Tags: National French Week EssayRubric For A Compare And Contrast EssayCornell Ph.D. DissertationPhoto Essay On PovertyCriminal Justice Topics For A Research PaperBig-Bang Nucleosynthesis And The Baryon Density Of The UniverseThesis Statement To A Descriptive EssayRobert Frost The Road Not Taken Argumentative EssayDescribe Your Holiday EssayWork From Home Courses
But then might makes right, as long as whoever is in charge has sufficient might to impose its will.If that’s your idea of morality, I think we’ve got a problem.
Adams distinguishes two meanings of words like right and wrong: one refers to what we all mean by those terms, an understanding that even an atheist can share.
The second meaning is specifically religious and indicates simply what God wants, regardless of human judgment of the morality of such wants.
God's nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad.
Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be.
If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.) In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes.
Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die.(Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war.[is] not the sort of things that could create, sustain or change God”) he still cannot avoid the conclusion that morality is independent of God (the other option having been swiftly dealt with by other commentators, including Leibniz).I have also pointed out that all of this is of concern only to moral realists, and that consequently— since I don’t belong to those ranks — this is for me a purely academic exercise.This sounds to me rather like an exercise in mental gymnastics aimed at avoiding the inevitable conclusion that Plato was right to begin with.Because now, though in a very circuitous way, we are back to one of the horns of the dilemma — the admission that morality is arbitrarily defined by God and that therefore anything he says must stand simply because he is so powerful that it would be foolish to resist him.However, if God is simply reporting a thing's goodness, then He is no longer the standard for goodness and seems to be at the mercy of some outside standard. As Christians we should affirm both God's sovereignty and His non-derived goodness.But we don't want there to be a standard above God that He must bow to, so this response does not seem attractive, either. Thus, we don't want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut.In other words, some moral rules are universal and absolute, while others depend on circumstances.Absolute values, according to Swinburne, hold in all conceivable worlds, examples being the prohibitions against rape or murder.