a) Explain how a follower of Kantian ethics might approach issues surrounding the right to a child. (25)
Immanuel Kant put forward his theory of ethics, which is deontological and absolutist, meaning we must base moral decisions on the act alone, and in order to do good, we must fulfil our duty for duty's sake alone, regardless of the individual situation, and without an ulterior motive. Kant's theory is also synthetic a priori, as while he believes that morality is a priori, we must also use some synthetic knowledge to understand how to act morally. In order to fulfil our duty, Kant stated that we must follow both the good will and the categorical imperative, of which there are three formulations: the principle of universability, the principle of a kingdom of ends, and the principle of treating humans as ends in themselves. When considering issues surrounding rights to a child, followers of Kantian ethics would generally be against fertility treatments, as they seem to contradict the three aforementioned formulae of the categorical imperative.
Some may be tempted to argue in favour of fertility treatments, as with good intention, allowing an infertile couple to have children seems to be doing the right thing and fulfilling your duty. However, while Kant agrees that good will is an important factor to consider, ethics should be deontological, therefore the most important factor is whether the action itself is objectively good, rather than looking at the situation. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to the categorical imperative to determine whether fertility treatment is a good action.
The first formulation is the Principle of Universability. Kant stated that we must "act in a way that actions might become a universal law", so here, the consistency of the action is also decisive. This means that while we may think an action seems good, it is only good if we could universally apply it to every situation and it would still be good. When looking at rights to a child, it is unlikely that this principle would justify any fertility treatments. For example, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) results in several 'spare' embryos being fertilised, which are then destroyed or disposed of if not needed. While initially it may seem moral to allow IVF to enable a couple to have a child, clearly it would not be moral if this was universalised, as there would be a huge number of embryos that would be killed, therefore this is not universally good.
The second principle of the categorical imperative is treating people as 'ends in themselves withal, not as means to an end'. This means we shoudl not use or manipulate people for an ulterior motive or to get what we want, but instead should treat people fairly, and as ends in themselves. Many fertility treatments go against this principle, so it forms another argument why followers of Kantian ethics would be against them. Treatments such as surrogacy and Artificial Insemination from a donor (AID) are not treating people as ends in themselves, as they both involve using a third party to help someone else have a baby, so attaining personal gain rather than the surrogate mother or donor being treated as ends in themselves. Therefore, followers of Kan t would not support these treatments.
The third and final formulation is the principle of the kingdom of ends. This states that we must all act as if we are a 'law-making member of the Kingdom of Ends', so while acting morally, we must also recognise that we are responsible for setting a good example to others. This is similar to the first principle in the way that when making a moral decision, we must consider whether it would still be right if everyone else in the world made the same decision. While fertility treatments may seem like the right thing to do in individual situations, it is unlikely that they would be justified as a universal rule. For example, in 1985, Kim Cotton was paid £6500 to have a baby for an infertile couple. While she may have been following the good will, with good intention to help, we must consider whether we would want to live in a society where it was acceptable to pay other people to have your children. Not only is this treating people as a means to an end, going against the second formulation, but it is also a contradiction of the law of nature, as reproduction/sex within a relationship or married couple would lose its value, as having children would no longer be seen as an intimate event within a relationship, but instead as something else which can be done with a third party. Therefore, again, followers of Kantian ethics would be against issues/treatments surrounding rights to a child.
Mark: 25/25
Tuesday 6 May 2014
AS Philo: Aristotle + 4 causes
a) Explain Aristotle's understanding of the Four Causes. (25)
Aristotle took an empirical approach when considering the explanation of the universe, as unlike Plato, he believed that knowledge rests on careful observation. Aristotle observed that the world is in a constant state of flux, with things moving from a state of potentiality to actuality. In his book Metaphysics, he used the example of 'whiteness', as anything which is not white has the potential to become 'actually white'. This led Aristotle to believe not only in the Principle of Causation, but also that there were different stages to causation, which he called the Four Causes. These causes are, according to Aristotle, necessary to explain the existence of all objects within the world.
