Since the low class poor people are not usually educated, they often easily “pushed” into the crimes by the high class people. Usually the upper class people are invisible and at the end the poor is the ones who get blamed. Certainly the rich benefit more than the poor. That has always and will always be the case in every society the world has known. Very often the rich push the poor by removing workers rights, by limiting corporate liability, by instigating war.
One argument being that the wealthy would have an unfair advantage. Another argument is that there may be persons who, for lack of a better word, become brokers and profit from finding organs to be sold. Lastly and the argument that sticks out in most persons’ minds, is that the less fortunate would end up waiting even longer for organs that they are in dire need of because they are unable to pay. The fear that the wealthy would have an unfair advantage is a very valid point. Organizations looking to make substantial profits could possibly be willing to push those able to pay hefty prices for organs to the top of lists causing those in need to go without and ultimately die.
Also, as long as my decisions fill my principle, I feel totally comfortable in making them. My principle is that the ethical decisions I make must be in my own interest, without causing any harm to the others. Obviously, some may consider this as selfish and not caring for other people. I would not think of it like that, as in reality, we all ought consider our interests before others'. To me it is unethical to betray myself and treat myself worse than the way I should.
"According to act-utilitarianism, it is the value of the consequences of the particular act that counts when determining whether the act is right. Bentham's theory is act-utilitarian, and so is that of J.J.C. Smart. One objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be ‘too permissive’, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory, if only the value of the particular consequences of the particular act is great enough. Another objection is that act-utilitarianism seems better in theory than in practice, since we hardly ever have the time and the knowledge to predict the consequences of an act, assess their value, and make comparisons with possible alternative acts.
James speaks against these in his teaching. He exhorts them to remain true to the teachings and practices of the faith. James’ teachings are often compared to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, which would be logical due to him being brought up in the same environment as Jesus. The book of James is a protest against hypocrisy. Some have criticized James in that they thought he was teaching that salvation was by works alone, but in reality he is complementing Paul’s teaching of salvation by faith.
While others will argue back because they believe they earned all of the money and could be that some are stubborn and hard headed. So lets get on with this debate and you tell me your own opinion on why they get too much money or they earn every penny they get. So to start this debate we will go over the pro’s of getting paid this much money and why they do. For instance some believe they are not over paid due to the risk of injuries that could put them out of the sport the rest of their life giving the reason why they get paid so much money. Also some will say they deserve the check due to all the work they put into it, because when the season is over they are still training and getting ready for the next season.
How can situation ethics be regarded as a useful ethical theory? Situational ethics are a Christian theory, the fundamental principal is that love overrides all other moral rules. Love in this sense is the Christian view of love, not selfish, individual love, but the wider concept of 'agape' unconditional love for all. IF all ethics can be overridden by Love, then, there are no rules, there can be no rules. Everything can be overridden by Love/Agape, it can be used as an excuse to justify any action.
Absolute Law comes from God and has been set so that we all may follow. They are unchanging and this is what makes us the perfect Christians. Duty to God comes first then the Duty to others before duty to property. This will be the way to make decisions if there is an absolute conflict. But also Absolutism does not take other situation into consideration, things change and people change, so should the rules change as well?
Faith without reason is impossible but with knowledge faith can be possible and know God and what all he has done. With faith you have to use your mind. “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 answering to reasonable objections to those beliefs” (Albl 1). To understand faith you have to be able to reason with your beliefs. “Rationalism and materialism understand faith as, at best, a harmless opinion about matters that are not real” (Albl 30).
Why do we have to know the Old Testament? We, as Christians, have a responsibility to know our past and what God has taught mankind. To do this, we must know and become familiar with the stories of the Old Testament such as the biblical flood or the story of our creation. These stories can help us learn about mistakes made by mankind in the past and about how our religion began. Knowing our past or how our religion began is imperative in order to call ourselves Christian.