In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
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.
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance. Laws do not solve the problem, rather they make individuals dependant on outside authorities, to regulate out lives and provide answers for problems that may arise. Therefore, we lose our reason and ability to think for ourselves, we lose out natural autonomy. Thus a state has the opportunity to put a moral code upon us which we cannot question as we become dependant on the rules of the state. Godwin argued that human beings are naturally rational and have the
Utilitarianism is the main idea that he uses to oppose the idea of specism. In order to support this view he brings in the ideas of philosophers Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick, further solidifying his argument for equal consideration. Singer aims his argument toward philosophers who suggest speciesism is a moral right. He specifically argues against philosophers such as William Frankena, Stanley Benn, and other Humanists who believe in the “intrinsic dignity of Human beings”.
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.
Therefore, the general will of the people requires that laws be amended to reflect morality and justice. Only through civil disobedience can this be achieved; blindly obeying unjust laws will only enforce unjustified public opinion. Although some argue that the general will of the people can be accurately portrayed by a government entity without
On the one hand, "the attack on moral relativism was part of an effort to rearm the West spiritually" for the battle ahead, while "the attack on cognitive relativism aimed at making a clear distinction between the scholarship and science of the Free World and the debased practices of its enemies" (282). In the long run, the opinions should fall beyond the margins of historiography, and therefore the judgment of any work of historiography should not be preset by a conceptual disagreement. Novick's perspective on the objectivity question undoubtedly guided his book. However, his beliefs are unable to create the past. Even the most simple personal beliefs and bias can skew the appearance we see of the
It is evident that there is a fundamental tension between the two world views. However, it would be incorrect to reject one view completely in favor of the other. So, while recognizing the post modern view that truth is unknowable and that we cannot be absolutely certain of our knowledge, I would also like to acknowledge the importance of human dignity. I would also like to state that some of the ethical tenets like Kantian Categorical Imperatives have their basis in human dignity. In other words, we could discover the best in science and social science on the strength of western world view.
They believe we as human beings are prone to sin. We have a proclivity to do terrible things or to be tempted to so (p.30, 2008). They believe our freedom or success of government is dependent on virtue. They further added that only moral people would remain free. On those premise it is asserted that religion play an important part in nurturing the virtue needed for a free society.