Summary Of Phil Washburn's Argument Against Capitalism

Better Essays
Capitalism: Pro and Con by Phil Washburn is a philosophical debate seeking for reading to determine whether capitalism is a respectable way of society that provides the most sensible format of government for justice to thrive. The author first seeks to analyze the good of capitalism mentioning that it is the most practical answer for the issues that arrive from the idea of Justice. The key factors for the pro-capitalist society is people can succeed and or fail, government allows the economy to proliferate on its own, and most importantly what a person gives to society (making a living for themselves) is what they are able to take from it (profit and consumerism) (Washburn, pg.155). Afterwards, Washburn seeks to counter the argument and writes…show more content…
Russell first explains what a Christian is. In addition, he explains that a Christian looks nothing like what it once did two thousand years ago. In order to be a “full-blooded Christian” Russell explains in order to be a Christian you must believe in God and immortality and the most divine and intelligent being is our creator. Christians have faith in God in the form of “unaided reason” not logic or reason (Russell, pg.4-5). The first argument presented by Russell is the divinity and first cause of God is in question if something could come before God and we could have adapted to our environment rather than be a creature from design. Secondly, if Christ is all knowing why are their so many fallacies in his teaching? Finally, the last argument against Russell being a Christian is the emotional reason presented by Christianity to have a “big brother” to lend on during their time of struggles and the terror people have of the unknown if religion was nonexistent (Russell,…show more content…
Swinburne first writes of the “freewill defense” which is because of the ability for human beings to choose morality there is good and evil within the world (Swinburne, pg.83). The author objects to the freewill argument. The first main argument by Swinburne which is the response if God is omnipotence or with unlimited power why could not he just restrict our morality to good characteristics in his likeliness? (Swinburne, pg.83-84) The second argument in “Is There a God?” which adds to the first argument is could God have dwindled our ability to be evil and granted us greater goodness while still maintaining freewill? (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. (Hick, pg.85) In addition, the author objects to the antitheist argument that God is limited or weak in his power. After reading Swinburne “Is there a God” I believe the strongest objection is to his first objection to freewill. If humans were all good how would we ever be able to
Get Access