Belief and Mysticism
When faced with a problem that cannot be completely solved by reason we
choose which answer appears to be right, whatever the decision we make we
believe it is right.
William James "The Will To Believe"
James proposed the idea that the question of belief should be decided with
heart, not reason or empirical evidence.
James also believed that deciding to leave an option unanswered holds the
same risk of losing truth as does answering it passionately.
Options of belief are characterized three ways.
1) Living or Dead: whether or not an option is a viable possibility
e.g. the option "be a Theosophist or a Muhammadan", the options are dead
because they have little relevance to us and are not a possibility.
2) Forced or Avoidable: whether or not the option can be left undecided e.g.
the option "vote for me or my rival" you could avoid the question by not
voting at all.
3) Momentous or Trivial: a momentous option is unique, the decision is
irreversible, and the stakes are significant. E.g. the chance to invest in
a "surefire" stock.
James describes our passional nature, he believes that the quest for truth
is driven by desire and feeling, not reason.
He suggests that the passional element has two purposes, one finding truth,
and two avoiding error.
James believes that when our main concern is the avoidance of error, we lose
truth.
James believes it is acceptable to put option that isnt momentous on hold,
that way we save our selves from falsehood.
However, James encourages us to use our passional nature to pick a side when
faced with a momentous option.
To simplify James believes that when a question cannot be answered on
intellectual grounds we should allow our passions to decide it.
Experience of the Divine and Mysticism
Mysticism is the experience of a reality known only when we sense a union
with the divine
There are two types of religious experiences, the first are quiet moments
where a strong calmness is felt, and one becomes aware of a new reality.
The others are ecstatic experiences that reveal dramatic insights. These
experiences are intense and exhibit schizophrenic traits, either visions or
voices.
All numinous experiences have two common traits
Ineffability: the state defies expression, it cannot be adequately described.
Noetic quality: revelations of truth, or insight into human experience.
Mystics turn inward to experience the numinous, here they realize the
interconnectedness of everything.
This is the first of the four main elements of the numinous.
Infinite dependence: the real world becomes insignificant, the old reality
is replaced by a new one.
Mystery: because our language cannot fully describe these experiences so
they are explained as mysteries or miracles.
Terror: results from the removal of our world of experiences, states of evil
and/or dread.
The last element is bliss: when the experience suggests the feeling of
satisfaction or fulfillment.
Some oppositions to Mysticism
How can a finite human experience a finite god?
If we experience the numinous through our senses we perceive god as a
material thing, how can this be?
Can we be sure these experiences are not illusions or hallucinations?
Does God Exist? - Definitions
Theism- the belief in a personal God who interferes in the lives of the
creation.
Monotheism- the belief in a single God.
Ontological argument-an argument for the existence of God based on the
nature of Gods being
Cosmological argument-argument for the existence of God that claims that
there must be an ultimate casual explanation for why the universe as a
totality exists.
Argument from design-argument for the existence of God which claims that the
order and the purpose manifest in the working of things in the universe
require a God
Pantheism-the belief that everything is God
Panentheism the belief that God is both fixed and changing, inclusive
God- the creator and ruler of the universe; the Lord ; the Supreme Being;
the Almighty
Ontological Argument
Saint Anselm was the first to present the argument in a formal manner
This idea relies on reason alone
His theory states: Now, what if God were just an idea? If so
than we could easily conceive of something greater: a God that actually
existed. Therefore if God is that than which none greater can be conceived,
then God must exist.
Objections to the Ontological Argument
Immanuel Kant was strongly opposed to this philosopy
Kant does not accept Anselm s defining God into existence. His
criticism is modeled as follows: A triangle has three sides. If there is a
triangle than it has three sides. However this does not mean that a triangle
does exist.
Cosmological Argument
Introduced by St Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas illustrates to us that in matter ,all particles are moving.
He states the idea that if an object is moving than it was obviously moved
by another object and the object also must have been propelled by something
else. However this would go for ever. So proposes that there must be a
first mover. God.
Objections to the Cosmological Argument
One theory states that perhaps the universe has existed forever and
that there was no beginning to it.
Second theory says the theorys conclusion does not relate premise.
John Hick discuses that if every event has a cause than what was the
cause the cause that made God create the universe.
The Design Argument
In 1802 theologian William Paley formalized the idea that if one
regards an object such as a watch a person can see exactly how intricate it
is and come to the realization that it has a creator.
Paley relates this idea to the universe and creation and that just
as the watch has a creator so must the universe and us .God.
Objections to The Design Argument
Hume however disagrees with Paley and he introduces the idea that
over an infinite amount of time that the universe might have simply evolved
into order from randomly moving particles.
Charles Darwin has influenced many people to believe that even
creation(such as humans) has evolved from primitive life into complex life.
