This ethical theory aligns itself with a Christian worldview, arguing that an action is good only if the principle behind the action is moral law (Giersson and Holmgren, 2000). In other words, actions should only be done in accordance with God’s will. For instance, clearly stating how outliers are addressed when drawing conclusions based on the statistical analysis is ethical in that it is the right thing to do so that the probability of misinterpretation is minimized. Additionally, Kantian ethics also require autonomy, which is often required in relationship to dealing with clients and the subjects from whom data is collected (Tittle, 2000). Again, this ties back to the Christian worldview of loving ones neighbor.
Which Aquinas believed reflects the Eternal Law. The Natural Law refers to the moral law of God which has been built into each human nature; however it can be seen by everyone as it does not depend on belief in God as long as you use you reason when faced with a situation then you have done the
Examine the important concepts of two critiques of the link between religion and morality. For some religious followers there is a link between religion and morality due to the guidelines set by religion for morality, for example the Ten Commandments. However it is important to discuss whether or not there is a clear link between the two, as otherwise perceptions on what is moral may differ, causing conflict within society. The Euthyphro Dilemma is a classic discussion of this argument which was started by Plato. 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.
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. Is something moral because God commands it? Does morality depend on religious belief? A common view among religious, and even some secular, philosophers is that just as conventional laws require lawmakers, morals also require some ultimate source. The Divine Command Theory is the view that moral actions are those that conform to God's will.
And for morality to require God in such a way, there must be a direct link between the two. I believe that morality is defined by God, therefore immoral actions are wrong solely because God forbids them. Similarly, the “rightness” of moral actions is only because God has commanded them. In today's world things are defined as “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral.” This is because God, is the one that has allowed us to even understand what morality is. I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions.
Descartes' argument in the Meditations is circular. Discuss. In trying to prove the existence of God, Descartes will, of course, have to rely on what he can clearly and distinctly perceive, because this is the only way he can know anything. However, Descartes also needs to prove that God exists for us to know what we clearly and distinctly perceive. This leads to the famous objection that he uses the existence of God to establish his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas, and that he uses his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas to establish the existence of God: his argument is circular.
Overall the Puritans were a religious group with a core of specific beliefs that are at the essence of the Puritan Faith. Those two beliefs are the belief that man is predestined or divided into two groups, the damned and the elect. The second core belief is that of free grace versus a doctrine of works. This means that man cannot save himself by changing his ways and doing good deeds. Instead it means than humanity is only saved by the free grace and mere good will of God and that whosoever believes in Christ and has faith may escape Hell.
Many people would not agree that Christianity and theology cannot be integrated, but in actuality it can. This book helps the reader understand the basics of what psychology and theology is and how it can be integrated beautifully if you take the right steps and don’t remain open minded to your view of the world. Worldview, as defined by Entwistle, is “a set of presuppositions which we hold about the basic make-up of the world” (Entwistle, 2010 p.56). Our worldview assumptions whether it is true or not, plays a major role in how we relate psychology and Christianity. Every individual will have their own truth because the lens through which they see the world is biased.
Essay on Topic: Short Essay on Inerrancy and Inspiration There is an increasing debate as to the reliability and authority of the Bible. This debate is crucial for those of us that trust in the Bible regarding our salvation. To say the Bible is authoritative implies that it has a right and power to communicate its message for the purpose of directing us in every facet of temporal and eternal life. This “authority” must come from a source that holds a position powerful enough to provide such an endorsement. The Bible has such a source of authority, God.
Christian love essentially unites persons with the ontological good – originated from God – and transforms the self to be concerned both for oneself and the good of others on the level of identity. This article presents a more subtle critical analysis of self-interest – an sich a-moral - while it proposes self-love not only as a necessary condition to undertake genuine morality but also as a guarantee for the moderation of self-interest. KEY WORDS: Agape, love, self, self-interest, selfishness, self-love. Introduction In most ethical discourses, one may observe confusion between an act of selfishness, self-interest, and self-love. Some seem to intentionally mystify their meaning while others inadvertently employ them interchangeably to explain one’s act in relation to oneself.