Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
A short essay on moral judgments
Moral judgement subjective quizlet
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A short essay on moral judgments
Moral judgement subjective quizlet
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: A short essay on moral judgments
In the non-fiction philosophical book, Sam Harris, publisher of Letter to a Christian Nation, demonstrates his views of the flaws of Christianity. He contends the many contradictions he finds with the beliefs Christians hold to with their own lives and interactions with others. His goal in the book is to expose these errors to Christians themselves and present the question to them in a challenging tone. Harris does this by painting a vivid picture of the controversies surrounding Christians opposed to non Christians. He goes into great detail about his beliefs against Christianity and covers a broad scope, along with many topics.
The Agents of Good and Evil There is this belief that the Christian God is good and all-powerful. He has the power to create worlds and beings, yet there is still evil in the world. Both Pierre Bayle and Voltaire address these questions in their works “Paulicians” and Candide (respectively). They both believe the Manichean philosophy as a more rational thought process than the contemporaneous Christian view. This belief is that there is not one, but two gods in the world; a god of good and a god of evil.
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.
He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b). This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control. The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).
Paul Copan’s book, Is God a Moral Monster, seeks to answer many of the charges of what he calls “Neo-Atheists,” who seek to discredit the God of the Bible as part of their agenda. A large part of their argument is their critique of God of the Old Testament. The God of the New Testament is a forgiving and loving God while the God of the Old Testament is a jealous and wrathful God. Copan seeks to dispel these arguments, ultimately arguing that if reading the Old and New Testaments faithfully, there is an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both. One major argument made by Neo-Atheists is that the God of the Old Testament is impetuous, intolerant, and incensed, showing him to be a frivolous and insecure deity.
Essay 2 My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection.
So far, we have discussed multiple different metaethical theories. Such as, Rachels Minimum Conception, Cultural Relativism, Simple Subjectivism, Emotivism, or the Author Interpretation of Divine Command Theory. The theory of Emotivism is particularly fascinating because with such simple words a large amount of emotion is conveyed. We know that “boo, sucks and bad” all have a negative connotation while words like “yay, awesome, and good” all have a positive connotation. Emotivism uses simple moral language to express the positives and negatives, while other theories become more complex.
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
Before restating the Anselm’s argument for the existence of God, it is important to understand who Anselm was and what might have compelled him to come up with the ontological argument for the existence of God. Anselm’s background information will be helpful in evaluating the validity and reliability of his arguments. Anselm was born in Italy in c. 1033. In 1063, he entered the famous monastery. In 1093, he moved to England, having been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury.
In this essay I will argue against the previously mentioned statement using the following arguments: The inconsistency between theists, the dependence of morality on religion and finally, Euthyphro’s dilemma. One problem with the Divine Command Theory is that it assumes that all its followers agree on what
Descartes, and Paley suggest that we can know God and that he is within our understanding. Throughout the readings they describe and argue how we can now the existence of God and the attributes that are associated with him. However David Hume would refute these claims saying through his dialogues more specifically through a character named Philo that we cannot know the attributes or even for that matter the existence. During this paper I will analyze Descartes and Paley’s arguments in comparison with David Hume’s arguments that we cannot know these things. In Paley’s argument he says that if we saw a rock lying on the ground and someone said that rock had always been there that is conceivable, whereas if a watch were lying on the ground that answer would no longer be acceptable.
Christianity has always been subjective and ambiguous, which allows for theories and speculation to develop regarding the religion’s values and characteristics. A key matter in theology seeks to understand those values and to identify a model of living that guides people away from corruption to remain in God’s image. Athanasius of Alexandria’s On the Incarnation and Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Anti-Christ address this issue with viewpoints that directly contradict each other. Athanasius examines the Incarnation to defend his position that natural human desires corrupt mankind and suggests there is nothing to prevent evil and sin other than God’s salvation while Nietzsche asserts that corruption occurs from a loss of instinctive nature and proposes
Starting on the foundation that God does not exist, both Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean Paul Sartre agree that affirming this premise results with consequences on our ethical values. Sartre himself even said “God does not exist and we have to face all the consequences of this.” But although they are unified in this regard, the philosophers differ significantly on how they think one ought to act. To understand their differences in how they approach existentialist ethics, an outline of what both are retaliating against--the ethical system of Christianity--is necessary to elucidate why exactly they diverge. Beginning with Nietzsche, throughout his works he proclaims his despise of the moral structure left over from centuries of Christendom.
Hazlitt argues that specific belief systems are justifiers to in act the inherent hatred in humanity. The worst offender of these belief systems, according to Hazlitt, is religion which is a “pretext… set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another to pieces”. Religion as a tool to induce human suffering, promotes Hazlitt’s argument that humanity hates itself because it means that all the differing religions are justifiers to fight . The willingness to cause human suffering, imbedded in amount of religions in existence, implies a deep hatred for others humans. Correspondingly Hazlitt’s conceptualization of religion exemplifies the toxicity of society, because religion is so key to society, and religion is only a justifier to in act human hatred.
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).