At the start of his article, Zapf starts by discussing social work and the role that spirituality and religion have has in the profession. Spoiler alert, it is practically a nonexistent relationship between those two topics and social work or other mainly government ran helping professions. He goes on to explain the western view of spirituality and how that is actually hurting professions such as social work. In the efforts to respect people’s right of the separation of church and state, spirituality was affected as well. A huge misconception of spirituality is that it is the same thing as religion, when in fact it is something separate.
Reprobation is condemned by Franklin stating that it, along with “Election” and the “Eternal decrees of God”, “appear’d to me unintelligible, others doubtful.” Presumably, Franklin’s idea of god does not have allegiance to any particular religion, and salvation is not contingent upon whether you follow the correct religion. This view is compatible with the constitution of America, and its advocacy of religious freedom, at least to a bigger degree than those belonging to the religious
In an unenlightened state, this is a comment how far and how bad conditions can get when people fail to question traditional practices. Kant places “the main point of enlightenment… chiefly in matters of religion because our rulers have no interest in playing guardian with respect to the arts and sciences” (109). Kant explains that religion is one of the greatest threats to enlightenment because, unlike other fields, there is significant incentive to spread the way of a certain religion. The unchecked power of the church and of religious members is one of the results of this, as seen in Candide. Kant goes on to write that “religious incompetence is not only the most harmful but also the most degrading of all” (109).
Such thinking appeals to our rationality and can be found in every major world religion most typically summarized in ‘The Golden Rule’ – treat other people as you want to be treated. Since the golden rule does not actually specify what we should do, this vagueness of the golden rule points to the reciprocity of considering people. For example, it would also not make sense for me to criticize someone else for, say, breaking the speed limit if I then went and broke it myself, for Kant, it is a sure sign of its subjectivism, it does not indicate the essence or the content of morality, therefore its inadequacy as a foundation of moral philosophy. In this thesis, I will explicate CI2 expresses Kant’s genuinely universal moral system requires that I do not break speed limit, not because of the psychological concerning or consequences, but I treat others as humanity or ends, not merely means. (See my further discussion in
First, Hursthouse highlights an objection that challenges which character traits are used under the ideas of virtue theory. “We do not know which character traits are the virtues, or that this is open to much dispute, or particularly subject to the threat of moral scepticism or ‘pluralism’ or cultural relativism” (Hursthouse 587). If you take a look at what someone asks of a moral person through virtue theory, it leaves a lot of room for debate especially across different cultures, because there is no set principles to determine a moral person. Hursthouse certainly acknowledges this fact. However, she doesn’t accomplish her initial objective of attempting to explain why virtue theory is still applicable.
Islam do not care the human rights and freedom. However, there is a misunderstanding. Any religion do not carry violant features. The believers’ practices do not show the whole meanings of the religion. European’s experiments are strong clue that Islam is a violent religion that was willing to reflect the Europeans.
This premise only makes sense because we’ve applied it to our ordinary lives. As Hume argues, the only way to ensure an everyday principle like causality still works in vastly different conditions is to have direct experience of it, which we cannot so the theory is invalid. Secondly, this argument functions on the basis of a priori judgments where philosophers attempt to reveal God through rational syllogism alone. The argument does not provide any validating evidence which weakens the
Secularism under Threat: The Case of Burkini Secularism in Europe is in danger and religious rights are being undermined with it. ! Secularism represents one of the main principles of today’s democracies and it can be defined as the principle which separates the state from religious institutions. However, I would like to point out that the principle has three major implications: firstly, the state ought not to discriminate against anybody practicing their religion, ; secondly, the state ought to remain neutral on religious matters and ; thirdly, the state ought not to give advantage to one religion over the another. As such, secularism remains an ideal to be pursued by democracies.
The authors narrate contemporary findings that many authors neglect in regards to Western civilization adding up to the influential domination of the West in our world today. The take home point the authors are driving is that current happenings in the world today can be rooted to the influence of Western civilization. The authors wrote a very detailed account and transitions nicely, the only issue is that there are biases. Bias in that not the entire story is told and it is told from a perspective of a religious analysis. I don't think it is an objective representation when in all other cases, other perspectives are told.
To the skeptics, moral views such as gay marriages are wrong are just but opinions based on the view point of different people and not facts that can be proved. A skeptic can listen to an argument that gay marriages are wrong since the bible says so and understand that the individual is making the conclusion has valid reasons to think so. The individual making such a conclusion must have been brought up being taught that the argument is a strong one. However, using the bible as the basis, the argument is equally as strong as an argument coming from an individual saying that gay marriages should permitted since in so doing, we will be allowing the gays to express their desire to bond and love and this desire is equally legitimate as the desire from the heterosexuals. Skeptics may never come to a conclusion about whether to permit gay marriages since to them one outlook of ethical behavior is just as good as the other.