‘Utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making.’ How far do you agree? Despite there being some areas of compatibility; overall I think that utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making. Utilitarianism as a whole is not compatible because, utilitarianism is not particularly close to religion. Utilitarian theories do not make reference to religious rules and principles, and are more driven by pragmatism by focusing on the outcome rather than the morality of the action itself. In this sense it is a consequentialist theory.
Norman also suggested the need to reevaluate the true significance of being alive. Supporting this assertion, he explained how some societies have implemented penalties towards family members of suicide victims. In hopes this may deter someone from committing any self-inflicted death. Further, he posited even without respect to religion, customs and attitudes from
To what extent is the via negativa the only way to talk about God Within this essay I will be arguing that the via negativa is a very unhelpful way to talk about God as if we were to only talk about him negatively we would ultimately never know anything of God’s nature. Instead, I will argue that analogy is a better way to talk of God and I will refer to Aquinas’ ideas of analogical language. The via negativa (or apophatic way) claims that people can only talk about God in negative terms because he is transcendent and utterly different and greater than anything we can comprehend. Thus we cannot say what God is because his nature is beyond our comprehension. The word “good” in reference to God is meaningless as we cannot know what this entails; it is completely different from saying “the man is good”.
All things considered, the endeavor to question these arguments as a reason not to trust in God does not merit endeavoring. In the event that theists don't for the most part hold to these proofs as explanations behind faith, then why try attempting to question them to theists? Keeping on doing as such appears as though he is persuaded to demonstrate a point that few are not interested on questioning, and accordingly is intentionally attempting to set up theist conviction as crazy; at the end of the day, he is looking to start a fight. This is not a scholarly target article. Inclination essentially relinquishes scholarly objectivity.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
Both theories are monistic in nature. Kant’s deontology and Act Utilitarianism both state that their theory should be the only one applied to this issue, not just one consideration among many. Similar to Act Utilitarianism, Kantian Deontology would negate the significance of any personal relationship in regards to the issue of assisted suicide. Both theories provide a type of test that can be applied to this issue; a test that attempts to answer the question: How does one know if they have chosen to act in an ethical way? It is at this point where the two theories diverge
So something besides the fact that these people do not have health care, makes it morally right for them to receive it. And that would be up to Kant to decide. Kant is not the type of philosopher that would be in favor of this because he uses rational principles to think and make his final decisions on things. Which essentially means that an action follows a logical principle; Is it logical or not?. In this case with healthcare, based on what Kant is about and the way he goes about ethics, I do not see him being in favor of this act of giving healthcare to all citizens of the United States.
Another question that I will address will be do convicted felons and recovering addicts actually ever regain or gain credibility that have been diminished due to their past choices? Another central question would be if they do gain or regain credibility how long is this process? Does it vary? Research in this area is very crucial. It is important to our
He is almost certainly sure that no God exists, but says that he would change this view if he were confronted with empirical evidence that suggested otherwise. However, Dawkins’s declaration that he is not a fundamentalist could be questioned by examining other parts of his book. Dawkins seems to focus more on the evidence that religion lacks opposed to the evidence that his evidence-based worldview contains. He also holds Darwinism in a very high esteem. One might say that Dawkins’s view of Darwinism is a strict set of basic ideas and principles, embodying the definition of fundamentalism.
The death penalty poses many important ethical questions in today’s society. I will be addressing the death penalty from two different perspectives, should it be banded in the United States like other countries or is the death penalty something that society should come to terms with. I will argue that while perspective one is strong in that it states those who commit murder need to die, but it fails to fully consider the innocent people that have already died because of law enforcement negligence, perspective two gives a better understanding of innocent people who are charged for committing a crime they did not commit. Therefore, I will suggest doing research on both sides of the story is the best way to approach this question. In the 1960’s