The first cause, known as the Material Cause, explains what the object is made from. Using the example of a table, wood would be its material cause.
The second cause is the Formal Cause, which refers to the object's characteristics. Aristotle refers to this as the 'form' of the object, which is immanent and unrelated to Plato's ideas of 'the forms'. The shape of the object makes it what it is, however it is clear that objects cannot simply be made from its materials into its shape - in order for wood to take the form of a table, there must be a tablemaker.
Therefore Aristotle devised the third cause, known as the Efficient Cause, which refers to what brings the object about. Aristotle used the example of a marble statue, and the efficient cause would be the chisel, hammer and sculptor, causing the marble to move from a state of potentiality to actuality.
Lastly, Aristotle stated that all things have a Final Cause, referring to its purpose, or 'telos'. Aristotle believed that all things have a natural purpose which we must aim to fulfil, for example in Metaphysics he stated that the purpose of walking is 'that one may be healthy'.
While Aristotle did not believe in a theistic God, he put forward the concept of the 'Prime Mover'. This referred to a supreme and perfect being, that is the efficient and final cause of the universe. As the Prime Mover is responsible for things moving from a state of potentiality to actuality, it itself is in a state of 'pure actuality', and incapable of change.
Mark: 21/25
Aristotle took an empirical approach when considering the explanation of the universe, as unlike Plato, he believed that knowledge rests on careful observation. Aristotle observed that the world is in a constant state of flux, with things moving from a state of potentiality to actuality. In his book Metaphysics, he used the example of 'whiteness', as anything which is not white has the potential to become 'actually white'. This led Aristotle to believe not only in the Principle of Causation, but also that there were different stages to causation, which he called the Four Causes. These causes are, according to Aristotle, necessary to explain the existence of all objects within the world.
The first cause, known as the Material Cause, explains what the object is made from. Using the example of a table, wood would be its material cause.
The second cause is the Formal Cause, which refers to the object's characteristics. Aristotle refers to this as the 'form' of the object, which is immanent and unrelated to Plato's ideas of 'the forms'. The shape of the object makes it what it is, however it is clear that objects cannot simply be made from its materials into its shape - in order for wood to take the form of a table, there must be a tablemaker.
Therefore Aristotle devised the third cause, known as the Efficient Cause, which refers to what brings the object about. Aristotle used the example of a marble statue, and the efficient cause would be the chisel, hammer and sculptor, causing the marble to move from a state of potentiality to actuality.
Lastly, Aristotle stated that all things have a Final Cause, referring to its purpose, or 'telos'. Aristotle believed that all things have a natural purpose which we must aim to fulfil, for example in Metaphysics he stated that the purpose of walking is 'that one may be healthy'.
While Aristotle did not believe in a theistic God, he put forward the concept of the 'Prime Mover'. This referred to a supreme and perfect being, that is the efficient and final cause of the universe. As the Prime Mover is responsible for things moving from a state of potentiality to actuality, it itself is in a state of 'pure actuality', and incapable of change.
Mark: 21/25
Monday 5 May 2014
AS Philo part a) Aquinas + Copleston's C.A
a) Explain Aquinas' cosmological argument and how Copleston developed it. (25)
In Summae Theologiae, Aquinas put forward his cosmological argument, based on inductive logic and a posteriori knowledge of the world. His argument was put forward in the 'five ways', which he stated are to help us understand God, rather than prove him, as ultimately God is an infinitely perfect being that we will never be able to truly comprehend.
The first way is based on motion and the principle of causation, which was largely influenced by Aristotle. Aquinas witnessed that everything is in a constant state of flux, which is a point drawn upon by many other philosophers, including Heraclitus' theory that 'we can never step in the same river twice'. However for Aquinas, motion is more about movement, but also the conversion of an object from a state of potentiality to actuality. He stated that 'whatever moves is moved by another', meaning that there must be something causing this motion within the world. However in order to be the cause of everything else's motion, the cause must be 'itself unmoved', similarly to Aristotle's concept of the Prime Mover. This cause of motion is, according to Aquinas, God.
