More so, the belief in good and evil have been given to humanity by God, which defines the freedom of choice that explain the rationality of God’s existence as an omnipotent creator. Swinburne (1998) states the presumption of God’s existence on the premise of free will as a rational choice given to human beings to chose between good and evil: “Every moral evil in the world is that God allowing it to occur makes possible (given the assumption that humans have free will) the great good of a particular choice between good and bad” (Swinburne 223). In this argument, the rationality of God’s existence is rationalized through the belief that an all-powerful theistic God has given human beings free will. In this manner, the entire paradigm of theistic reasoning is constructed from religious texts, which assume that God is the overarching authority on what is real or not real in the human condition. More so, Swinburne feels that God has no obligation to allow all human beings to live on equal terms.
The divine command theory is a theory of an act is morally right because it is commanded by God and an act is immoral because God forbids it. The divine command theory has faced significant arguments that arose from Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma. In Euthyphro, the dialogue started with Socrates questioning Euthyphro what is the state of nature, of being pious, in response, Euthyphro declares that being pious is the good with whatever the God or superior commands. This arose the following question, “Are acts pious because the gods love them, or do the gods love actions because they are pious?” (Landau pg67). Specifically, does God command us to do whatever because it is morally right, or is whatever we do morally right because God commands us to
The AHA’s discussion of dialogue and truth connect to the ethical theory of Kantianism. Kantianism is a form of Deontology that provides us with the Universal Law Formula and the Humanity as an End in Itself Formula. The Universal Law Formula says that we should treat others in the way that we expect others to treat us. The Humanity as an End in Itself Formula explains that humans should never be used as a means to an end or we should simply respect humans. Through these formulas come the idea of imperfect and perfect duties.
Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source.
According to a philosopher, Pascal Wenger, one 's belief about God existing is based on self-interest. He argues that it is in our interest to believe that God exists and hence from his point of view it is rational for us human beings to do so. Furthermore, he adds that if we believe in God 's existence and he truly exists then, we are bound to receive a reward in heaven but if he doesn 't exist we won 't have lost a thing. Finally, he concludes those who do not believe in God 's existence; then he exists they are bound to receive an endless penalty in heaven. Also, other arguments about the existence of God include the ontological perspective which tries to argue from the point of abstract reasoning.
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. The morality of an action is determined by the outcome of that action.
These religious references build upon each other to develop Burgess’ notion that God created humans with free will, and how this leaves humankind flawed and prone to evil tendences. Though, despite this, humanity’s free will is the most important thing to both God and humanity itself. Burgess sees humans as beings
The Cosmological Argument argues that the universe had to have been created by something greater, and more powerful than itself, such as God. This argument contends that the first cause of anything has no cause itself. The Teleological Argument asserts that the complex design of the world proves an intelligent, powerful creator. The Moral Argument cites God’s existence as the cause of morality. This argument asserts that humans follow moral laws that must have been created by a law giver.
Freedom can only be re-attained through God, through Whom, by grace, we shall be free indeed. Moreover, Augustine argues, since it is “God who made human beings good, it is God, not human beings, who restores human beings so that they are good. He sets them free from the evil that they have brought upon themselves, if they will it, believe, and call upon him.” Since we have by our own will brought upon ourselves sin; we cannot be healed from our sin without the grace of
There are two types of utilitarianism: Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is a belief in which, an individual’s actions are moral as long as the actions produce the greatest outcome possible. Rule utilitarianism is a belief in which, an action is morally right, as long as it justified in accordance to a particular law. Utilitarianism is less complicated to understand (compared to other moral theories) because it consists of “doing whatever produces the best consequences” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Virtue Ethics). Mill viewed the greatest happiness principle as the cornerstone of morals, he
The Great Awakening unleashed a new wave of conversions driven by a desire to be cleansed of sin and avoid eternal punishment. These beliefs depend on a fear of God rather than sole worship, as He is portrayed to be a spiteful, all-powerful being. In my teaching, the fear of God was not placed within me. Instead, a deeper trust in God’s saving powers was instilled upon my beliefs, which attempted to draw belief from love rather than fear. God was portrayed as an all-loving being attempting to free us from the control of sin, which quite evidently contradicts the image of a vengeful God.
Almost all theorists agree that rights should be respected and people should have them. However, a counter to this claim is that those who wish may within their same sex should also have that right. Consequential ethics is an outcome based theory that could also be relevant to the case. Specifically, Utilitarianism because it deals with the balance of pleasure and pain for everyone. It is important to understand that utilitarianism deals with the greatest good for the greatest number.
John Hick uses that definition. The monotheistic definition of God is that God is all-good and all-powerful. If God is those things, then He would not want evil and He could actually prevent it. Which, leads to believe that there should be no evil if God is those