The Pantheism Argument
Baruch Spinoza introduced the idea that God must live or exist in
all things if he is as all powerful and all knowing as he is said to be.
Since God exists in every thing than there is nothing that lives
separate from him. Thus all of creation is said to be God .
What is religion?
Most religions have six dimensions:
1. Doctrine, a set of beliefs: God creating the universe, a universe
governed
by karma
2. Experience, an emphasis on things in which the believer connects to
3. Myth, or set of stories which create a background
4. Ritual, or acts of worship
5. Morality, a set of rules that believers are expected to follow
6. Organization, or hierarchy
There is a difference between the philosophy of religion and theology.
Theology means simply the rational study of God and religious doctrines.
Theologians study God at the starting assumption that god does exist.
Philosophers approach the subject without any assumptions; they must first
deal with the proven. Too often religion is solely defined by institutions,
and the entire deeper meaning is destroyed by human hands. Many people now
feel that the strict devotion to an object, symbol or idol is losing the
meaning of the religion.
Do we use religion as a way to patch up the holes in our life?
Is religion reasonable?
It is a growing trend for liberal westerners to turn towards eastern
religions to find a sense of fulfillment. The philosophy of religion can
include many different areas: immortality, salvation, and creation. This
topic leads itself to nothing less then hours of discussion and people have
rabid opinions on the matter. People have fought and died for there
religions and people continue to place there only difference on the name of
the god that created them. This is not a light topic to discuss, but the
more you do, the easier it becomes to understand the opinions of others.
Is religion a crutch? Religion in the opiate of the people. Karl Marx
Overview of Eastern Religious Tradition
Differences Between East and West
Hinduism
- A ancient and complex Indian religion
- A concept common in all forms of Hinduism is the oneness of reality known
as Brahman
- A concept in Hinduism known as Atman, or no self. (Destruction of ones
ego)
- Hinduism has four primary values, which are listed in least to greatest
amount of importance:
wealth, pleasure, duty, and enlightenment
- The law of Karma states that through what we do or do not do determines
our destiny
- There are seven characteristics of Indian thought.
First there is an emphasis on the spiritual.
Second is the realization that we believe is how we live, if our beliefs
are in error than our lives will be unhappy.
Thirdly is the importance of the inner life.
Fourth is an emphasis on the non-material oneness of creation.
Fifth is the acceptance of direct awareness as the only way to understand
what is real.
Sixth is a healthy respect for tradition but not a slavish commitment to
it.
Finally, Indian thought recognizes the complementary nature of all systems
of belief.
Buddhism
- The founder of Buddhism was Siddhartha Gautama, or the Buddha
- The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths.
The First Noble Truth is concerned with the suffering that we experience
in living.
The Second Noble Truth identifies the cause of suffering, the clinging and
grasping based on ignorance and unawareness.(Avidya)
The Third Noble Truth concerns ending the eternal cycle of life known as
samsara by achieving Nirvana, which is release or liberation
The Fourth Noble Truth describes the Eight-Fold Path of the Buddhas
Dharma, the morale doctrine where self-frustration is ended
- Zen Buddhism is a sect of Buddhism which originated in Japan. It promotes
the direct experience of reality. Zen Promotes growth of self-maturing of
the inner-experience. This involves changing psychologically going into
ourselves and our nature to gain wisdom. The direct holding of reality is
the awakening of prajna, transcendental wisdom.
East vs. West
- The East rejects the Wests objectified God. There is no claim of a
personal, all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful, and all-loving God.
- Buddhism does not share the Western view that there is moral law, enjoined
by god or by nature, that is our duty to obey
- Western religion has always been trying to align us with our creator,
Eastern thought aims to ground us in whats real
What is Ethics?
To answer such questions as whether to allow women to have abortions,
whether to force unwed fathers to support their children, whether to provide
sexual education in grade schools. We only answer on the basis of the moral
values we believed in.
To decide to choose your own values is to decide to philosophize. This
philosophical task, which is the subject of this chapter, is ethics. Much
of what we do in fact, is determined by our own moral values, because our
values shape our thoughts, feelings, actions and perceptions.
Ethics is the study of morality
Morality consists of the standards that an individual or a group has about
what is right and wrong or good and evil. Ethics begins when a person
reflects on their moral standards or the moral standards of their society
and asks whether these standards are reasonable/unreasonable, supported by
good/bad reasons. Ethics asks how people should live, whereas the social
sciences ask how people live in reality.
Ethical relativism denies the existence of a single, universally applicable
moral standard. It holds that moral right and wrong depend on the cultures a
person belongs to.
Cultural relativism holds that different cultures have different moralities
and that what one culture believes is wrong, another culture may think it is
right.