The second way draws upon the observation that everything in the world appears to have a sequence of efficient causes which result in something's existence. This means that there are two possibilities regarding the chain of causes: either there is infinite regress, or there was one initial cause that is responsible for all others. Through inductive logic, Aquinas realised that it is impossible to have an infinite chain of causes, as 'without a first cause, there would be no subsequent causes'. Therefore, it is necessary for us to admit that there must have been one first cause, and this cause is God.
Thirdly, Aquinas observed that it is 'possible for things to be and not to be', meaning everything is contingent, as everything's existence relies upon something else. If everything in the world is contingent, then there must have been one point in time that there was nothing. If this is the case, then there would still be nothing. Therefore, there must be one necessary thing, that has always existed, and is responsible for bringing all contingent beings into existence, explaining how the universe exists now when the default position would otherwise be nothingness. Aquinas then states that this necessary being must be God.
Aquinas' 5 ways form the basis of the classical cosmological argument, and this was later developed by several other philosophers including Leibniz and Copleston. Instead of accepting the principle of causation - that every cause has an effect - Leibniz accepted Hume's criticism that this is not necessarily true, as we can imagine an effect with a cause. Instead, Leibniz put forward his theory of sufficient reason. This states that while not everything needs a cause, every effect must have had a sufficient reason for it to come into existence.
Copleston further developed this, forming the modern cosmological argument. Copleston stated that while everything must have a sufficient reason, everything in this world is contingent, as everything relies upon something else. He used humans as an example, as we rely on air, food and water to exist. If nothing contains the reason for its own existence, then the sufficient reason for the universe must exist externally. He then draws the conclusion that this external reason must be God, which then forms another logical argument supporting the existence of God.
Mark: currently pending.
In Summae Theologiae, Aquinas put forward his cosmological argument, based on inductive logic and a posteriori knowledge of the world. His argument was put forward in the 'five ways', which he stated are to help us understand God, rather than prove him, as ultimately God is an infinitely perfect being that we will never be able to truly comprehend.
The first way is based on motion and the principle of causation, which was largely influenced by Aristotle. Aquinas witnessed that everything is in a constant state of flux, which is a point drawn upon by many other philosophers, including Heraclitus' theory that 'we can never step in the same river twice'. However for Aquinas, motion is more about movement, but also the conversion of an object from a state of potentiality to actuality. He stated that 'whatever moves is moved by another', meaning that there must be something causing this motion within the world. However in order to be the cause of everything else's motion, the cause must be 'itself unmoved', similarly to Aristotle's concept of the Prime Mover. This cause of motion is, according to Aquinas, God.
The second way draws upon the observation that everything in the world appears to have a sequence of efficient causes which result in something's existence. This means that there are two possibilities regarding the chain of causes: either there is infinite regress, or there was one initial cause that is responsible for all others. Through inductive logic, Aquinas realised that it is impossible to have an infinite chain of causes, as 'without a first cause, there would be no subsequent causes'. Therefore, it is necessary for us to admit that there must have been one first cause, and this cause is God.
Thirdly, Aquinas observed that it is 'possible for things to be and not to be', meaning everything is contingent, as everything's existence relies upon something else. If everything in the world is contingent, then there must have been one point in time that there was nothing. If this is the case, then there would still be nothing. Therefore, there must be one necessary thing, that has always existed, and is responsible for bringing all contingent beings into existence, explaining how the universe exists now when the default position would otherwise be nothingness. Aquinas then states that this necessary being must be God.
