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
He does as such for a few reasons. In any case, he doesn't trust that one's obligation toward a perfect being ought to be viewed as something that is partitioned and particular from his obligation toward his kindred men. In actuality, he holds that the main genuine method for rendering administration to God comprises in doing what one can to advance the good and otherworldly improvement of people. Second, Socrates respects the reason and capacity of religion as something that is unique in relation to the view communicated by Euthyphro. Rather than religion being utilized as a sort of hardware or gadget for getting what one needs, as was valid for Euthyphro's situation, Socrates trusts the basic role of genuine religion is to carry one's own life into amicability with the will of God.
“First, for the god’s sake, then this hope you give me of children – for I’ve quite despaired of my own powers. This then is what I’ll do: once you get to Athens, I’ll keep my promise and protect you.” [KING AEGEUS p39 lines…..] The phrase “for the god’s sake” imply that Medea is stronger than the gods in the sense that she is able to cure him of his infertility where the Gods were unable to which demonstrates the hypocritical nature in which Gods are worshipped and idolized by Athenians. The noun “despaired” connotes the idea that King Aegeus has had complete loss or absence of hope in his own powers, which is those of a King, the highest in the kingdom of mortals. Instead of accepting Medea’s offer to treat his infertility, King Aegeus had many more options yet he chose Medea, which shows the reliance of a powerful being who depends on an outsider, a woman to treat his problems: “quite despaired of my own powers”. Semantic field of the diction “promise” once again echoes the importance of oaths as a sacred act before the gods and the importance of the “protect[ion]” he would provide for Medea when she reaches Athens.
During his discussion with Socrates, Euthyphro agrees with much of Socrates reasoning. One of these many concessions is that “the gods love the pious act because it is pious”. This concession ultimately leads to Socrates defeating Euthyphro’s claim. Therefore, Euthyphro should have answered slightly different than just a defeated “yes”. However, because of Euthyphro’s definition of the pious, equating the pious to the god loved, the statement is circular in understanding, but it remains a true statement.
They use intellectual virtue by their wisdom of the Bible and what they believe God asked them to do. Plato believed that a just life is superior to an unjust, intrinsically and instrumentally. I believe that Plato would agree with the MacManus brothers ways somewhat. They are fighting for a just life for everyone around them. I don't think Plato would agree with how they are going to achieve this by killing everyone who is evil.
The great Aristotle declared, “We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly.” Virtue should be defined as perfect or righteous. However, it can be argued that because Ransom is a man, and man is sinful, he could not choose to be virtuous. Because this is the case, and man is inherently sinful as Jesus said in Matthew, “No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:18), we will adapt Merriam Webster’s definition of virtue, “Conformity to a standard of right, morality. A particular moral excellence” (merriam-webster.com). By this definition we can present our thesis; Ransom chose to be virtuous while on Malacandra.
He describes Gods anger towards those who do not follow and believe in Him. It is explained that God is the only one who is able to save people from going to Hell. Edwards wants people to imagine how evil and distressed life would be without Gods love and mercy. He explains that to not burn in Hell people need to ask for forgiveness from God, experience Gods mercy, and continuously practice the Lords word. Edwards really lets the message of “Gods wrath” sink into our minds to show how mighty, powerful, and capable the Lord is.
He believes that Christ resisted Satan because he wanted man to be free, but, according to the Grand Inquisitor, Christ made a mistake. Since man has the ability to choose, he will choose poorly and suffer as a consequence. The Grand Inquisitor views are paternalistic in that he believes it is best for the burden of choice should be placed upon him instead of man. Man will then be able to will to live happily instead of trying to live up to the high standards of Christ teachings. The teachings of Christ only benefits those few who are strong enough to follow through with them continuously in every aspect of their lives.
Pausanias presents a speech that details why loving young boys is justified, Aristophanes speech discusses the importance of worshiping the gods, and Alcibiades presents one discussing Socrates. The lack of objectivity in these speeches highlights how difficult it can be to remain objective on a subject matter that one cares about; however, not every speech in the Symposium has a motive. Phaedrus discusses the origin of the god love, Agathon examines how love is attractive and full of goodness, and Socrates presents a retelling of a discussion he had with Diotima. Plato presents these speeches along with ones that are not able to maintain their objectivity because the entire story is just a discussion between a group of friends. He details that some ay push their political agenda and justify their actions while others may maintain an objective view of the subject.
Here, the pride of the men is a shot at elevating themselves above others, to put themselves in a lofty tower that shadows all, leading them to a disarray of language barriers set in place by the Lord. The vanity in pride leads to calamity, undermines accomplishments, and harms their well-being. Solidifying the writers’ use of the malevolent behavior in characters to symbolize the foreshadowing of injury. Unlike the constant negativity and sin that is imbedded in the anatomy of biblical individuals, Homer utilizes pride to expand the self, per se, allowing each character to either retain his current fame and reputation (in the case of Odysseus) or to seek out one’s purpose and build a name for himself through pursuit of glory (which we see in the character progression of