It is important to see that ethical relativism and cultural relativism are
not the same. Cultural relativism is a sociological fact: research proves
the existence of many obviously different moralities. But ethical
relativists don't just say that what people say is wrong, but that other
people in the world think it is wrong.
Ethical absolutism is the view that affirms the existence of a single
correct and universally applicable moral standard.
Problem
There is a problem with this, because ethical relativism say that something
is morally right for a person if the person's society thinks it is morally
right. The basic problem with ethical relativism is the argument that is
supposed to prove it. The ethical relativist argues that the many cultural
disagreements about moral matters show that no morality is valid for all
societies.
· James Rachels states that there are always disagreements between
different societies. We conclude that in some cultures people are better
informed than in others. Another problem is that, is it really true that
there are no moral standards that all societies recognize? There are many
objections to this theory, but it doesn't mean we should reject it totally.
A fundamental point the theory is trying to make is that we should be
tolerant of the moral beliefs of others.
· Consequentialist theory measures the morality of action by the non-
moral consequences. Consequentialists consider the ratio of good and evil
that an action produces. The right action is the one that produces or will
probably produce as a great ratio of good to evil as any other action. The
wrong action is the one that does not.
Transcendental Idealism Immanuel Kant P. 393-402
Transcendental Idealism: in epistemology, the view that the form of our
knowledge of reality comes from reason but its content comes form our
senses.
· Kant accepted Hume's proposition that experience is the only
basis for true knowledge of reality.
· Kant also suggests that reason also contributes to our knowledge
· Reason, Kant argued, is the source of our knowledge of the
relationships among objects.
· Hume argued that the cause-and-effect laws of science go beyond
the evidence that scientists have for them.
· Hume argued that scientists have no evidence for jumping from
what they observe sometimes in the past to conclusions about what will
happen every time in the future
· Kant explains that somehow the sensations that continually play
in our vision get arranged by our mind into solid objects
· The mind is continually at work, putting order in the chaotic
stream of endlessly changing sensations
· The mind introduces order by arranging sensations into stable
enduring object that seen to be in space outside us
· We cannot know disorganized chaos. The mind is a unified, orderly
thing and demands unity and order in what it knows
Cause - and - effect
· The most important relationship, Kant argues, that the mind uses
to organize sensations into stable objects is the basic law of science: that
all perceived events must have a cause
· In this way the mind inserts cause-and-effect relations into the
world we perceive
· In regards to causality Kant only partly agrees with Hume
· Events will always be connected by cause-and-effect because our
mind constructs these events and always connects them by the relationship of
cause-and-effect
"Phenomenal" and "Noumenal"
· Kant called the world that our minds construct the "phenomenal"
world and the world as it might really be, apart from our minds, is
the "noumenal" world
· Kant agrees with the empiricists when they claim that we must use
our senses to know what the world is like
· Kant argued that the laws that order the world are really just
laws that the human mind uses to organize its sensations
· We come to know these laws by reasoning inside the mind because
these laws are inside the mind to begin with.
· Kant argues that time is nothing more than another mental
structure that the mind uses to organize its chaotic sensations
· Kant rejects the fundamental assumption that the world is
independent of our minds. So the world has to conform to our minds
· Kant saw reason as constructing our reality, but the knew
Kantians believe that language constructs reality
Objections
· Some people continue to insist that our experience must conform
to an independent world of things if it is to give us real knowledge.
pp. 548-554 Buddhist ethics and beliefs:
Ø In the Buddhist perspective, philosophy is a search for the ultimate
freedom: an escape from the endless cycles, when we have dispelled our
philosophical ignorance and have understood our true place in the universe,
we will be freed from the otherwise unending wheel of birth, suffering,
death, and rebirth to which all living creatures are bound.
Ø Buddhism is essentially concerned with the release of individuals
from suffering and this shapes its ethical approach. Actions are not
described as good or bad, but as skillful or unskillful. (What might be
right if done by one person may be wrong if done by another.) Therefore it
sees moral significance in terms of agents and their intention, not in terms
of the acts themselves. Unskillful actions are those that are said to lead
to an increase in greed, hatred and ignorance and skillful actions are those
that lead to an increase in generosity, compassion and wisdom.
Ø Buddhist ethics cannot be considered a divine command theory because
Buddhism does not believe in a god that issues commands
Ø Buddhism provides important insight into the moral life
Ø Each living thing, when it dies, is reincarnated in another living
thing, its new condition determined by its past action, or karma.
