(Swinburne, pg.84) Theist would disagree. The second piece that counters Swinburne’s argument is by John Hicks and it is called “Evil and The God of Love”. Hicks takes a pro-freewill stance and believes in the “Soul-Making Defense” (Hick, pg.85). The author central argument is the belief human beings are not completely fulfilled with the creator’s likeliness. Humans must endure life and its ups and downs in order to become a finished product worthy of God’s kingdom.
124). His other point is that God having a sufficient reason for permitting evil is not the same as having a hallucination. He states that having good reason for the existence of God increases the possibility that He has a reason for permitting gratuitous suffering (p. 124). He also counters the claim that there is no evidence to suggest that God is all-good and all-powerful. He refers to his moral argument—wherein without the existence of God, objective moral values would also cease to exist, but objective moral values do exist and thus God also must exist—to make the claim that God is all-good (p. 125).
His reasonings support his overall idea that an unjust law or act, does not defend retaliating through unjustly means. Additionally, both King and Socrates are on a disaccord concerning the determining factor of just and unjust behavior. While Socrates relies on rational argument to be the expert on justice and the morality law, King sees the determining factor as grounded from God. As shown above, both Socrates and King have differing views on the obligations of a citizen in respects to the laws of the
Augustine, in his work The Perfection of Human Righteousness, combatted the heresy of Pelagianism as described by Caelestius in his treatise, The Definitions Attributed to Caelestius. Following Pelagius, Caelestius by logic and Scripture argued that the Fall did not destroy man’s natural capability to do right. Caelestius argued that God made us free to do the good and thus we all have the power not to sin, and that both the devil and Adam’s original sin are unable to destroy this power. As proof Caelestius gave examples of Old Testament saints who he claimed lived holy lives. Augustine refutes Caelestius’ ideas by using Scripture to show that we are righteous only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye? ", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal. The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable.
Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.
Theodore Lowi’s piece Bend Sinister: How the Constitution Saved the Republic and Lost Itself would inherently disagree with Finer. Instead of viewing judicial review favorably, Lowi condemns the United States government for participating in illegitimate practices. Judicial Review determines that the
Philo concludes that for those who already believe in an omnipotent and all-good god, these four causes are not enough to invalidate their beliefs. INSERT CITATION He says this because all four of his causes can be dispelled under the assumption that there is some divine explanation that reconciles god’s goodness with the evil in the world. However, coming from an unbiased perspective, Philo says that we certainly cannot infer the existence of a benevolent god when these causes of natural evil are taken into account. In fact, if we do attempt to divulge god’s moral attributes from the state of the universe, then Philo concludes that the only proper deduction we can draw is that god is neither good nor is he evil, but rather he is entirely indifferent to the principles of morality altogether – in essence, god is morally neutral. INSERT
The government is removing the link between man and the divine. Another aspect that angered Thoreau was the fact that “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them” (393). This again goes along with the belief that man has the ability to know what is just, given by God, and does not need a government to decide for them how to live, especially when those ways are not true. In summation, Thoreau wants the government to lose the power it holds over the people so they can practice the morality and justice they know to be true due to man's connection with the
That is ridiculous! And im male “Real Equality Is Equality Of Opportunity, Not equality of Outcomes” So if you think about it, We really should do something about this. Because, Nobody should be treated differently just because of their sex, religion, or how they are mentally or physically challenged... No, not all that is all fair equal because“Someone with Autism has taught me to think outside of the box” It 's Not fair that people with Autism have it, and it 's not fair that it 's not equal.It 's not fair that People with Autism has it, and it 's not fair that it 's not Equal.