Aquinas' 5 ways form the basis of the classical cosmological argument, and this was later developed by several other philosophers including Leibniz and Copleston. Instead of accepting the principle of causation - that every cause has an effect - Leibniz accepted Hume's criticism that this is not necessarily true, as we can imagine an effect with a cause. Instead, Leibniz put forward his theory of sufficient reason. This states that while not everything needs a cause, every effect must have had a sufficient reason for it to come into existence.
Copleston further developed this, forming the modern cosmological argument. Copleston stated that while everything must have a sufficient reason, everything in this world is contingent, as everything relies upon something else. He used humans as an example, as we rely on air, food and water to exist. If nothing contains the reason for its own existence, then the sufficient reason for the universe must exist externally. He then draws the conclusion that this external reason must be God, which then forms another logical argument supporting the existence of God.
Mark: currently pending.
Sunday 4 May 2014
AS Ethics part b) religious ethics
b) 'A right ethical act is one approved by God.' Discuss. (10)
I've colour-coded, so my point of view is in blue, and the counter-argument is in red. Note how in each paragraph, I've sandwiched the counter-argument in between two of my points, to ensure my line of argument is sustained, pretty good structure to use!
The Divine Command Theory states that any action that God commands must be good because it is God's will and therefore approved by him. Many Christians accept this as an ethic, and blindly follow God's law. However I do not agree that it is a suitable ethic to be followed.
Firstly, there will always be the question as to how we know what God's will is. Christianity states that God is a superior being that we will never be able to fully understand, therefore it is difficult to know what he intends for us to do and follow his commands without question. Some people may argue that this is one of the main concepts of the Divine Command Theory, as it involves fully trusting God and strengthens our faith in him and his laws, however this still fails to address the issue of how we are to know God's will for certain. This is a particularly prevalent issue when considering contemporary issues, such as IVF and abortion, which are not specifically mentioned in the Bible due to the difference in lifestyles and cultures between the time it was written and now. Therefore, it is difficult to follow the Bible or other Christian teachings for all situations, which suggests that perhaps God's commands should not be the only source of morality that we turn to when making ethical decisions.
Furthermore, the Divine Command Theory greatly restricts our free will, as it states that we should blindly follow God's instructions without using our own reason or sense of morality. On the other hand, some may say that our morality is God-given, therefore God possesses the ultimate morality and therefore anything he commands us to do must be good and right. Nevertheless, this contradicts Aquinas' theory of synderesis, and the idea that God gave us our own sense of morality n order for us to be able to use reason to make ethical decisions ourselves. This suggests that Divine Command Theory is not necessarily the best ethic, as for us to be truly good, we should be able to decide ourselves what the right ethical act is, and should not simply be following God's laws to the letter.
The Euthyphro Dilemma also disagrees with the above statement. In this argument, it states that if 'X is good because God commands it', then surely the meaning of 'goodness' is lost, as it is simply what God is commanding rather than humans choosing to do a good act of their own accord. Some people may argue against this, saying that God is good and omnibenevolent, therefore anything he commands will be good and a moral act will be anything be commands. However, this still raises the question regarding the definition of 'good' itself. If what God commands is automatically categorised as good, then good or bad is simply defined by the whims of God and is completely arbritrary. For this reason, the Divine Command Theory cannot be a good ethic to follow, as surely a good action should be determined by our own sense of morality and choice to follow what we feel is right, rather than blindly accepting and following divine authority.
In conclusion, although many religious people would agree that an ethical act is simply what God commands, there are also many arguments against this, stating that morality should come from our innate sense of right or wrong, allowing us to utilise our free will, rather than following the laws of divine authority without feeling the need to question them.
Mark: 10/10, comment: "PERFECTION." (Yes, my teacher really said this.)
I've colour-coded, so my point of view is in blue, and the counter-argument is in red. Note how in each paragraph, I've sandwiched the counter-argument in between two of my points, to ensure my line of argument is sustained, pretty good structure to use!
