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.
There are so many ways to understand scripture, and many of these texts have been translated into different languages and have been edited that it could have been revised from the real version. People claim to hear from God all the time, but we have no way to know for sure if they are telling the truth and to validate it. This theory has many weaknesses to it because we do not know what religion is the best or what God approves of. Even though I do not believe in the Divine Command Theory, I still believe in God, and that he is the creator of all things. I think that God’s goodness is rooted in nature, and it is in his nature to do good.
When confronted with an ethical decision, why do humans continue to opt for the decision with negative consequences and moral failure? Humans are on a lifelong quest for true happiness, because the choices we make are usually far from the perfect, moral standard. American author John Steinbeck attempts to answer these questions and explain humanity’s struggle with choice in his novel East of Eden. East of Eden illustrates humanity’s struggle with good and evil throughout several complex characters and their interactions with each other. In the novel, Steinbeck seems to conclude that no one is simply blessed enough to inherit a solely good or solely evil life - that it is one’s own choice that defines oneself and allows for one to be established as either good or evil.
Aldous Huxley uses Bernard Marx, Helmholtz Watson, and John’s varying interpretations of freedom to enhance the lack of diversity in the World State society with both actions and beliefs. In Brave New World, the World State society was formed on the idea of “Community, Identity, Stability.” It was used to perpetuate ideas of freedom, and more often lack thereof. Bernard Marx struggles in Brave New World, and as a result continued perpetuating the lack of diversity in the World State. Bernard does not disapprove of the World State society, he wants to fit into it.
The last way Orwell works to prove his argument to the reader is by using an anaphora in his article. Anaphoras work to add emphasis to a specific element in a writing. Adding emphasis to something makes it stick with the reader and helps them better understand the author 's point. Orwell uses an anaphor towards the end of the article when he writes, “The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life”. Here Orwell is repeating the phrase, “that one” at the beginning of each clause.
In his characterization of the “free man” at the end of part of the Ethics, Spinoza argues that a perfect rational being “always acts honestly, not deceptively”. Spinoza reasons that if a perfect rational being misleading, he would do so “from the dictate of reason” but then it would be rational to act in that way, and “men would be better advised to agree only in words, and be contrary to one another in fact”. One problem that this argument raises is conflict between Spinoza’s claim that a perfect rational being would always act honestly and his claim that such a being would never do anything that brought about its own
Isaac Bashevis Singer once said, “We must believe in free will, we have no choice” (Brainy Quote). While many philosophers do not believe in free will, most, like Singer, acknowledge that the concept is useful for moral accountability, or “the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission in accordance with one 's moral obligations,” in a functioning society (citation). However, Vonnegut illustrates his opinion that even with the lack of free will, people can change their perceptions and are morally obligated to do at least that. In Kurt Vonnegut’s novel, Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy Pilgrim becomes “unstuck in time” as he revisits his traumatic World War II experiences over and over again. He is abducted by strange aliens from the planet Tralfalmadore who teach him their seemingly pessimistic views on fate and free will.
In it may be corrupt ought to take sustenance paying little respect to it will be for a going on persnickety. Kant's duties to ethics have been practically as liberal, if not all the more thusly, than his work in introspective philosophy and epistemology. He is the most basic shield in philosophical history of deontological, or commitment based, ethics. In Kant's view, the sole segment that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is refined by the action, however the point of view that is behind the action. Besides, primary aim that can favor an exhibit with great regard, he battles, is one that rises up out of general guidelines found by reason.
Under the moral theory of act utilitarianism, I will argue that the elements that define it as a moral theory, do not always hold up as a strong theory in its totality when we critically analyse it. I will also point out a few hypothetical situations and possible consequences when implementation of act utilitarianism is followed through. The consequences will be proven to have the potential to undo the utility of happiness for our loved family members, in order to care for strangers we do not have a connection with, which in my opinion is highly immoral. According to lecture notes ( Weijers & Munn 2016)
What could the theist say to the ordinary sceptic? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the intelligence to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of unbelief into salvation? Pascal’s wager is the lowest ladder, appealing to selfish instincts instead of high moral ones but it works because it gives no middle ground. Pascal theorises that agnosticism is impossible.
It only serves the bodies of its people through physical and emotional support, but spiritually and personally they fail to meet the needs of the people. And yet they have been conditioned to ignore that fact, and instead walk around without a unique persona but rather as husks with a smile. This is the impact of utilitarianism in societies, and that’s what the author is trying to say. Twisting what you explain with your 'Authors message statement ' I believe the impact of a perfect society is a lack of individuality. A loss of what makes diversity and uniqueness so apparent.
Advertising for Aquinas: How confusion of Intelligent Design and the Fifth Way cast doubt on the existence of God Whether there is a God or not is a question that has vexed the minds of people and philosophers a like. It would make sense then that many philosophers over the years have investigated and tried to answer this question, and have proposed many solutions to it. One way that they have tried to prove the existence of God is through teleological arguments, or arguments that explain the purpose or directive goal of something. One of the best examples of a teleological argument is given by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Fifth Way for the existence of God.
Hume had a lot to say about the cosmological argument and he had some critiques about it as well. David Hume spoke his peace on the argument and he also had some critiques about it. He questioned how is it really possible to make guesses on how the world works and what is causing things to happen. He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument. He said that one cannot say that there are certain causes for why things happen, then turn around and say that the universe we live in has a main cause.
What makes the book worth reading, however, is not to revel in the action, nor to mock the seemingly haughty narrator, but to analyze the author’s portrayals of human nature. Wells riddled the plot with examples of the moralistic slump that may occur in the worst of circumstances. To think that “life is an incessant struggle for existence,” is void of all morals and emotion, a raw notion that reveals our most basic purpose in life, simply existing, rather than feeling (Wells 208). His startling displays lead me to wonder whether he is pessimistic or realistic about the human race. This aspect of the text is the only reason the book managed to keep my
In the book bystander by James Preller I believe a very prominent theme is ignoring the situation even if it doesn 't affect you is not the right thing to do. In chapter 18 of the book, the very wise Dr. Martin Luther King Junior is quoted " In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends". This quote can be strongly associated with the theme of the book. What does "means in the simplest terms, is that it is far more important to us, the people who look at as friends defend us, then the petty insults of our enemies.