My Brother and I
My brother and I did not have a great adult relationship. Due to his hurtful teasing of me when we were teenagers and some very hurtful things he said to me the day of our mother's funeral, we had not communicated well in the four years since her death.
In May, 2000, my father and I spent four days with my brother, sister-in-law and their two daughters. When I spoke with my brother on his birthday a month earlier, I asked if he and I could have some "alone time" when Daddy and I visited the following month. My brother said we could find time alone. That time came the evening before Daddy and I left to return home.
My brother and I settled on the screened-in porch. I was about to read a letter I had written him, outlining my reaction to what he had said to me in 1996 and giving him the necessary background information he needed to know BEFORE he spoke to me the way he did. He offered to read the letter himself. I gladly let him. I had no idea how he would respond to the letter. After many drafts, it stated exactly what I needed and wanted to say to him. I had no expectations at all about the route this conversation would take. I told myself I was capable of handling anything that came up for discussion.
My brother's first comment was, "Well, I will have to change some perceptions I have had about you." I was flattered and thanked him. He said he would always be my brother and would always say what he felt. He launched into some observations he had made about me in the four days we had been there...I acknowledged them and said my goals for the summer was to actively address those observations and make necessary changes. (I am proud to say I have achieved the major goal of weight loss and plan to keep it off.) I made some observations of my own and assured my brother that, contrary to his beliefs, I was not dependent on our father back home. (Our father lives about ten minutes away. He is 75, in fairly good health and does help me on occasion) I also made some observations of my own and expressed concerns I had about my brother.
The Divine Command Theory and Relativism make strong claims on the source of morality. Robert C. Mortimer describes in Morality Is Based on God’s Commands that morality itself is derived from the act of God deeming things as either right or wrong. The following claim “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” is believable when following Divine Command Theory as compared to other theistic views. I shall display two theist claims which respectively accept and reject the previous statement, as well as arguing the the plausibility of each claim.
In this philosophical essay regarding God and the controversial existence of objective morality, I will argue in favour of Shafer-Landau’s conclusion that if you are an atheist, then you should object the proposition that objective morality requires the existence of God. In addition, for Shafer-Landau’s argument to make sense, I will be mentioning the Argument from Atheism, a classical argument based upon moral skepticism. I will also be providing Shafer-Landau’s arguments in objection to the Argument of Atheism along with key pieces of terminology and definitions which are crucial to understanding his argument in support of objective morality. Lastly, I will be providing possible theistic and atheistic objections against Shafer-Landau’s criticisms
The Divine Command theory is the ethical theory that I believe is the best ethical theory to live by. One problem with this theory, as stated by several philosophers, is whether or not that theory would make God the originator of morality. Many believe that if this were the case, then God could will any crime to become morally right. According to some, if this were the case, it would mean that God’s commands become arbitrary and have no real reason behind them. As a religious person, I am inclined to believe that a supreme being automatically knows what is best for his own creations simply because of the fact that he created them. Just as a parent acts in the best interests of their children, God acts in a way that will have the best end result
One source that philosophers often cite to disprove the theory comes from one of Plato 's dialogues in which Socrates asks, Is an action wrong because God forbids it, or does God forbid an action because he sees it as being wrong? If one agrees with the former statement, he must also agree that if God no longer forbade murder, slavery or torture, then any of these actions would be deemed moral. This is obviously not the case since causing harm to another individual for no good reason is almost universally considered ethically wrong. However, if one agrees with the latter statement, he must also agree that whether an action is right or wrong, it has nothing to do with God himself. Although a perfect (non-arbitrary) God can tell whether an act is moral or immoral with perfect clarity, he cannot affect the rightness or wrongness of any single action. Instead, he realizes the reasons behind why an action is morally incorrect. For example, God declares that torture is wrong because it causes pain and humiliation to a defenseless person. It is for this reason, and not because God simply declared it to be so, that torture is wrong. Therefore, the divine command theory is
This section provides us with two selections from the essays of William K. Clifford (1845-1879) and William James (1842-1910). Clifford's essay, The Ethics of Belief, is based on the concept of evidentialism. This concept 'holds that we should not accept any statement as true unless we have good evidence to support its truth'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). James wrote his essay, The Will to Believe, as a response to Clifford's essay where he endorsed a philosophy called pragmatism.
Much of contemporary analytic epistemology is still steeped in a vigorous form of Cartesianism. Granted, there are some analytic epistemologists who have denied Descartes' foundationalism, and others who, in preserving foundationalism, have rejected the infallibility of foundational beliefs. Still others have attacked his internalism, doubted the seriousness of the threat of skepticism, or attempted to eradicate the abstract, isolated "I" of the Meditations. But, despite this seemingly comprehensive critique of Cartesianism, one of its essential elements has escaped widespread criticism and currently operates as a background assumption in much of contemporary epistemology. This element is the basic Cartesian framework itself, which dictates the primary objects of epistemic evaluation, and in so doing, directs the course of epistemological inquiry. As indicated by the passage above, Cartesian systems focus on the evaluation of beliefs or propositions believed. A perfunctory survey of current epistemological theory will confirm its focus on the evaluation of beliefs. For, even those who reject other facets of the Cartesian program routinely concentrate on justification and knowledge.