The Divine Command Theory states that any action that God commands must be good because it is God's will and therefore approved by him. Many Christians accept this as an ethic, and blindly follow God's law. However I do not agree that it is a suitable ethic to be followed.
Firstly, there will always be the question as to how we know what God's will is. Christianity states that God is a superior being that we will never be able to fully understand, therefore it is difficult to know what he intends for us to do and follow his commands without question. Some people may argue that this is one of the main concepts of the Divine Command Theory, as it involves fully trusting God and strengthens our faith in him and his laws, however this still fails to address the issue of how we are to know God's will for certain. This is a particularly prevalent issue when considering contemporary issues, such as IVF and abortion, which are not specifically mentioned in the Bible due to the difference in lifestyles and cultures between the time it was written and now. Therefore, it is difficult to follow the Bible or other Christian teachings for all situations, which suggests that perhaps God's commands should not be the only source of morality that we turn to when making ethical decisions.
Furthermore, the Divine Command Theory greatly restricts our free will, as it states that we should blindly follow God's instructions without using our own reason or sense of morality. On the other hand, some may say that our morality is God-given, therefore God possesses the ultimate morality and therefore anything he commands us to do must be good and right. Nevertheless, this contradicts Aquinas' theory of synderesis, and the idea that God gave us our own sense of morality n order for us to be able to use reason to make ethical decisions ourselves. This suggests that Divine Command Theory is not necessarily the best ethic, as for us to be truly good, we should be able to decide ourselves what the right ethical act is, and should not simply be following God's laws to the letter.
The Euthyphro Dilemma also disagrees with the above statement. In this argument, it states that if 'X is good because God commands it', then surely the meaning of 'goodness' is lost, as it is simply what God is commanding rather than humans choosing to do a good act of their own accord. Some people may argue against this, saying that God is good and omnibenevolent, therefore anything he commands will be good and a moral act will be anything be commands. However, this still raises the question regarding the definition of 'good' itself. If what God commands is automatically categorised as good, then good or bad is simply defined by the whims of God and is completely arbritrary. For this reason, the Divine Command Theory cannot be a good ethic to follow, as surely a good action should be determined by our own sense of morality and choice to follow what we feel is right, rather than blindly accepting and following divine authority.
In conclusion, although many religious people would agree that an ethical act is simply what God commands, there are also many arguments against this, stating that morality should come from our innate sense of right or wrong, allowing us to utilise our free will, rather than following the laws of divine authority without feeling the need to question them.
Mark: 10/10, comment: "PERFECTION." (Yes, my teacher really said this.)
AS Philo part b) teleo argument
I know people are having trouble with part b's, so here's a good example plan of a philosophy part B. I haven't written it out in full, but you get the idea, and I'll write it up in full when I have more time on my hands.
b) Evaluate whether the teleological argument stands up to criticism. (10)
I believe that the teleological argument does stand up to criticism.
First paragraph:
Point: Based on Natural Theology, we can observe order, purpose and regularity (OPR) in the world, therefore it is difficult to criticise the first premise of the teleological argument's logic.
Counter-point: The OPR in the world does not necessarily suggest there is a designer - Darwinism/evolution/natural selection shows that complexity can exist without a designer.
Counter-counter-point: Evolution could have been part of God's plan - God created a design with the potential to improve itself, therefore the design argument is still valid.
Second paragraph:
Point: One of Hume's criticisms is that the world is imperfect, therefore couldn't have been designed. However Aquinas/Paley never said that the world was perfect in their arguments, they just stated that OPR suggests a designer.
Counter-point: Mill's criticism develops the idea of imperfections, states that evil in the world suggests that either there is an evil designer or no designer, and the latter option is more likely.
Counter-counter-point: There are other reasons for the existence of evil, for example God allowing us to have free will/be moral. There is still complexity, therefore this still points to there being a designer.
Conclusion: argument does stand up to criticism. Some strong criticisms put forward by Hume and Mill, but they do little to disprove the teleo argument.