"If we think carefully about the interdependence of all earthly phenomena,
our little local problems lose their gravity and naturally we begin to see
things globally, in terms of humanity as a whole. In context, the idea
of "me" and "you" loses it priority. When we realize this fact, this thought
spontaneously brings about a deep feeling of responsibility for the common
good." Dalai Lama
Buddhism's ethical behavior can be generalized into two ways:
1. Volitional (voluntary) actions, which are considered supremely
important because according to the moral law of causation (Karma) they
determine our destiny. Buddhism believes " we will be what we have been;
what we do will determine what we become."
2. Ethics is considered the parent of wisdom, with wisdom you can
reflect on the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of your volitional actions,
which leads to the discipline of the mind, which eventually leads to insight
and enlightenment. (Pg. 549)
Doctrines of Buddhismà the Four Noble Truths
The 1st Noble Truth: From Birth to Death, every aspect of our lives
involves suffering. It is important to note that the Buddha is not saying
that there is only suffering in life. He is just describing what,
specifically is problematic.
The 2nd Noble Truth: We suffer because we desire, crave things: pleasure
life and power. The more we try to satisfy our cravings, the worst they
become, making us suffer even more.
The 3rd Noble Truth: there is always a way out of suffering. A release from
suffering can be gained only by putting an end to our cravings.
The 4th Noble Truth: The Noble 8 Fold path.
The 4th Noble Truth provides us with a path and teaches us what practical
steps to take in order to attain Nirvana. (1) Right understanding (2) Right
Thought (3) Right Speech (4) Right conduct (5) Right livelihood (6) Right
Effort (7) Right Mindfulness (8) Right concentration. With the Noble 8 Fold
path 1 & 2 help us to develop wisdom. 3 to 5 encourage us to practice
virtue. 6 to 8 tells us to practice meditation. Buddhism believes that to do
this you must follow threes short axioms.
§ Cease to do evil
§ Learn to do good
§ Purify your own mind.
Cease to do evil sums up the code of Buddhist morality which five precepts
to refrain from certain actions.
1. Refrain from harming living things: abstinence from injuring or in
or in anyway harming living things and implies and awareness of the sanctity
of life. Which means human beings but also all kinds of other beings as well-
animals, bids, fish and insects; because they too are spiritual beings like
us, possessing the potential for spiritual growth which includes the
possibility of attaining human rebirth. Animals may also be regressed
humans.
According to the Law of Karma it is possible for humans who have behaved
badly to be reborn in other states. To be true to this principle many
Buddhists become vegetarians, although it is not an obligation
2. Refrain from taking what is not given: Develop toward the owners of
inanimate objects the same respect that the first precept enjoins toward
living things. In general, obtaining anything for oneself in ways that cause
others to suffer is not morally sound, even if technically no law has been
made.
3. Refrain from a misuse of the senses: Ex. We should avoid
artificially stimulating the appetite for food as well as avoid wrongful
sexual pleasures, invites us to be ceaselessly aware of the quality and
degree of their sensual activity.
4. Refrain from wrong speech: Lying, slander, gossip, malicious talk
generally, violation of secrets etc.
5. Refrain from taking drugs or drinks, which tend to cloud the mind:
central teaching is a system of meditation designed to clarify the mind so
that knowledge and insight may arise in it and be reflected freely.
Learn to do good:
Invites followers to develop certain virtues. Buddhist literature is full of
various lists of wholesome states or " things to be encouraged" which are
contrasted with unwholesome states or "things to be discouraged". Among the
most prominent of the wholesome states is dana or giving.
Purify your mind:
Another prominent wholesome virtue is metta, loving-kindness. To develop
metta is to develop the state of mind where in the joys and sorrows, the
wellbeing and the problems of others are as important to me as my own. Metta
requires we break down the barriers between self and others.
" Transference of merit":
Perhaps the most difficult Buddhist concept for the Western
minds to grasp. The transference of merit surrounds the fact that a time
comes when, having avoided evil and done well. We realize our inherent
selfishness: we are doing good to reap for ourselves the harvest of
enlightened wisdom at this point Buddhism invites us to practice the
transference of merit. It is to learn to will that the benefit of our good
actions return not to us alone but to all humanity.
" Each act of generosity, each movement of love, is no longer to be toted up
in my personal account book but is to rebound to the benefit of all. Rather
like a stream which feeds the ocean and which is replenished, not by means
of the same water flowing back to it, but in the course of time with the
falling of rains."
Western Theology
the question that many philosophers look to answer is the existence and
nature of a Supreme Being. Radical Theologians view Christians relationship
with God as more experiential than rational. Kierkegaard who was raised as a
catholic had great reservations about the faith. He believed that few people
actually focused on their belief and more focused on the social aspect of
things. They all attended the same Lutheran churches and church functions
and just mouthed the doctrines that had been learned and memorized in
previous years. Kierkegaard believes that those who showed this had a lack
of passion towards their faith. Kierkegaard was actually revolted by these
self- indulged "Catholics". Other than Kierkegaards view on religion he was
also studying the difference between objective and subjective thinkers,
which in the end is really distinguishing between reason and faith.
