The voice of conscience acts as a moral sensor, which is triggered whenever we face an ethical behaviour and fires the alarm once the morality is breached. Utterly, It is up to our will whether to listen irresistibly to the voice that is what Kant calls it “moral predisposition” or mute it which consequently leading to immoral behaviour. The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their morals, he considers people as a moral agent and ought to act morally and willingly motivated by the
b.2.1. The Divine Intellect God causes things by His knowledge. Having this question answered by St. Thomas, the argument of which leaned towards the discussion of the divine causality through His knowledge. In the previous discussion, it is concluded that the esse of God is His own act of understanding. With this, it can be said that “He must understand Himself perfectly, which includes a perfect understanding of all that He causes, which is everything.” It is understood, then, that inasmuch as we understand that the perfection of understanding is in God, the understanding of His creatures can be also attributed to Him perfectly.
This shows that the Son of Heaven does not have the absolute power to rule the world. Only when he leads well he have the authority, otherwise he may lose it. Meanwhile, to concur with the moral judgments of the emperor does not mean that he is authoritarian or totalitarian as we naturally agree with something that may bring us benefits and oppose the one that may harm us. Mozi argues all should agree with the Son of Heaven but the precondition is that the Son of Heaven is right and follow the standard of Heaven and so he is not a totalitarian or authoritarian. Some may argue that Mozi is a totalitarian or authoritarian because he argues that all should agree with the moral judgments of the Son of Heaven.
These rights are natural because human nature being there primary source of evolution. • Violation of human rights by the state The concept of AFSPA, can be highly refuted by this school of thought. As according to them, the man made laws can be called as just and fair, only if theyare subjected to objective moral principles, and they does not violate the natural rights of the individuals, on whom they are imposed. The state by enacting AFSPA, to attain national integrity and to fulfill the rhetoric of nationalism, tries to violate those basic human rights of the individuals, which are conferred to them by an eternal authority, which prohibits the state from violate them. The provisions of AFSPA, such as section 4(a), gives the officer in charge, a power to arrest anyone, with minor suspicion of him possessing fire arms, and anyone who is part of an assembly of more than 5 people, and even kill them , if they according to that officer are trying to abscond.
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. On their eyes, God’s nature is the standard of moral goodness, and God’s commands or words are the origin of all obligation and kindness. (Jeremy Koons, n.d.) One well-known objection to divine will/divine command moral theories is that they commit us to the view that God’s will is arbitrary, and the arbitrary will of God is not a plausible basis for morality. (Thomas,
Following that, it would be a mistake to presume that religion and God to be the origin of moral ideas, because humans themselves invented an image of God and the rules that people should obey. Thus, it means that morality does not come from religion but comes from human nature; and people do not have to be religious to develop morality inside them, but definitely religions play a significant role in building a moral basis of the
Immanuel Kant who was a moral philosopher came up with the theory of duty for the sake of duty where he states that one should do good for the sake of doing good, not because there is something to gain from it but for the will of doing good, this is not the same with human rights because human rights are there to govern people from doing what is wrong and unjust, they involve the emotional state of the person and they also have exceptions whereas Kant’s moral theory leaves no room for
Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome. Immanuel Kant designed ‘The Categorical Imperative’ theory which was associated with the fact that it was commanding us to practice our morals and desires in a specific way which was exercised through two rules. Kamm (2000) claims that these components were to ‘(1) treat persons as ends in themselves and (2) do not treat them as mere means’. Kamm is basically suggesting that we seek happiness of others, as that is morally right, however fulfill capacities of one’s own intellect. From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical.
Kant wrote the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) where he described his ethical system that is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Moreover, human actions of any kind undertaken by the person is a result of the sense of duty dictated by reason. Kant also divided reason into two parts; hypothetical imperative which dictates that human actions were performed for a certain end, and the other is categorical imperative which is the basis of morality: “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” Thus, freedom is not a lawless freedom of anarchy but rather of self-government, the freedom to obey with consciousness on the universal laws manifested through reason. The end of every freedom is to ensure the welfare of each individual in which reason dictates toward an ideal
Immanuel kant wrote his famous ethical treatise foundations of the metaphysics of morals before the rise of English utilitarianism, but he was well equinted with the idea of founding morality on the feelings of pleasure and pain, rather than on reason . Firstly, Kant was of the view in related to the ideas of Jeremy becham and Stuart mill and both of them focused on the pleasure is coming. Kant then worked on his theory and focused on reason. Moral obligations thus have nothing to do with consequences, in Kant’s view but arises solely from a moral law that is binding on all rational beings. The Main Features of Kant’s Theory : The main features of the ethical theory presented in the foundation can be illustrated by considering one of Kant’s own example.
He states the that any law that brighten ups “human personality” is a just law and any law that devalues human personality is an unjust law. MLK finishes of by saying that segregation is sinful. He finds this out by breaking it in to part like so; separation is sinful, segregation laws separate, and therefore segregation laws are sinful. Finally, after explaining why he disobeys some laws he makes it clear to the clergymen that segregation laws are unjust and sinful. Thus, he strongly believes that the Jim crow law should be disobeyed because they are “morally wrong” (par.
Hick, however, might relate higher morality back to the hedonistic world mentioned in the argument above. There is a reason for our world to have suffering since it is built into the structure of the world. That reason, Hick argues, is for “soul-making”, or character building (129). Without having some suffering, then there would be no characters, such as courage. The higher morality of God relates back to that because He has a legitimacy for that suffering.
Whether these evils be moral or natural, humans have the free will to react to them in whatever manner they choose. Therefore, God’s test lies in a human’s reaction to the suffering they receive from the evils inflicted upon them. Often times, in cases of illness or natural disaster, when one deals with extreme loss, they also may lose God in the process. Essentially, there are two reactions that can occur when humans deal with worldly evils. When one suffers from acts of evil, they may question God’s existence because of his permittance of these evils, and may even denounce God.