Denys Turner makes the point that Aquinas is misread, he says that Aquinas is just clarifying the existence of God for people who already believe rather than in an attempt to persuade non-believers. If this is the case, then this would mean that the Cosmological Argument does have value for religious faith. In conclusion, the Cosmological Argument shows no reason to believe in the loving Christian God which is why it has little
With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so. Also calling god good would not make any sense since he decided what good is or isn't, so how could he be good unless the moral was grounding him? If piety was a certain care of the god’s we could look to do always what is Pious and in return we would be worshiping/caring for the god/s if they exists. If the God’s are looking to something the “moral,piety” then if you act pious in your actions through life you will be in a way worshiping the god’s, because you are honoring what they already honer. The problem with this idea is when people think god grounds the moral
Humans then incorporate both of these laws into human law, which is the basis for how we act. As the laws the humans follow come from God, they must be holy and should not be rejected by ‘disparaging the dictate of reason’. Natural Moral Law creates a connection between what is natural, rational and moral. Aquinas’ ethical theory claims that laws which are discernible through nature are intrinsically good because they were created by God. It is therefore known through reason that we should follow these natural riles from God, because the opposite is equivalent to ‘condemning the command of God’.
Although there are different sources, morality all depends on teachings from religious sources of authority. There is also evidence in the secular world that there is an association between religion and morality. It is influenced by religion when it comes to making decisions about important issues, such as abortion. Atheists and the secular world may not accept religious teachings, but their consideration of religion having an input on moral issues suggests that there is a link between the two. The divine command theory suggests that an act is right if it has ben commanded by God, and morally wrong if God has forbidden it.
He said morality was innate; a part of us (a priori), and it was our moral duty to carry it out for good, which must lead to God. Accordingly Kant says good actions should be universalisable and free, so basically when making our ethical decisions we should ask ourselves a simple question "What if everybody did that?" if the answer is no, then the categorical imperative tells us that the action is wrong. So if I cheated on my AS-level exam to pass and be successful in the future, this would be my maxim, however I would not want others to do the same and therefore this action would be wrong according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. My cheating pre-supposes that most people do not cheat even though they have the same reasons to cheat as I have.
They continue to bring up the topic of pious and unpious actions. Euthyphro claims “the pious is to do what I am doing, to prosecute the wrongdoer…not to prosecute is impious.” Then, Socrates exclaims he is the defendant in his case because he believes it is difficult to accept the common knowledge the people believe about the goods, since there is no plausible evidence. As the dialogue continues, Socrates claims that “different gods consider different things to be just…for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects…(page 9, 7e)” Then the same things would be both pious and unpious. Simply, the nature of Socrates is to question and further complicate matters by counter arguments. Then Socrates states that the matter is finding who the wrongdoer is rather than how he must be punished.
The Theodicy of Irenaeus has many weaknesses. For example, the Theodicy states that God deliberately created an imperfect world where evil exists to achieve a higher goal (a world where humans can morally develop), however if it is not acceptable to do something bad to achieve something good, then why is it acceptable for God to do this? Another point to consider is that not all suffering leads to moral growth. Some people do not develop as a result of suffering, but instead morally degrade. This contradicts Irenaeus’ Theodicy because it states that moral development is achieved through the experience of pain and suffering.
Euthyphro The Socratic dialogue Euthyphro attempts to answer the question what is piety? Euthyphro claims to know what piety is while Socrates admits ignorance and wants to be educated on the matter because he is being charged with impiety. Euthyphro is charging his own father for murder, an impious action, and he is so confident this is the right thing because of knowledge of piety. This is how Socrates knows Euthyphro can teach him about piety because he does not just say he knows what it is he is acting on it, possibly sending his father to death. Socrates says “…before he could have seen his way to bring such an action”.
Many philosophers have tried to distinguish the source of our conscience but have all concluded with different theories. Some for instance believe the conscience to be the voice of God; others believe it to be a human faculty, a special moral sense or even the voice of reason. Some see morally ‘good’ behaviour as the practical answer to a moral dilemma. They would argue that the ‘right’ or ‘best’ course of action is seen through the use of what we call, ‘common sense.’ They would also regard the use of the conscience as the process by which this decision making, between ‘right’ and ‘evil,’ takes place. Some however may question, how do you name a conscience if it is not a physical matter and one cannot distinguish where it originates from?
Socrates continued his point in saying that “an action or a man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious” (Euthyphro, 7a). However, Socrates also points out that gods, just like people, can have their differences and disagreements about anything. Therefore, there could be no unification in what is right and wrong, good and bad, or pious and impious. Again, we see Socrates’ doubt in having more than one god. If the gods can have their disputes about piety and impiety, then how would we ever know what exactly is the right course of action?