Hope this helps!
b) Evaluate whether the teleological argument stands up to criticism. (10)
I believe that the teleological argument does stand up to criticism.
First paragraph:
Point: Based on Natural Theology, we can observe order, purpose and regularity (OPR) in the world, therefore it is difficult to criticise the first premise of the teleological argument's logic.
Counter-point: The OPR in the world does not necessarily suggest there is a designer - Darwinism/evolution/natural selection shows that complexity can exist without a designer.
Counter-counter-point: Evolution could have been part of God's plan - God created a design with the potential to improve itself, therefore the design argument is still valid.
Second paragraph:
Point: One of Hume's criticisms is that the world is imperfect, therefore couldn't have been designed. However Aquinas/Paley never said that the world was perfect in their arguments, they just stated that OPR suggests a designer.
Counter-point: Mill's criticism develops the idea of imperfections, states that evil in the world suggests that either there is an evil designer or no designer, and the latter option is more likely.
Counter-counter-point: There are other reasons for the existence of evil, for example God allowing us to have free will/be moral. There is still complexity, therefore this still points to there being a designer.
Conclusion: argument does stand up to criticism. Some strong criticisms put forward by Hume and Mill, but they do little to disprove the teleo argument.
Hope this helps!
AS Ethics: Religious Ethics
a) Explain the ethical teachings of the religion you have studied. (25)
For Christians, morality is generally determined by the will of God, as they believe that anything God commands is right, therefore we should follow his commands and laws, as stated by the Divine Command Theory. There are a variety of sources from which Christians can turn to for moral guidance, including the Bible, God's law (such as the 10 Commandments), scriptures, parables and Jesus' teachings. However there is some variety within Christianity regarding how much importance should be given to each of these sources, as some believe that we should follow God's laws exactly as these tell us how he intended for us to live, whereas others reject legalism and turn to antinomianism, the belief that there are no fixed moral laws, and instead morality is the result of individual spontaneous acts. There is also some debate as to whether ethics based on religion should be absolute or relative. Some may believe they are absolute as God' will is universal and should therefore apply to everyone in all situations, whereas others argue that there are some situations in which God's will may not be clear, and therefore there is the possibility of leniency under certain circumstances where religious laws do not always have to be followed to the letter.
Firstly, Christians derive many of their religious ethics from the Jewish roots of Christianity, many of which are included in the Bible. This includes the belief that all humans were made in 'imago dei'. This implies that humanity was given a special status, especially when God 'breathed life into [Adam's] nostrils', which is symbolic of the special relationship between God and man. This suggests that the sanctity of life should always be the most important factor to consider when making ethical decisions. Therefore, anything that goes against this is wrong, including abortion and euthanasia, as they are disrespectful of the God-given gift of life. Christians also believe we have a duty to look after the world, as in the creation story, God gave us 'dominion over all the earth', which is interpreted to mean the concept of stewardship. This means that not only should we protect current life, but also look after the world to care for future generations as well.
Jesus' teachings are also one of the main sources that Christians turn to for moral guidance, as many of his parables and teachings contain messages and guidelines for how we should act and treat others. The message underlying the majority of all of Jesus' teachings is agape, the Christian concept of unconditional and universal love that is frequently emphasised and referred to in the Bible, especially in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus' teachings often suggest that while God's laws are obviously important, agape love should be the main factor we consider, and this will guide us to making the right moral decisions.
This concept of 'disinterested compassionate love' also forms the foundation for Joseph Fletcher's theory of Situation Ethics, which is another form of Christianity-based religious ethics. Fletcher developed this idea in the 1960s as the midpoint between legalism and antinomianism, and stated that as each individual circumstance is different, there should only be one fixed moral law that can be easily applied to all situations to determine the right thing to do. This moral law should be agape, as this is God's intention so must be intrinsically right. If we use agape to guide us in decision-making, we will always make the right and moral decision.