OBJECTIVE THINKER-> strikes an intellectual, dispassionate, scientific
posture toward life. An objective thinker is more likely to be an observer.
SUBJECTIVE THINKER-> passionately and intensely involved with truth. A
subjective thinker does not look for evidence out of establishing a
viewpoint, but out of pure passion for the interest. Subjective thinkers
often become pre- occupied with questions of life and death, ones
existence, or ones ultimate destiny. Kierkegaard is for the most part a
subjective thinker but admits that there is room for objective thinking.
Sometimes. But not in this case for example, Religious Belief is not open to
objective thinking because it involves a relationship with God. Because
Religious Belief is something of the unknown, not something knowable. READ
QUESTION BOX 310. Is it impossible to finally discover the truth of God and
get rid of all doubts that arise? Kierkegaard dismisses any proof of Gods
existence, even attempts to "know" God. Kierkegaard believes God cannot be
known. But if the point of religion and faith is to not know God than what
is the point of Religion? To feel rather than know. Rational thinking,
objective thinking is in favor of the existence of God.
TILLICH
Tillich is an existentialist who's views say that traditional theism has
made a mistake in viewing God as a being and not as being itself. Peoples
"proof" for Gods existence helps to make this error solution. God becomes
something in which we direct our lives. All these supposed "proofs" of God
are not really shown in a positive way. God is seen as the Superior, (us) as
the inferior, controller to controlled, subject to object. Tillich rejects
the traditional theism. Tillich believes that theism is bad theology. Well
Tillich rejects the theistic concept of God, but than what is he offering as
a substitute?. Tillich has a "God above God", "the ground of being".
Tillichs God goes against theisms God and this inflates doubt and
meaninglessness. Tillich has a view that says: (READ 313). But He says that
paradoxes like these are what drive people towards a God above Theism God ,
a God that is the Ground of our being. Tillich has several faulty concepts "
ground of being" is one and "Depth" is another. Tillich says that "Depth is
what the word God means." Atheists will say " I don't believe in God". But
Tillich argues that is impossible because a true atheist is someone who
doesn't believe that there is anything worth caring about deeply. Anyone
with "ultimate concern" believes in God. People who can rightly call
themselves atheists are those who can say "life has no depth. Life is
shallow. Being itself is surface only". "He who knows the Depth knows about
God". To put it more clearly Tillich believes that traditional theism has
made error in making God into an object. It errors in the definition it
gives for God and in its proof for Gods existence. God is not able to be
proven he is not an equation to be sorted out. Not only does this put limits
on God but it shows inconsistency, which leads to peoples loss in faith.
The God that Tillich believes in is one that defies traditional definitions
and proofs. Tillichs God corresponds somewhat with mystic but is
significantly different. the difference between the two is that MYSTIC
rejects sense experience and reason and through intuition will move to
knowledge of God. Tillich's view is that he confronts the world of
experience and all its questions. Tillich faces the world head on using all
imperfections, skepticism and meaninglessness to confront what is ultimately
real: that is being. When knowing being is when Tillich believes you
experienced God. Tillich beliefs become pretty contraversal because hes
basically saying that those who don't believe in his God are not ultimately
concerned. (READ STORY PG 314). a predicate that repeats its subject is
called a tautology. Tillich has been known to argue tautology in his
arguments into defining something into existence. Tillich believes that if
you personally have a divine presence experience or a merging with some
fundamental reality that no one can question that because its an experience
they can never know, such as personal pain like a headache. Tillich
believes that his God has completely different knowledge than of the kind of
God we usually speak of. it is a knowledge that goes against any data or
science. The knowledge comes from personal experience, mainly through prayer
and meditation.
FEMINIST THEOLOGY- Mary Daly
feminists also challenge the traditional western concept of God and
religion. Feminists most important objection is that God is portrayed as
male and the religious practices and beliefs are oppressing women. (READ
SUMMARIZE 315) like the husband dominating his wife represents God himself.
Christianity and Judaism both support that women were born from mans body.
the Old Testament states that Eve was made of Adams rib therefore males were
prior to females. This also states that sin and evil generated from women.
Eve- who tempted the man--Adam -- into the "fall". Than later on to say that
salvation came from man. Jesus Christ, "Son of God" who saved us all from
sin and evil. Christianity is still given over mainly to men: Priests,
Pastors, and Bishops. Do you think women should be able to have these roles
or do you think things should stay the way they are? Symbols and myths
throughout Christianity are essentially sexist. Daly believes that by God
being male it gives men an excuse to justify maintaining their power and
authority over women. Also since women are the source of evil and were
created from man (Adams rib) its rightful that they be ruled by men.
