In terms of the second part God commands these actions because they are right, this statement places morality separate from God, there is an independent standard of moral right and wrong that undermine the omnipotence and Omni benevolence of God (Leibniz, 1951). This point is also a response to the objection of the divine command theory, in making morality and God independent we ignore the greatness of God, who as the creator has the right to command and we are obligated to obey His commands (Rachels, 1969). Some other critiques of the divine command theory and its failure that have been brought up includes the pluralism objection which describes the matter of the number of religions practised around the world and the differing understandings and the possible misunderstandings that could arise due to conflicting views (Wierenga, 2009). Some moral theists argue that without religion there is no basis for morality, without God then everything including the unsavoury actions mentioned previously is
Such differences of intellectual vitality and a cross-fertilization of ideas can produce. In dealing with the specific problems in the open is likely to bring a variety of hypotheses. This process is the most appropriate solutions can be found for a particular situation is likely to offer a variety of solutions. It takes into account the reality of the lives of people of the Islamic faith who is in harmony with
I believe this because of the existence of so much judgment among Equality 7-2521’s fellow men. They believed it should be a certain way of living and completing conventional tasks which was absurd and irrational. “The moral principle to adopt in the issue, is: Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” stated by Rand. I feel that Equality 7-2521 wanted to escape this concept. The motive powers of his fellow men were to keep everyone as single-minded as possible which led to the many rationalizations of Equality 7-2521’s distinctive ways.
The idea is that certain actions are right as the God wills for us. The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky’s provides the Kernel of one of the argument that is often used in defense of divine command ethics. According to Dostoevsky’s writings, he claim that, ‘If God is dead, then everything is permissible.’ This expresses the alarm that is if there were no God then there would be no morality. (Barbara Mackinnon & Andrew Fiala, 2015). Furthermore, defenders of the divine command theory like Alston have faced the Euthyphro dilemma by says that although God’s commands make right actions right, God is morally perfect and hence would never issue unjust or immoral commandments.
From articles, people can infer that as an instinctive response, dealing with a situation in a quick manner, that goes without thinking leads to an altruistic result. From philosophical theories, people can understand that altruism is ultimately what the majority of people want in their society, for everyone to treat one another happily and rationally. If one were lead to believe that everyone was controlled by the appetitive part of their soul, or they just naturally thought everyone was selfish, would disregard that that person may have had time to think further about those their egoistic decisions. Those who are egoistic in behavior do not take self-centered actions because they instinctively felt it was best to deceive others; instead, they are presented with situations that they thought long about. Even if egoistic people did intuitively believe their appetites in life, then this must come from their past experiences where they wished to gain everything for oneself, without a care for others.
In conclusion, evil proves God’s existence and thus the question as to why God permits evil does not work to disprove His existence. Craig ends on the note that we cannot possibly surmise that God’s overall plan does not work to contribute to the salvation of the greatest number of people (p.
One theory is that diversity of inputs (e.g., resources, perspectives) generates more diverse outputs. Hence, greater variation of inputs should enhance the chances of a breakthrough idea (Harvey, 2014). Creativity is treated as a process with inputs and outputs, an arrangement which is amenable to the traditional, linear I-P-O model of team
The question is who decided that deceitfulness was an imperfection? Humans? If so, who are we to judge what is and is not perfect when we are imperfect ourselves? Would it not be wise to leave such a thing up to God? And suppose we did and later somehow found out that God has been deceiving us, can he still be considered a supremely perfect being?
For instance, when Edwards commands that all sinners are as hated by God “as the serpent is in ours” to the point of wishing them eternal torture if they are not one of the elect (Edwards 48). The flaw is that argument is the fact that a God so hateful of his own creations as to create a system of elect is illogical. Why do any good deeds if they will not impact your eventual fate in Hell? Subsequently, Franklin’s philosophy that “the conviction alone to live virtuously” is not enough to achieve moral perfection and that “contrary habits must be broken” first (Franklin 69). Finally, the evidence of human goodness can be seen in the random acts of kindness society sees every day with activities like Pay It Forward, acts of charity, and companionship amongst friends.
I do not see humans as a type of creature that would necessarily be motivated by moral values. Awareness of moral values and motivation to act accordingly leaves out many other confounds. Even if we ignore these confounds, Mackie’s asking whether there would be always be motivation; regardless of the fact that there are other conflicting motivating factors, which may override the practical motivation to align one’s actions to some objective