Answer: One of the most common grounds why people say they believe in God is that the existence seems to hold been deliberately designed. Hume observes that while we may comprehend two events that seem to happen in concurrence. there is no manner for us to cognize the nature of their connexion. Hume argues that an orderly existence does non needfully turn out the being of God. Those who hold the opposing position claim that God is the Godhead of the existence and the beginning of the order and intent we observe in it. which resemble the order and intent we ourselves create.
Therefore. God. as Godhead of the existence. must possess intelligence similar. though superior. to ours. Hume explains that for this statement to keep up. it must be true that order and aim appear merely as a direct consequence of design. He points out that we can detect order in many mindless procedures. such as coevals and flora. Hume farther argues that even if we accept that the existence has a design. we can non cognize anything about the interior decorator. God could be morally equivocal. stupid. or even mortal.
The design statement does non turn out the being of God in the manner we conceive him: all-knowing. almighty. and wholly beneficent. The being of immorality. Hume holds. proves that if God exists. God can non suit these standards. The presence of evil suggests God is either almighty but non wholly good or he is unthreatening but unable to destruct immorality. and so non almighty. He had three chief statements against the design statement. First he argued that order is non proof of design. We see order in many state of affairss but merely in a minority do we cognize it is caused by an agent.
Second we consider one thing the cause of another when we have observed that the consequence follows the cause with regularity. If we could detect tonss of existences. and notice that the 1s governed by order are designed by God. so we could deduce that this 1. being ordered. is likely besides designed by God ; but we can’t. This existence is the lone one we know approximately. so we can non appeal to any regularity. His 3rd statement is that when we deduce a cause from an consequence. all we know about the cause is what the consequence indicates.
If the existence has so been created by God. this shows that God possesses the sum of power. intelligence and benevolence revealed in the existence but no more. He criticized theologists for presuming that they knew more about God than the design statement could set up ; possibly the existence was made by a commission of interior decorators. or was a hapless experiment in universe-making by an inferior God. or was created by a God who has lost involvement in it and allows it to go on irrespective of its status until it breaks up with age. Doctrine 101.
Question # 2: Harmonizing to Paley. how should we find what is morally right? Answer: William Paley’s Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy. foremost published in 1785. played a seminal function in the airing of utilitarianism in England. Paley believes that right actions are right merely because God approves of them and incorrect actions are incorrect merely because God disapproves of them Then. God is a legislator of morality ; he decides what’s right or incorrect in the same manner in which the province decides what’s legal and what’s illegal.
One might reason that the presence of a God who will penalize and honor us in the hereafter on the footing of our workss is a necessary constituent of moral motive. Ethical motives is the scientific discipline that Teachs work forces their responsibility and the grounds for it. The moral rightfulness of an action consists in its being in conformity with the will of God. It is my responsibility to follow the will of God. However. to explicate the nature of responsibility. one must see that of duty: a adult male is obliged when he is urged by a violent motivation ensuing from the bid of another.
The method pursued in the bad portion is. after a definition of Moral Philosophy. foremost. to demo the necessity of some scientific system. in order to determine an adequate and perfect regulation of life. and so. from the phenomena of our moral nature. to infer and build such a system. The terminal which Dr. Paley has steadily in position is the find of a perfect regulation of life ; and the lone claim which. in his judgement. can commend moral doctrine to our attending. is the claim to learn us our responsibility. our whole responsibility. and the grounds of it. If it can non dispatch this office. it is. in his eyes. nil worth.
Paley said “Whatever is expedient is right. It is the public-service corporation of any moral regulation entirely which constitutes the duty of it. ” Philosophy 101 Question # 3: Write a brief account of Kant’s moralss. shaping and utilizing these footings: ”a priori. ” “categorical jussive mood. ””hypothetical jussive mood. ””goodness of will. ” “freedom of will. ” Answer: Kant’s moralss provides a philosophical foundation for what is already normally understood by ‘morality’ and ‘moral action. The right motivation is “to do the right thing” . “to do one’s duty” . “to respect the moral jurisprudence.
” A rational being who systematically has the right motivation has what Kant calls a Good Will. Nothing is more of import for morality than holding a good will. Harmonizing to Kant. a rational being with a Good Will automatically does its responsibility. First see what would actuate you if you had a Good Will. You’d do your responsibility merely because it’s your responsibility. You wouldn’t anticipate a wages. You wouldn’t expect to do yourself happy or give yourself pleasance. You’d want to make your responsibility merely because it’s your responsibility. In other words. all effects. any pleasance or felicity that might ensue or any hurting and wretchedness that might be avoided are irrelevant.
