Saturday, November 9, 2019
Divine Command Theory, Objectivism, Diversity and Dep Theses
1. Explain what is meant by saying that a value is intrinsic? How are instrumental values related to intrinsic values? A value is said to be intrinsic if an object has the value for its own sake or because of its nature. A value is said to be instrumental if it aids in achieving or acquiring something with intrinsic value. For example, oneââ¬â¢s job could have instrumental value in that it acquires money. Furthermore, money could have instrumental value in that it can provide objects from which one derives happiness or pleasure, something with intrinsic value.Objects or activities with instrumental value typically aid in acquiring things with intrinsic value. 2. According to the Divine Command Theory (DCT), does God command what he commands because it is intrinsically good; or is what God commands ââ¬Å"goodâ⬠because it is God who commands it? The Divine Command Theory suggests that what God commands is ââ¬Å"goodâ⬠because He commands it, but this view is not necessa rily valid. According to the DCT, ââ¬Å"goodnessâ⬠is equated with ââ¬Å"God-willed,â⬠suggesting that the commands of God are ââ¬Å"goodâ⬠because they are His commands.A statement such as ââ¬Å"God is goodâ⬠becomes redundant and illogical if ââ¬Å"goodâ⬠is equated with ââ¬Å"God-willed. â⬠It would be more logical to think that Godââ¬â¢s commands have intrinsic goodness since atheists and other nonbelievers can identify with some moral foundation. An atheist might choose to believe that God was correct in saying that ââ¬Å"killing is wrongâ⬠not because he believes in Godââ¬â¢s word but rather he believes that the rule is intrinsically good. 3. According to the Divine Command Theory why should we obey the moral law?According to the Divine Command Theory, we should obey the moral law because it is the word of God. The DCT suggests that ââ¬Å"morally rightâ⬠means ââ¬Å"willed by God,â⬠so acting in compliance with moral law is essentially synonymous with acting in compliance with the word of God. Since God determines the moral law, no other reason is required for us to obey. 4. Explain why the DCT logically makes morality arbitrary. Why is arbitrariness a problem for morality? The Divine Command Theory suggests that morally ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠simply means willed by God.If something is morally ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠based solely on what God determines, an unsettling arbitrariness arises out of His commands. It would seem that God could just as easily make seemingly ââ¬Å"immoralâ⬠acts ââ¬Å"moralâ⬠(i. e. rape, genocide). The problem with arbitrariness is that it makes the development of a deeper, more appreciative morality absolutely impossible. An example can be made out of the story of Joshua and the battle at Jericho. If we are to believe that God determines what is morally ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠and ââ¬Å"wrong,â⬠then we believe that Joshua was just in slaughtering the men, women , and children because it was Godââ¬â¢s command.In this scenario, this belief prevents the development of a moral understanding that murder is wrong, a severe problem for morality. 5. Define and explain Ethical Relativism, Ethical Absolutism, and Ethical Objectivism. Ethical relativism is the idea that moral ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠and ââ¬Å"wrongâ⬠are defined within a society/culture or by an individual. The difference between society (conventional ethical relativism) and an individual (subjective ethical relativism) defining morality is very clear. Subjectivists hold that individuals are allowed to define what is ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠or ââ¬Å"wrong,â⬠but this would suggest that criminals (i. . murderers, cannibals, rapists) are correct and morally ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠when they engage in their crimes, since no one can ever be wrong. Conventionalists would hold that a society or culture is left to define moral ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠and ââ¬Å"wrong. â⬠However, it wou ld allow for any group to declare their ideals ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠or ââ¬Å"just,â⬠suggesting that groups with ââ¬Å"immoralâ⬠ideals (i. e. congregations of rapists, murderers, etc. ) would be just as morally ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠as pro-life activists. Ethical absolutism holds that fundamental, absolute moral ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠and ââ¬Å"wrongâ⬠exist and must not be defied by anyone, regardless of context.However, the ethical objectivist believes that there exists a universal morality relevant to all people and cultures, but with context taken into consideration. For example, the ethical absolutist would believe that a mother stealing medicine to help her sick child is wrong because the bottom line is that stealing is wrong. However, the ethical objectivist would hold that the motherââ¬â¢s reasoning was sound and that her moral obligation to help her child overrides her moral duty to the law. 6.Explain how the ââ¬Å"Diversity Thesisâ⬠together with the ââ¬Å"Dependency Thesisâ⬠logically imply the conclusion that Ethical Relativism is true. Then, give at least two arguments against ethical relativism. Are there reasons to believe that there are some objective values that apply in any society? The Diversity Thesis is an anthropological fact stating that moral ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠and ââ¬Å"wrongâ⬠vary amongst different societies, so there are no fundamental or universal morals held by all societies. The Dependency Thesis states that what is morally ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠and ââ¬Å"wrongâ⬠is dependent upon what the society defines as right and wrong.If both of these hold true, and conventional ethical relativism is described by a society in which moral ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠and ââ¬Å"wrongâ⬠are defined within the society, then the connection is clear. The Diversity Thesis coupled with the Dependency Thesis entail the conclusion outlined in conventional ethical relativism. There are a number of arguments to be ma de against the idea of conventional ethical relativism. For example, some cultures view their women as inferior to men, withholding basic rights (and in some cases, inflicting genital mutilation).While this may be seen by a majority of the society as acceptable, it is often argued that the disregard for human rights is immoral. The ethical relativist would argue that the society is right in doing whatever it collectively thinks is right. In this case, and in many more, it is clear that the society is not always correct in defining moral ââ¬Å"rightâ⬠and ââ¬Å"wrongâ⬠by its own standards. Additionally, the ethical relativist might argue that the pro-slavery movement in early America was morally sound because the society thought that what they were doing was morally ââ¬Å"right. The notion that slavery is wrong is now more widely accepted, but a glimpse not too far into our countryââ¬â¢s past would prove otherwise. This is an obvious example of why ethical relativism is incorrect and can inadvertently allow immorality to be permissible. It is sound to think that the value of human life is an objective value relevant to all societies. While it may be recognized to varying degrees in different parts of the world, it is safe to acknowledge human life as something to be universally valued by all societies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.