So here's the deal with me and traveling abroad. First off, I appreciate everyone that contributed to my raising funds to travel overseas to Thailand. It's looking like I will be going to Macedonia instead. This next semester - spring 10.. 010? Jeez, that's a whole other post waiting to be posted.. - I will most likely be traveling with my Social Problems class to Macedonia, Greece. I received numerous letters of recommendations that put me over the edge as far as the applicants list went, and for that I am grateful to the professors that saw potential in me to do so.
The reason I say most likely is because of the ten people that are supposed to be going I am the eleventh, and I am an alternate. But I've been informed that if I have good grades by the end of the semester they will take me along anyway.
Yesterday I went down to the school and talked with my professors to see where I stood without my finals. I have A's in all my classes without taking a final. So it's looking good. ALSO! The Study Abroad group has let me register for the class that will be visiting Macedonia next semester, and before I was on hold.
SO! Once there, we will be doing social work with the less fortunate in a little town outside of the capital city - Skopje - of Macedonia.
I haven't uncrossed my fingers yet, but things are looking up. Thanks again for the funds, I have put them towards my application fee, my passport, shots, etc. I really appreciate all that helped out in this process.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
FTW!
Video games are where it's at. My own personal relief from stress. A world away from the world. A universe away from the universe I'm reminded daily I'm bound to. A world without school, a world without drama. In these worlds and universes I can be super human, I can be extraterrestrial, or I can live through history that was pre-me.
Funny, when I come back from these worlds away from world I take on a RL title, (for those of you who don't know that's REAL LIFE, BORING) "Dork." You haters just wish you could shoot fire from you eyes.
Funny, when I come back from these worlds away from world I take on a RL title, (for those of you who don't know that's REAL LIFE, BORING) "Dork." You haters just wish you could shoot fire from you eyes.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Divine Command Theory v. Natural Law
In considering whether morals are determined according to Divine Command Theory vs. The Theory of Natural Law, one must first understand the theories that are being considered. The Divine Command Theory - according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – “is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God.” Adversely, the Theory of Natural Law – accredited to the same source - says “the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world [- independent of a God].” This is the question that encompasses seemingly every aspect of moral philosophy because one will inevitably fall on one side of this fence dramatically effecting the conclusions drawn from each moral issue. In this essay I will show definitively that the Theory of Natural Law is the only way one should view these tough moral issues – whether you believe in god or not.
I will start by showing that Divine Command Theory cannot be and is not an applicable theory in deciphering whether something is morally right or wrong, and the first point I will present is that the text(s) by which the Judeo-Christian morals are understood were written over 2,000 years ago, and cannot be applied to society as it is today. Example one, “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh (1 Peter 2:18).” The scary moral implication here is that, it would seem the writer(s) felt it was morally detestable to act disrespectful towards an individual that was wrongful in treatment of property. The more obvious out of date idea is that slavery in its time was right and it was even right to abuse the slave(s) in question.
Secondly, and more importantly, is what is known as “Euthyphro’s Dilemma” which was the question asserted by Socrates to Euthyphro before Socrates trial in Athens. “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods (Melchert 76-77)?” Now, whether god or the gods created morals or convey morals is irrelevant because either way you choose to go on the issue you will inevitably run into a brick wall. For if one were to cling to the idea that god created what is right and wrong “[god] could have given different commands just as easily[,] commanded us to be liars, and then lying and not truthfulness would be right (Rachels 52).” Adversely if god or the gods convey what is right or wrong “we acknowledge a standard that is independent of God’s will[, and] ‘because God commands it’ doesn’t really tell us [why we should be truthful] (Rachels 53).”
So if god doesn’t determine what is morally acceptable in society, who or what does? This is where the Theory of Natural Law comes into play, and it not only explains social morals well, it explains them beautifully. Since the Theory of Natural Law leans on human understanding of the natural world, the people who would know best of the natural world would be the scientists that have examined it. Interestingly enough scientists have a lot of ideas on the development of morals with the development of our species and its implications on further development of societies.
The first thing to be said is that virtuous behavior by a believer is no proof at all of – indeed is not even an argument for – the truth of his belief. I might just for the sake of argument, act more charitably if I believed that Lord Buddha was born from a slit in his mother’s side. But would not this make my charitable impulse dependant on something rather tenuous? By the same token, I do not say that if I catch a Buddhist priest stealing all the offerings left by the simple folk at his temple, Buddhism is thereby discredited (Hitchens 184-185).