Kant explains the nature of moral bids utilizing his differentiation between categorical jussive moods and conjectural jussive moods. An jussive mood is a bid. A conjectural jussive mood is a bid that applies if you want to achieve a peculiar result. Conjectural Imperative moods have the general signifier: If you want ‘A. ’ so you ought to make ‘B. ‘ For illustration. if you want to be an Olympic swimmer. you ought to travel liquid every twenty-four hours. The ‘ought’ in these conjectural jussive moods is conditioned by our desires & A ; wants. Must you obey this jussive mood? Merely if you have the relevant desire to be an Olympic swimmer.
If you don’t care. you can disregard the jussive mood. Kant says moral jussive moods are ne’er conditional. They are ne’er conjectural. For Kant. moral jussive moods are ever categorical. perfectly adhering regardless of personal involvement or desire. What you care about merely doesn’t affair. Your responsibility is your responsibility. and you must make it whether or non you want to. Nothing exempts a moral agent from the demands of moral responsibility. Kant believes a basic subject of cardinal philosophical issues must be addressed a priori. that is. without pulling on observations of human existences and their behaviour.
Once we “seek out and establish” the cardinal rule of morality a priori. so we may confer with facts drawn from experience in order to find how best to use this rule to human existences and bring forth peculiar decisions about how we ought to move. Last at the bosom of Kant’s moral theory is the place that rational human volitions are independent. Kant saw this as the key to understanding and warranting the authorization moral demands have over us. The thought of freedom as liberty therefore goes beyond the simply ‘negative’ sense of being free from influences on our behavior arising outside of ourselves.
It contains first and foremost the thought of Torahs made and laid down by oneself. and. in virtuousness of this. Torahs that have decisive authorization over oneself. Philosophy 101 Question: Factory clarifies and defends his moral doctrine by answering to expostulations to it. Explain any three of these expostulations and Mill’s answers to them. Answer: The impression of an moralss based on public-service corporation utility for human concerns. particularly human felicity was one of the radical Continental thoughts of the Enlightenment period. In Utilitarianism. Mill generated an embracing codification of moralss by the same name ( utilitarianism ) .
In making so. he articulated several cardinal rules to the function one’s morality should play and the mode in which it must make so. The first is that actions will be right every bit much as they promote the general felicity. and conversely. every bit incorrect as they promote unhappiness. Mill disagrees with Kant’s thought of good will and replied that actions are evaluated morally based upon their effects. non the existent act itself. Utilitarians wished to see the effects every bit good as the “will” of an action and to see the peculiar fortunes of an action in an effort to find what is morally right.
Furthermore. since felicity is the quantifiable justification for moral actions. Mill elucidates the battle to mensurate moral good by declaring that each person’s felicity is equal to another’s. However. Mill concedes that Utilitarians who have “cultivated their moral feelings but non their sympathies” will be prey for the trap of misidentifying character and the morality of actions for irrelevant. Apparently. they have some little significance deserving observing. Indeed. he goes on to besides yield that the moralss can be really stiff. as one makes it. or really slack. as one deems.
Sing Mill’s ain grants. one sees expostulations clearly: make non purposes have a function in morality? How can you use morality to an agent that does non understand morality? At what cost do the demands of the many outweigh the demands of the few. or the one? Utilitarianism seems to set felicity into a concern leger. Forfeits are all right if a greater net income can be gained. Mill said that “it is non merely the measure of pleasance that counts. but the quality. Thus a disgruntled homo may populate a better life than a satisfied hog. because the homo has entree to a higher quality of pleasances than the hog does. ” Hao Chen ( Eric ) .
Doctrine 101 Question # 7 Explain Nietzsche’s differentiation between “master morality” and “salve morality. ” Answer: Friedrich Nietzsche called himself an immoralist. and he attacked modern morality. as summarized by Kant and Christianity. and urged us to return to ancient Grecian morality as summarized by Aristotle. Nietzsche. like Aristotle. saw the construct of moral responsibility as tantrum for retainers and slaves. but such a morality was entirely unequal to actuate us to personal excellence and accomplishment. Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-minded. What is good is what is helpful ; what is bad is what is harmful.
Morality as such is sentiment. In the prehistoric province. “the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences” In this sense. the maestro morality is the full acknowledgment that oneself is the step of all things. Insomuch as something is helpful to the strong-minded adult male it is like what he values in himself ; hence. the strong-minded adult male values such things as ‘good’ . Masters are Godheads of morality ; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality. Unlike maestro morality which is sentiment. break one’s back morality is literally re-sentiment–revaluing that which the maestro values.
This strays from the rating of actions based on effects to the rating of actions based on “intention” . Since the powerful are few in figure compared to the multitudes of the weak. the weak addition power by perverting the strong into believing that the causes of bondage are ‘evil’ . as are the qualities they originally could non take because of their failing. Nietzsche did non believe that every human “nature” was the same. and he taught that different persons would happen and follow different values and therefore different moralities. His cardinal instruction is “follow yourself. don’t follow me. “