One of life’s most complicated issues within our multi-cultural world is the need to understand morality and where our moral choices come from. It is something that is woven throughout every aspect of human life, and yet cannot be truly clarified through a single definition alone. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘morality’ as “the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior” (“Morality”). Some definitions claim infinite interpretations of morality that are strongly influenced by religion, secular ideology, philosophy, as well as moral Universalism. Regardless of individual interpretation, without these principles societies would not survive. In her essay, Morality and Religion, Philosopher Iris
Giving up on the idea that God created all right and wrong, theists can come to terms with objective morality while still believing in an all-powerful God. Since the Divine Command Theory states that an act is right (or wrong) if, and only if, God commands (or forbids) it is easy to disagree with this theory because it demands to much. To think that an act is right or wrong if and only if god commands or forbids it is much too specific with the information that we think we know about god. There are many different religions in the world and although nearly all of them share common rules/values as it comes to right and wrong subjective views are almost always included in those rules. When referencing only the Christian faith, The Bible is basically the rule book in which the Divine Command Theory is based from yet there are many different Christian religions that are based off The Bible that pick and choose what they like from it to support their beliefs. With this going on a theist wouldn’t be able to confirm or deny that an act is right or wrong only if God commands or forbids it because they don’t actually know what god thinks are moral and which are not. There is room for Russ Shafer-Landau’s objective ethics and theists belief in God to coexist when looking at
I can remember several instances in the past involving situations that concerned my brothers in relation to their education. My brother John and I attended the same elementary school. Since I was four grades ahead of him, he eventually ended up with many of the same teachers I had during my elementary school years. I went to pick John up from his second grade class as I did every day. One day in particular though, his teacher, Mrs. Janet Nitahara, who by the way was one of my favorite teachers, called me in to discuss John's behavior. When I walked in to the class I saw my brother sitting in the corner of the room in a chair. Mrs. Nitahara said that he talked too much and needed to learn how to be quiet and behave in class like I used to.
“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” by Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a popular phrase used by theists, theologians and conservatives when questioned about the connection between faith in God and morality. In other words it is claimed that without the belief in a supreme supernatural figure who maintains law and order in the whole of cosmos, a man cannot regulate himself as a socially and morally acceptable individual. This in fact presents a major logical fallacy since it is based on a belief of reward and punishment in the after-life, which doesn’t always imply in the case of theist, who according to research in the area of social psychology has shown having innate human desire of social acceptance and a sense of control, which can only be acquired by establishing a co-relation between supreme authority and morality. Morality can therefore be argued as a separate entity, built on what society see as lawful and just and free from religious obligations.
Being that the theory is based on the Divine Command of the God(s), any act as long as it is pious it can be moral; For instance, if the deity or God(s) were to say rape can be good or killing another human can be good, then it ultimately would. All that essentially matters is if the deity commands it, then it is as such because it is pious. According to the article (Divine Moral Goodness, Supererogation and the Euthyphro Dilemma), When making moral truths they are unalterable and necessary, ultimately defeating itself and cannot make sense of God's moral goodness, which then seems hard to see how God's commands could be morally good when god himself cannot be subject to moral obligations. This troubles many of the the divine command theorist, but Alston another
In support of this view—the “abandonment of the quest for certainty, acceptance of provisional solutions as long as they work, and readiness to discard them when changing conditions make them no longer appropriate”—I will endeavor to briefly examine substance, the self, and the presumed necessary connection of ideas or events (Jones 349).
It was a Friday, December 22nd, 2017. Both my aunt and my mom were driving home, in separate cars. They worked at the same place, after work one of them would call each other everyday and they would talk while they drove home. My mother said “Me, my mom, and my sister used to have each other, there was no dad in the picture, and now it’s just me” I teared up when she said that, that is such a sad thing to hear your mother say.
Throughout the development of mankind, the topic of right versus wrong, good versus evil, and improper versus proper has been intensely discussed and debated. Within the realms of religion, morality becomes objective and easier to explain. However, outside of religious parameters, secular morality can vary dependent of the individual’s multifactorial background. As a result, many do not grasp that to understand the foundations of morals they must be studied carefully, as to recognize the vast genealogy behind them, and to gain knowledge of basic moral principles.
One the one hand, some people believe that it is necessary for religion to guide correct direction for people in order to acting accordingly; additionally, it is believed that religion creates the motivation to do what is right, because God has rewards for those who comply with his commands. Those rewards being a place in heaven and also providing happiness can prosper throughout the life on earth. On the other hand, if the persons who violate the moral law, they will be punished by God for their indecorous behaviors. And many people claim that such a view which is that the atheists cannot be moral because they do not have a specific moral rule in their mind because lacking of belief. This as a presumption that if you do not believe, you will be punished for the transgression; there is no reason to obey the dictates of morality. As a consequence, traditional religion said that God judges everything that if you are good, you can go to heaven; on a contrary, if you are bad, you will go to hell. However, in my opinion, those supporters' opinions are inaccurate and so absolute that morality is not based on the religion but it can also exist without