Many modern scientists believe that humans moral sense have a Darwinian origin. Evolutionary scientists Robert Hinde to Marc Hauser have argued - and will continue to argue so - in countless papers and books. The idea is that it would not behoove a species to do harm to its own because in doing so this would limit the progress of the species in question. This is due to our “selfish gene.” Our genes desire to continue by picking the best of genes to reproduce with – also known as natural selection – and to “ensure their own selfish survival by influencing organisms to behave altruistically (Dawkins 216).”
These relationships are evident in the behavior of animals as well as humans. “Vampire bats share food. Apes and monkeys comfort members of their group who are upset and work together to get food. Dolphins push sick members of a pod to the surface to get air. Whales will put themselves in harm’s way to help a wounded member of their group. Elephants try their best to save injured members of their families (Stenger 209),” and the list goes on and on. In the human perspective we can empathize with others – and do – because we understand how it would feel to have something stolen or have harm done to our person(s) therefore we do not actively engage in stealing or harming others.
So where do we go from here? In my opinion, the questioning of moral right and wrongs can continue with the idea of Natural Law because it isn’t a firm answer. Natural Law is a sort of tearing away from the Divine Command Theory. Divine Command theory demands that there is an answer, and Natural Law leaves it to discussion. The answer is relative to the situation and time in which the situation occurred. We as a society must keep searching for a definite answer and leave ourselves open to change or truth can never be found.
I will start by showing that Divine Command Theory cannot be and is not an applicable theory in deciphering whether something is morally right or wrong, and the first point I will present is that the text(s) by which the Judeo-Christian morals are understood were written over 2,000 years ago, and cannot be applied to society as it is today. Example one, “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh (1 Peter 2:18).” The scary moral implication here is that, it would seem the writer(s) felt it was morally detestable to act disrespectful towards an individual that was wrongful in treatment of property. The more obvious out of date idea is that slavery in its time was right and it was even right to abuse the slave(s) in question.
Secondly, and more importantly, is what is known as “Euthyphro’s Dilemma” which was the question asserted by Socrates to Euthyphro before Socrates trial in Athens. “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods (Melchert 76-77)?” Now, whether god or the gods created morals or convey morals is irrelevant because either way you choose to go on the issue you will inevitably run into a brick wall. For if one were to cling to the idea that god created what is right and wrong “[god] could have given different commands just as easily[,] commanded us to be liars, and then lying and not truthfulness would be right (Rachels 52).” Adversely if god or the gods convey what is right or wrong “we acknowledge a standard that is independent of God’s will[, and] ‘because God commands it’ doesn’t really tell us [why we should be truthful] (Rachels 53).”
So if god doesn’t determine what is morally acceptable in society, who or what does? This is where the Theory of Natural Law comes into play, and it not only explains social morals well, it explains them beautifully. Since the Theory of Natural Law leans on human understanding of the natural world, the people who would know best of the natural world would be the scientists that have examined it. Interestingly enough scientists have a lot of ideas on the development of morals with the development of our species and its implications on further development of societies.
The first thing to be said is that virtuous behavior by a believer is no proof at all of – indeed is not even an argument for – the truth of his belief. I might just for the sake of argument, act more charitably if I believed that Lord Buddha was born from a slit in his mother’s side. But would not this make my charitable impulse dependant on something rather tenuous? By the same token, I do not say that if I catch a Buddhist priest stealing all the offerings left by the simple folk at his temple, Buddhism is thereby discredited (Hitchens 184-185).
Many modern scientists believe that humans moral sense have a Darwinian origin. Evolutionary scientists Robert Hinde to Marc Hauser have argued - and will continue to argue so - in countless papers and books. The idea is that it would not behoove a species to do harm to its own because in doing so this would limit the progress of the species in question. This is due to our “selfish gene.” Our genes desire to continue by picking the best of genes to reproduce with – also known as natural selection – and to “ensure their own selfish survival by influencing organisms to behave altruistically (Dawkins 216).”
These relationships are evident in the behavior of animals as well as humans. “Vampire bats share food. Apes and monkeys comfort members of their group who are upset and work together to get food. Dolphins push sick members of a pod to the surface to get air. Whales will put themselves in harm’s way to help a wounded member of their group. Elephants try their best to save injured members of their families (Stenger 209),” and the list goes on and on. In the human perspective we can empathize with others – and do – because we understand how it would feel to have something stolen or have harm done to our person(s) therefore we do not actively engage in stealing or harming others.
So where do we go from here? In my opinion, the questioning of moral right and wrongs can continue with the idea of Natural Law because it isn’t a firm answer. Natural Law is a sort of tearing away from the Divine Command Theory. Divine Command theory demands that there is an answer, and Natural Law leaves it to discussion. The answer is relative to the situation and time in which the situation occurred. We as a society must keep searching for a definite answer and leave ourselves open to change or truth can never be found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)