Argument Analysis: Why Should We Be Moral

1306 Words6 Pages
Why Should We Be Moral? - Protocol Paper 6

Recall: In the “Why Should We Be Moral,” Rachels states several points: 1) The Ring of Gyges shows how acting immorally can occasionally be to one’s advantage. Glaucon argues that all of us would behave like Gyges. 2) Rachels points out that it is a good thing if other people live morally, but it becomes another matter if you are bound by your own morals. 3) Rachels talks about a well-known idea that right living consists in respect to God’s commands. 4) Rachels argues that we should be as good as we can be to escalate our chances of eternal. 5) Rachels talks about the Divine Command Theory, which is an action is morally correct if it is directed by God. 6) Socrates’ argues against the Divine Command Theory also he concludes that right or wrong of one’s actions cannot be understood in terms of their compliance to divine commands. 8) Kant states that if Gods doesn’t exist, then the universe is incomplete immoral, due to that virtue will be unrewarded and wickedness will not be punished. 9) Hobbes argues that ethics is a result from when people come to realize what they must do to live as best as they are able to. 10) Rachels continues to state that a supportive society can only exist if we come to adopt certain aspects
…show more content…
Rachels continues and mentions a familiar idea of the right living consists in obeying God’s instructions, which is supported by the Divine Command Theory. Using Socrates’ argument, Rachels comes to a conclusion that the right or wrong of one’s actions cannot be assumed in terms of their agreement to any divine commands. Rachels brushes Hobbes’ opinions on the worldly basis of ethics and his argument that each of us is extremely before we can live in a
Open Document