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? One of the two main philosophers to support that conscience is the voice of reason is Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas believed the conscience primarily to be a substance of reason; a moral guide that has been placed in us by God in order to make us more inclined to do his will here on earth. He believed that at conception or at some later stage, God gives each person a conscience to be able to discern morally right and wrong. Does this mean then that people who do not have faith or a believe in God are consciousness?
Socrates uses a rather elaborate argument to show this definition is also insufficient. If the gods approve of something because it is holy, their approval cannot be what makes it holy, he says. If an act is holy because the gods approve of it, we still do not know what makes it holy or why the gods approve. It seems that any attempt to define holiness by the will or approval of the gods is bound to fail. 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.
Hick argues that if God had created humanity in his presence then the gap between God and humanity would be so small that it would limit our freedom. Hick calls this knowledge gap between God and humanity ‘The Epistemic Distance’. Hick further explains that if we were created too close to God in terms of knowledge, we would be overwhelmed by him and would worship him for the wrong reasons. Humans are not born
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.
The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God. If morality is independent of God and God’s commands only exist because the moralities of actions are predetermined, then God is no longer sovereign. If morals are independent of God’s commands then God is not sovereign over morality. This goes against the definition of a theistic God which defines God as the creator and ruler over everything. It also puts limits on God’s power.
Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences. Kant believed that an ethics should be based around something entirely good. He decided that the only thing entirely good in the whole universe is ‘good will’. Everybody must decide ethical decisions in a way in which they put themselves last, fulfill their duty, and commit only selfless acts. This may be psychologically impossible, as many believe there is always a selfish reason for any good deed, however Kant only proposed a theory, and
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. Horn one questions “Does God command x because it is good.” This argument suggests that God is inferior to good, or perhaps good could even be temporally prior to God. In addition both God’s omnipotence and omniscience are damaged; he cannot claim full responsibility for creating the world and therefore cannot possibly have full control as it is not his creation. He also may not have the knowledge of right and wrong if it is independent of him. An independent good takes away from religious motivation to do good, we can be good for the sake of being good as opposed to seeking eschatological reward, for example going to heaven in the afterlife.
He was the man responsible for a majority of quotes that made this text popular. Voltaire’s satire evolves around Pangloss’s optimism. His philosophical views mainly target conceptions from the Enlightment. His views state that, “the conception that if God is all good, and all-puissant God had engendered the world and that, therefore, the world must be impeccable.” It is believed through his philosophy that it is seen as misguided or evil, it is because they do not understand the overall good that the “evil” is designated to accommodate. Like Candide, Pangloss is not a tenable character; rather, he is a distorted, hyperbolized representation of a philosopher whose beliefs and perspective is considerable linked to his philosophy.
Thus, he believes there is no reason why should you live a moral life rather than for one's self. Fidley asks Seltzer one last question, “what motivation for adopting the moral point of view can you possibly offer without a belief in God and immorality?” which leads us to this quote, “When religion tells us that there is nothing more we can say about morality than that we can’t see the reasons for it, but do it if you know what’s good for you, then I do condemn it. We can do better than that. We can become moral grown-ups. And if there were a God, surely he would approve”.
From a Christian viewpoint most ethicists criticize self-interest as a ‘narrow’ view that could ingeniously embrace harmful selfishness. Do we agree with them? Though we consider its importance as a primary motive for acting in market economical and political affairs, we argue that ethical standards basically require a moral outlook that goes beyond the dominant self-interest model. Since most people have both a benevolent and self-interested attitude, we view self-love as indispensable for cooperation and social behaviour. 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.