This contradicts Irenaeus’ Theodicy because it states that moral development is achieved through the experience of pain and suffering. Surely there are other ways to create moral development other than suffering. For example, preparing for exams or playing a sport creates challenges and problems to overcome which would result in growth. The idea of universal salvation is also questionable. If everyone makes it to heaven, what is the motivation to be moral?
With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so. Also calling god good would not make any sense since he decided what good is or isn't, so how could he be good unless the moral was grounding him? If piety was a certain care of the god’s we could look to do always what is Pious and in return we would be worshiping/caring for the god/s if they exists. If the God’s are looking to something the “moral,piety” then if you act pious in your actions through life you will be in a way worshiping the god’s, because you are honoring what they already honer. The problem with this idea is when people think god grounds the moral
Saying that a person is either good or evil is like saying that a person has no thoughts at all. You cannot base a person as basically good or evil because we as people have both good and evil thoughts constantly. For example, we all love the people close to us and we wish them only the best, but at the same time, to those that have wronged us, we damn to hell. We as people have all thought about stealing something or hurting someone, which would be considered evil or wrong, but we also think about giving to others and helping ourselves achieve the most out of life, which is considered good. Chaucer saw this in people and knew that a person couldn’t be classified as good or evil because we are a mixture of both.
The perception of truth differs from one person to another. People can blindly believe, but that does not mean it’s the truth. Truth is when your believe is supported by evidence, allowing you to trust your believe and then it becomes the truth in your life. Thus, there is no one truth.However, there is a general truth that people believe in. I think that morals are one of the general truths.
Actions are then just if they sustain or are consonant with such harmony. Such a conception of individual justice is virtue ethical because it ties justice (acting justly) to an internal state of the person rather than to (adherence to) social norms or to good consequences; but Plato's view is also quite radical because it at least initially leaves it an open question whether the just individual refrains from such socially proscribed actions as lying, killing, and stealing. Plato eventually seeks to show that someone with a healthy, harmonious soul wouldn't lie, kill, or steal, but most commentators consider his argument to that effect to be highly deficient. Aristotle is generally regarded as a virtue ethicist par excellence, but his account of justice as a virtue is less purely virtue ethical than Plato's because it anchors individual justice in situational factors that are largely external to the just individual. Situations and communities are just, according to Aristotle, when individuals receive benefits according to their merits, or virtue: those most
• The only moral rule of agapeistic love – thinking of other before yourself and acting in accordance to that – encourages people to act in regards to the well-being of others than themselves. Surely this makes society a better place? Weaknesses: • Excludes a majority of universal truths. • The idea of love being an absolute moral principle defeats the major point of situation ethics. Situation ethics is a branch of relativism which argues that there are no moral absolutes, so therefore saying that love is the only moral rule is self-contradictory.
I never understood whose gods were the right ones or if there really was a god at all. I do understand that causing harm to someone else is wrong and I won’t intentionally cause harm to myself or someone else. My moral code says that judging someone based upon their skin color, who they’re in love with, or their religion is wrong. My moral code says that everyone is entitled to pursue their own happiness so long as it does no harm. If someone is offended by how I live my life or what I believe, that’s their right to be offended but if I have not caused them harm, then my conscience is clear.
A true analogy of how people sometimes attempt to justify their denial of God's existence or an excuse for why they neither believe nor disbelieve. But the truth of the matter is that, "We are in no position to draw up maps of God's psychology, and prescribe limits to His interests. 2. I am a man/woman of facts. I believe in science and matter not miracles and blind faith!
He says that “ The things and the men that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and the things and the men that are displeasing to the gods are impious.” Socrates approves of this definition because it is of a very generalization. But he also states that Euthyphro’s definition has flaws because the gods would disagree on what is considered pleasing. Socrates’ case is that the gods are very irrational when it comes to arguments and disagreements. Normal rational people would find answers and come to a settlement on the correct answer, but when it comes to the gods any slight disagreement causes them to become enemies and angry towards each other. Socrates goes on to
People would have a better understanding of success and how to accomplish such goals if they put down the finger and looked at themselves for their own mistakes. The road to success is not an easy journey; you will come across many bumps in the road. Do not take those bumps as a sign to give up! You may have been placed in a lower class in society, but that does not mean you can’t overcome your class