In the dialogue Socrates asks, “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” (Rachels, 50). This question asks out of two opposing possibilities, which one is true? On the one hand it asks whether God decides what is moral and immoral. Is God the one that determined that it is wrong to steal, murder, and torture? Did god determine that it is good to help the poor, give gifts, and preserve life?
Which follows on from which? Do the Gods make piety, or fit in with it? Euthyphro states “Is what is pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?” Essentially what Euthyphro is saying is ‘Does God command what is good because it is good, or is the good “good” because commanded it?’ This dilemma leaves us with an argument based upon circular logic, and no matter how we seem to go about answering it we are left with the same predicament. We could side with the latter half of this
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.
Source A is about removing opposition and the use of propaganda to control what the population thought and did this is challenging the question as the consent is not given but actually forced out of the none Arian people of Germany. The source suggests that the Nazis removed the peoples basic rights like freedom of speech because they feared that the people would speak out against the laws that had been created to keep them under control. This is a strong argument against the Germans giving support towards the regime because it suggests that the Germans. Source A also suggests that after the war Germany still wasn’t ready politically so Hitler had an easy task in taking power the
Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist. This proves problematic as it then brings into question the traditional theist’s view of God. However, no traditional theist would accept Hume’s conclusions because it denies God of His perfection. There are ways of sidestepping this issue such as, atheism, deism and polytheism, but none are accepted by traditional theists, and are therefore not a true solution to the problem. A theodicy is seen as a true solution as it defends God’s nature in the face of evil and suffering.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
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.
He then leads up to his main objection of this definition by means of stating that even though men and gods love that which they think is noble and good, and hate that which is opposite to those things, not everyone thinks this way about all things (Plato, 7). This being in the nature of things that are considered to be good by a group of people, can be hated by others, and this would also apply to the gods, for not everyone thinks the same. Socrates then uses a good example concerning the gods to better prove his reasons. He states that even though Euthyphro's decision to proceed against his own father may seem agreeable to Zeus, but not to Cronos or Uranus, and that there may be other gods who have these differences of opinions (7). Concerning
Dulffer argue that holocaust was above all due to Hitler, “but to recognize that this is not to free from blame the hundreds thousands of others who were involved in carrying out the Holocaust”Dulffer. Goldhagen says that "hitlers ideal was broadly shared by germany”goldhagen. The bureaucracy was involved and had massive collaborations with the SS, the civil service, army, and the business corporations. This depressed Jews of their rights and property, isolated them, and killed them. The army was also
The Holocaust “By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lords work” (Harran 50). This quote is the exact words of the worlds most accomplished mass murderer in history, Adolf Hitler. His goal was to exterminate the complete Jewish race, to make room for the “Aryan” race. “Jews have been discriminated against, hated, and killed because prejudiced non-Jews believed they belonged to the wrong religion, lacked citizenship qualifications, practiced business improperly, behaved inappropriately, or possessed inferior racial characteristics” (Harran 41). Due to the hatred that was formed against the Jewish people, over the years of 1933 to 1945, about six million innocent people lost their lives.