I didn't plan this essay very well, ran out of time before I could talk about Aquinas. But you should definitely mention how Aquinas developed Natural Moral Law, which is now the foundation of the Roman Catholic position, and we can make decisions based on the Primary Precepts, which will allow us to fulfil our God-given purpose.
Mark: 23/25
For Christians, morality is generally determined by the will of God, as they believe that anything God commands is right, therefore we should follow his commands and laws, as stated by the Divine Command Theory. There are a variety of sources from which Christians can turn to for moral guidance, including the Bible, God's law (such as the 10 Commandments), scriptures, parables and Jesus' teachings. However there is some variety within Christianity regarding how much importance should be given to each of these sources, as some believe that we should follow God's laws exactly as these tell us how he intended for us to live, whereas others reject legalism and turn to antinomianism, the belief that there are no fixed moral laws, and instead morality is the result of individual spontaneous acts. There is also some debate as to whether ethics based on religion should be absolute or relative. Some may believe they are absolute as God' will is universal and should therefore apply to everyone in all situations, whereas others argue that there are some situations in which God's will may not be clear, and therefore there is the possibility of leniency under certain circumstances where religious laws do not always have to be followed to the letter.
Firstly, Christians derive many of their religious ethics from the Jewish roots of Christianity, many of which are included in the Bible. This includes the belief that all humans were made in 'imago dei'. This implies that humanity was given a special status, especially when God 'breathed life into [Adam's] nostrils', which is symbolic of the special relationship between God and man. This suggests that the sanctity of life should always be the most important factor to consider when making ethical decisions. Therefore, anything that goes against this is wrong, including abortion and euthanasia, as they are disrespectful of the God-given gift of life. Christians also believe we have a duty to look after the world, as in the creation story, God gave us 'dominion over all the earth', which is interpreted to mean the concept of stewardship. This means that not only should we protect current life, but also look after the world to care for future generations as well.
Jesus' teachings are also one of the main sources that Christians turn to for moral guidance, as many of his parables and teachings contain messages and guidelines for how we should act and treat others. The message underlying the majority of all of Jesus' teachings is agape, the Christian concept of unconditional and universal love that is frequently emphasised and referred to in the Bible, especially in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus' teachings often suggest that while God's laws are obviously important, agape love should be the main factor we consider, and this will guide us to making the right moral decisions.
This concept of 'disinterested compassionate love' also forms the foundation for Joseph Fletcher's theory of Situation Ethics, which is another form of Christianity-based religious ethics. Fletcher developed this idea in the 1960s as the midpoint between legalism and antinomianism, and stated that as each individual circumstance is different, there should only be one fixed moral law that can be easily applied to all situations to determine the right thing to do. This moral law should be agape, as this is God's intention so must be intrinsically right. If we use agape to guide us in decision-making, we will always make the right and moral decision.
I didn't plan this essay very well, ran out of time before I could talk about Aquinas. But you should definitely mention how Aquinas developed Natural Moral Law, which is now the foundation of the Roman Catholic position, and we can make decisions based on the Primary Precepts, which will allow us to fulfil our God-given purpose.
Mark: 23/25
AS Part b) Aristotle's 4 Causes
b) 'Aristotle's Four Causes fail as a description of the real world.' Discuss. (10)
I agree with the above statement, as I believe that the four causes do not provide a successful description of the real world.
Firstly, Aristotle is suggesting that ecery obkect in the world has a purpose, and therefore requires an explanation for its existence. However it seems more likely that some things just exist as 'brute fact', as Russell would say, and we don't need to try and find an explanation for everything. Some may argue with this, saying that God created the world therefore must have created everything within the world with a purpose in mind, otherwise an object's existence would be useless. However, there is no evidence to suggest that anything was made with a purpose. As Dawkins stated, we 'see the world through purpose-tinted spectacles'. We ask the question 'why do things exist?' and therefore assume that there is an answer. However Dawkins is suggesting that the question itself is invalid, and instead we should simply accept the existence of the world without trying to impose an explanation upon it. Therefore, Aristotle's theory of the Four Causes is unnecessary and simply speculation, and should not be applied to the real world.