Therefore the traditional view of God is keeping women oppressed and
dominated by males. Maleness is the essential part of traditional western
concept of God . this is why the concept should be left to wither away and
replaced with new religious symbols and concepts. Many women are breaking
away from Christianity and Judaism's concept of God and Daly believes that
this will later be in comparison with the Blacks trying to reform the Ku
Klux Klan. there is becoming a new community , a new "sisterhood" it rejects
the male view that power must be power over people. In the sisterhood power
is expressed as "Power to ourselves and to each other". The males are based
on leaders having followers. Daly is one of the harshest and extreme critics
against traditional religious concepts. Many of her criticisms of religion
are of the maleness of western traditional views of God and the sexism
involved. Male qualities were "accidentally" attached to God and
Christianity when religion was introduced into a male dominated culture. It
is the task of the feminist to identify sexist, oppressive and male elements
that have poisoned our culture. Daly and Young want everyone to join the
journey towards understanding God and Religion that is neither sexist nor
oppressive. Each of us needs to make our journey towards rejection or
understanding of God and Religion.
Rules and Natural Law - Pages 531-548
Nonconsequentialist Theory: in ethics, the position that the morality of an
action is determined by more than just its consequences
There are two divisions of this theory:
"There is a single rule that governs human conduct
"There are many rules that govern human conduct (Buddhist Ethics)
Two Important single rule nonconsequentialist views:
"Divine Command Theory
"Kant's categorical imperative theory
Divine Command Theory: a nonconsequentialist normative theory that says we
should always do the will of God
This theory holds that no matter the consequences of our actions, the will
of God is always the correct and moral choice. We are wrong when we do not
follow God¡¦s will. Divine Command theory does not believe that people will
necessarily do any good by following God¡¦s command, but should do it
without question anyway. Moral actions are not distinguished by a society or
personal ideas of what is right, but the Law of God.
Two sides to this theory:
"God¡¦s will is found in sacred writings
"God¡¦s will is found in human nature
Scriptural Divine Command Theory: states you can find God¡¦s will in
scriptures
A perfect example of finding God¡¦s will within the sacred writings is the
Ten Commandments. These are rules on how we should live; direct from God.
Scriptural Divine Commands are found in any writing said to be from God.
The three main arguments against this theory:
"Can you be sure of the existence of God?
"If every scripture claims to be the word of God, which do you follow when
they are different?
"Why does God want us to do the things that He commands?
Natural Law Ethics: states God¡¦s will is what is natural for us
This division of Divine Command Theory does not require you to believe in
God. This theory holds that what you are naturally inclined to do is right.
Anything that does not come naturally is wrong. You escape the problems
associated with Scriptural Divine Command. If you do believe in God and this
theory, you believe human nature is right because God created it.
Thomas Aquinas used this theory to justify killing in self-defence. He
stated that it is not immoral because your intention is to protect life and
not to destroy it. Critics argue that if you know that in order to protect
you must destroy, destruction is your intention.
Arguments against this ask why what we want to do would always be right. The
biggest contradiction between Scriptural Divine Command and Natural Law is
the issue of sexual intercourse.
"« Based on most religious teachings, you are to have only one sexual
partner. To have more than one is immoral.
"« Based on instinct, however, having more than one partner is natural in
order to reproduce. This, however, leads into the idea that by in any way
restricting the possibility for reproduction, you are being unnatural and,
therefore, immoral.
Kant's Categorical Imperative Heteronomy: allowing someone/something else to
decide the moral rules you will follow
Autonomy: the ability to decide moral rules for oneself
Kant believes in autonomy and believes that ethics should study will because
by deciding what is good for ourselves we are using free will. Kant focuses
on committing acts based on a ¡§good will¡¨. This is to do things for other
purposes than self satisfaction. He believes there is no good act, but only
a good will behind it. Kant's theory is:
Categorical Imperative: an ethical formula: act as if the maxim (general
rule) by which you act could be willed to become a universal law; belief
that what is right for one person is right for everyone in similar
circumstances
Kant also feels that there is a human dignity that must be valued. This is
to restrict people from using one another and treating each other as
objects.
Kant's theory can be applied to the discussion of sex. Based on Kant¡¦s
theory of morality and human dignity, sexual intercourse is not immoral
unless one participant feels that a sense of dignity has been lost. Any
forced sexual relations or any relations that make a person feel they are
worth less are immoral, since it is considering to be using a person for
your own purposes.
Some critics claim that Kant's view of sexual relations allows too much.
They are uncomfortable with the idea that Kant feels sexual intercourse is
moral when both participants consent because this could include situations
that are immoral such as incest and adultery.
Kant's theory of categorical imperative easily leads you to a moral decision
unless, however, two duties conflict.
