independent good takes away from religious motivation to do good, we can be good for the sake of being good as opposed to seeking eschatological reward, for example going to heaven in the afterlife.
The Christian understanding of this concept is based largely upon the work of Thomas Aquinas as he explained that faith and reason are closely related. Natural law appears to be the rational approach to morality as its basic principles such as: education of the young, protection of the innocent, to procreate, etc are a basic common feature of many societies in today’s era and many people will see it as us simply fulfilling our nature. This is a major strength to the idea of natural law as it is applicable to all. With it being the rational approach it is seen as the logical approach showing that a logical approach is one of an objective idea so therefore is eternal and unchanging. It allows the basic natural instincts of a
Their intention is all that matters. Kant focuses on what should be done, rather than doing things for their outcome. This means that even if something terrible happens as the result of a morally good action, it is still morally right. Kant had an absolute view that the right moral action must always be done. Kant tried to make moral ethics scientific through universalisation.
One major strength of virtue ethics is that it allows the moral agent to make ethical decisions based on his or her moral well-being, not just based on what is legally right. Therefore this ethical system can be seen to have a greater weight over others as someone who follows it are doing so because they believe it’s right rather than following rules. This then also acknowledges that morality is complex and so rejects simplistic maxims as a basis for moral truths. However, this can also be seen to be one of the weaknesses of virtue ethics. Robert Louden stated that as virtue ethics is focused on the individual, it neither resolves nor attempts to resolve big moral dilemmas.