Anaxagoras’ ideas are in many ways similar to that of Heraclitus; however, there are some deviations that I will highlight in contrasting each philosopher’s theory on the nature of what is. Heraclitus’s main motivation in his philosophical endeavors revolved around his desire to know what is and the organization or order of all things that exist. Heraclitus's central claim in his attempt to answer his curiosities was that the world (and universe for that matter), is ordered, guided, and unified by a rational structure, which he called the LOGOS. This rational structure of the cosmos orders and controls the universe. Thus the LOGOS, in Heraclitus's view, is the unifier in nature.
Question 90, Article 1.] Because the rule and measure of human actions is reason, law has an essential relation to reason; in the first place to divine reason; in the second place to human reason, when it acts suitably, it is in accordance with the purpose or final cause fixed in it by God. Law is directed by its nature to the good, and especially to the universal or common good. [ Question 90 Article 3.] It is addressed not chiefly to private persons but to the whole people meeting in common or to persons who have command of the community as a whole.
He believes reason and faith are the two paths to access the truths of God’s existence. Faith is a trusted belief in God through scripture; it does not rest with logic and is beyond reason. But reason is a logical way of making sense of something that is not tangible. St. Thomas realized many people doubt the existence of God because there is no logic to explain God’s existence. For St. Thomas his mission in life was to prove the existence of God through reason.
Explain the theory of duty in Kantian Ethics (25 marks) Kantian ethics is an absolutist theory as Kant claimed what is morally ‘good’ is constant and unchanging. Because of this, it can be a universal concept applied in different societies and cultures with the idea that an action should only be performed for duty’s sake. His approach was deontological because the idea of right or wrong was based on the action rather than the consequence, he believed that this was the only rational basis for morality and could be proven objectively, independent from emotion and opinion. As humans we have the innate ability to reason, something which we gained prior to any sensory experience in this world. This is an idea which is absolute and according to Kant, the way we decide the morality of an action.
One key influence of natural and moral law is Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) Aristotle argued that we can discover how people should behave by studying how people do behave; observation and rational analysis of human nature is the surest foundation for judgments about it. Aristotle sees goodness in something fulfilling its nature, goodness lies in being fulfilled, flourishing, and moral wrongdoing lies in falling short, failing to fulfill human potential. One of Aristotle’s arguments is known as the ‘function argument’, in which he suggests that all human beings have a greater variety of functions than animals and plants do. Aristotle’s theory is concerned with the essence of something, when considering why an object exists, he asks the efficient cause question of ‘how did it happen?’, yet he also then asks ‘what is it for?’, which is known as the final cause, this is seen as the most important question as it relates to its purpose. His theory also concludes with the idea that perfection is reached when the object does exactly what it was invented to do.
. There is heated debate about what Hume intends by each of these theses and how he argues for them. He articulates and defends them within the broader context of his metaethics and his ethic of virtue and vice. 3 Kant's theory was that what guided us was 'rationality'. As free beings we were obligated to do what was 'reasonable', a free person has to act rationally - has to act without inconsistency.
For example, one of the Ten Commandments ‘Thou shall not kill’ should not be broken and is applied to situations such as the death penalty or abortion. This links to the divine command theory. This is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that what is moral is determined by God and that to be moral is to follow his commands. This theory claims that morality is ultimately based on God and the right action is the one that God requires. The divine commands vary in religions but in the end, they all have in common that moral obligations depend on God.
Essay 1 Faith and Reason “Reason, aided by Christian faith, reveals truths about the universe and about humans that could never have been reached by reason alone. Conversely, Christian faith needs reason in order to communicate its beliefs clearly, to arrange those beliefs in a more systematic form, to guard it from straying into fanaticism or error, and to provide answers to reasonable objections to those beliefs”(1-2). Many argue that faith and reason are two very different things, when in all reality they both need each other and as Albl states they are actually “inseparable”. I am Catholic myself and I have always learned that authentic Christian faith does not limit human liberty and reason. Instead, faith supports reason and perfection; and reason, illuminated by faith, finds strength to raise itself to the knowledge of God.
It is important to note that although all moral absolutists agree that there are fundamental ethical laws they disagree on the origin or authority of these laws. They may be religious or like Kantian ethics based on God and the existence of natural law. In general there tends to be a consensus that Absolutism comes in three distinct types. Platonic Idealism is the first significant example of absolutist theory. This theory is referred to as the theory of forms, the forms are eternal constants which give meaning to the world.
There are many ways we develop our morals and how we come to develop them but two primary focal points seem to hold the most accurate depiction of the moral guiding process. The first being posed by Immanuel Kant, the concept of what one “ought” to do, and the other being Utilitarianism, which is dependent on the analysis of “consequences” that come from decision making. The two are distinct when attempting to draw a clear line between decision making and the moral judgments that guide them. However, they differ in where they determine the root causes for our moral developments. Kant explores moral decisions based on wants.