Categorical Imperative
A term which originated in Immanuel Kant's ethics. It expresses the moral
law as ultimately enacted by reason and demanding obedience from mere
respect for reason. Kant in his ethics takes his point of departure from the
concept of a good will: "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world or
out of it that can be called good without qualification except a good will."
But that will alone is good which acts not only conformably to duty, but
also from duty. And again the will acts from duty when it is determined
merely by respect for the law, independently of inclination, and without
regard to the agreeableness or the consequences of the action prescribed.
Therefore the first fundamental principle of morality is: "Let the law be
the sole ground or motive of thy will." Kant further finds that the law is
capable of inspiring respect by reason of its universality and necessity,
and hence lays down the following general formula of the moral law: "Act so
that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a
universal law for all rational beings." Necessity and universality, he
declares, cannot be derived from experience, whose subject matter is always
particular and contingent, but from the mind alone, from the cognitive forms
innate in it.
Hence the moral law originates in pure reason and is enunciated by a
synthetical judgment a priori--a priori because it has its reason, not in
experience, but in the mind itself; synthetical, because it is formed not by
the analysis of a conception, but by an extension of it. Reason, dictating
the moral law, determines man's actions. Yet it may do so in a twofold
manner. It either controls conduct infallibly, its dictates being actually
responded to without conflict or friction--and in this case there is no
obligation necessary or conceivable, because the will is of itself so
constituted as to be in harmony with the rational order--or it is resisted
and disobeyed, or obeyed only reluctantly, owing to contrary impulses coming
from sensibility. In this case determination by the law of reason has the
nature of a command or imperative, not of a hypothetical imperative, which
enjoins actions only as a means to an end and implies a merely conditional
necessity but of a categorical imperative, which enjoins actions for their
own sake and hence involves absolute necessity. While for God, Whose will is
perfectly holy, the moral law cannot be obligatory, it is for man, who is
subject to sensuous impulses, an imperative command. Accordingly, the
categorical imperative is the moral law enacted by practical reason,
obligatory for man, whose sensibility is discordant from the rational order,
and demanding obedience from respect for its universality and necessity.
Kant essays to prove the existence of a categorical imperative a priori from
the idea of the will of a rational being Will is conceived as a faculty
determining itself to action according to certain laws. Now it is only an
end that serves as an objective principle for the self-determination of the
will, and only an end in itself that serves as a universal principle holding
for all rational beings. But man, and indeed every rational being, is an end
in himself, a person, and must in all actions, whether they regard self or
others, be respected as such. Thus arises a supreme practical principle,
objective and universal, derived not from experience, but from human nature
itself; a principle from which, as the highest practical ground, all laws of
the will are capable of being derived. This, then, is the categorical
imperative, to be enunciated in the following terms: Act so as to use
humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and
never merely as a means.
Hence Kant infers, first, that the will of every rational being, by
commanding respect for humanity as an end in itself,lays down a universal
law, and is therefore a law unto itself, autonomous, and subject to no
external lawgiver; secondly, that morality consists in obedience to the law
of our own reason, and immorality, on the contrary, in heteronomy, that is,
in obedience to any, even Divine, authority distinct from our own reason, or
in action from any other motive than respect for our reason as a law.
The merits of Kant's categorical imperative are said to consist in this:
that it firmly establishes the reign of reason; elevates the dignity of man
by subjecting in him sensibility to reason and making rational nature free,
supreme, and independent; overcomes egoism by forbidding action from self-
interest; and upholds morality by the highest authority. But the theist
philosopher and the Christian theologian must needs take another view. Man
is not an end in himself, but is essentially subordinate to God as his
ultimate end and supreme good; nor is he autonomous, but is necessarily
subject to God as his supreme Lord and lawgiver. Man, conceived as a law
unto himself and an end in himself, is emancipated from God as his master
and separated from Him as his supreme good; conceived, moreover, as
autonomous and independent of any higher authority, he is deified. This is
not building up true and lofty morality, but is its complete overthrow; for
the basis of morality is God as the ultimate end, highest good, and supreme
lawgiver. Kant utterly ignores the nature of both intellect and will. Human
reason does not enact the moral law, but only voices and proclaims it as the
enactment of a higher power above man, and it is not from the proclaiming
voice that the law derives its binding force, but from the majesty above
that intimates it to us through our conscience.
Nor do the universality and necessity of a law determine the will. What
really attracts the will, and stirs it as a motive to action, is the
goodness of the object presented by the intellect; for the rational appetite
is by its nature an inclination to good. Hence it is that the desire of
perfect happiness necessarily results from rational nature, and that the
supreme good, clearly apprehended by the mind, cannot but be desired and
embraced by the will. Hence, too, a law is not presented as obligatory,
unless its observance is known to be necessarily connected with the
attainment of the supreme good. It is, therefore, wrong to denounce the
pursuit of happiness as immoral or repugnant to human nature. On the
contrary, a paralysis of all human energy and utter despair would result
from bidding man to act only from the motive of stern necessity inherent in
law, or forbidding him ever to have his own good in view or to hope for
blessedness.
The theory of the categorical imperative is, moreover, inconsistent.
According to it the human will is the highest lawgiving authority, and yet
subject to precepts enjoined on it; it is absolutely commanding what is
objectively right, and at the same time reluctant to observe the right
order.
Again, the categorical imperative, as also the autonomy of reason and the
freedom of the will, belongs to the intelligible world, and is, therefore,
according to the "Critique of Pure Reason", absolutely unknowable and
contradicted by all laws of experience; nevertheless in Kantian ethics it is
characterized as commanding with unmistakable precision and demanding
obedience with absolute authority. Such a contradiction between
Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" and his "Ethics", between theoretical and
practical reason, induces in morals a necessity which resembles fatalism.
Kant sets forth the categorical imperative in his "Fundamental Principles of
the Metaphysics of Morals" (1785) and his "Critique of Practical Reason"
Character, Virtues pg. 554-560
The ethical theories that weve seen focus on principles or rules of action
(with exception to Buddhist ethics).Modern ethics have been concerned mostly
with studying these universal rules or principles, which tells us what
actions are morally right and how people are supposed to act. A lot of
philosophers feel dissatisfied with that approach to ethics. The problem is
that everybody disagrees with each other. Some philosophers argue that they
seem to forget a part of morality that earlier ages recognized: moral virtue
and character. Instead of trying to discover universal rules which we will
inevitably disagree about, ethics should try to identify the character
traits or virtues of the morally good person and explain how we can
develop and acquire these traits.
Character
From birth we have been trained or programed with these character traits.
This we be inscribed into us by our parents or others that we have to
idealize. These figures in our lives will teach us how to act and how to
behave.
Character traits are developed and destroyed in the same way. They also
manifest themselves in similar ways. A good example is our physical
strength. Strength is produced by taking plenty of nourishment and doing
plenty of exercise, and if the man fulfills the requirments by what the body
needs, he will be strong.
Aristotles Theory of Virtue
According to Aristotle, Virtue is the ability to be reasonable in our
actions, desires and emotions. For example courage is the ability to deal
with fear in a reasonable manner and temperance is the ability to respond to
pleasure in a reasonable manner. By abstaining from pleasures we develop
temperance, and it is the man with temperance that is best able to abstain
from them.
The virtuous habit of action is always an intermediate state between the
opposed vices of excess and deficiency: too much and too little are always
wrong; the right kind of action always lies in the mean.Thus, for example:
with respect to acting in the face of danger, is a mean between the
excess
of rashness and the deficiency of cowardice
with respect to the enjoyment of pleasures, is a mean between the
excess
of intemperance and the deficiency of insensibility
with respect to spending money, generosity is a mean between the
excess of wastefulness and the deficiency of stinginess
with respect to relations with strangers, being friendly is a mean
between the excess of being ingratiating and the deficiency of being surly
with respect to self-esteem, is a mean between
the excess of vanity and the deficiency of pusillanimity.
beings can only be happy if they fulfill their basic human
purpose
or Human function. Humans must act how they are ment to act in order to be
happy and in certain circumstances in our lives.
We become virtous by being trained from youth to act
virtously in
appropriate situations until it becomes a habit. For examples, we become
builders by building.
However both moral virtues and the corresponding vices are
developped or destroyed by the similar kinds of actions. It is building that
both good and bad builders are produced however good builders build well and
bad builders build bad.
Virtue Approach against Principle Approach
Aristotles approach to ethics differs greatly from the principles approach
that Mill, Kant, and others use. The virtue approach reminds us of several
things that the rules approach neglects.
First, the virtue approach emphasizes the character traits of
morally good people and the development of these traits, whereas the
principles approach neglects character. Yet character is undoubtedly a
fundamental moral concern.
Second, the virtue approach reminds us of the importance of
community and early training, whereas principle approach ignores it. As a
person grows and matures, his or her character is shaped by the values that
these communities prize and by the traits they encourage or discourage.
Thats why the idea of community is important to virtue ethics (the
communities in which a being is involved has a drastic impact on ones
virtues and character, for example family, church and school have a good
moral impact whereas gangs, corporations and prisons would deliver an
opposite impact.)
Third, the virtue approach reminds us of importance of
personal ideals. Personal ideals are ideas we have of what the ideal person
is like and the virtues that the ideal person displays. These pictures serve
as models that we try and live up to.