Furthermore, Aristotle assumes that everything has a cause, and therefore the Prime Mover is the first cause and the reason for the world's existence. However, the principle of causation is untrue. As Hume stated, 'it is possible for us to conceive of a thing not existing one second and existing the next', therefore it cannot be a priori that every effect needs a cause. Therefore we can dismiss Aristotle's theory, which is based on causation and the Prime Mover being the ultimate cause of the universe. Some may argue that Hume is wrong, and everything does need a cause, as we can see from observation that everything has a chain of efficient causes, and 'without a first cause there would be no subsequent causes', as put forward in Aquinas' Summae Theologiae. On the other hand, modern science has now shown that in actual fact, not everything does have a cause. Quantum physics has been able to show that particles can randomly come into existence with no apparent cause, which completely contradicts one of Aristotle's most fundamental principles, and therefore his theory of the Four Causes is no longer valid or successful when applied to the real world.
In conclusion, despite Aristotle putting forward a logical argument to explain everything's existence using the Four Causes, I do not believe that it is a successful theory when applied to the real world, as not everything can be categorised into the four causes. Some things exist for no apparent reason, and we need to accept this without unnecessarily trying to provide explanations.
Mark: 10/10
I agree with the above statement, as I believe that the four causes do not provide a successful description of the real world.
Firstly, Aristotle is suggesting that ecery obkect in the world has a purpose, and therefore requires an explanation for its existence. However it seems more likely that some things just exist as 'brute fact', as Russell would say, and we don't need to try and find an explanation for everything. Some may argue with this, saying that God created the world therefore must have created everything within the world with a purpose in mind, otherwise an object's existence would be useless. However, there is no evidence to suggest that anything was made with a purpose. As Dawkins stated, we 'see the world through purpose-tinted spectacles'. We ask the question 'why do things exist?' and therefore assume that there is an answer. However Dawkins is suggesting that the question itself is invalid, and instead we should simply accept the existence of the world without trying to impose an explanation upon it. Therefore, Aristotle's theory of the Four Causes is unnecessary and simply speculation, and should not be applied to the real world.
Furthermore, Aristotle assumes that everything has a cause, and therefore the Prime Mover is the first cause and the reason for the world's existence. However, the principle of causation is untrue. As Hume stated, 'it is possible for us to conceive of a thing not existing one second and existing the next', therefore it cannot be a priori that every effect needs a cause. Therefore we can dismiss Aristotle's theory, which is based on causation and the Prime Mover being the ultimate cause of the universe. Some may argue that Hume is wrong, and everything does need a cause, as we can see from observation that everything has a chain of efficient causes, and 'without a first cause there would be no subsequent causes', as put forward in Aquinas' Summae Theologiae. On the other hand, modern science has now shown that in actual fact, not everything does have a cause. Quantum physics has been able to show that particles can randomly come into existence with no apparent cause, which completely contradicts one of Aristotle's most fundamental principles, and therefore his theory of the Four Causes is no longer valid or successful when applied to the real world.
In conclusion, despite Aristotle putting forward a logical argument to explain everything's existence using the Four Causes, I do not believe that it is a successful theory when applied to the real world, as not everything can be categorised into the four causes. Some things exist for no apparent reason, and we need to accept this without unnecessarily trying to provide explanations.
Mark: 10/10
AS Anselm's Ontological Argument
Explain Anselm's Ontological Argument. (25)
Anselm put forward the ontological argument in his prayer
‘Proslogion’ in order to explain how God’s existence must be true by
definition, or a priori. He uses deductive logic, which means that his
conclusion is logically necessary if you also accept the a priori evidence he
provides. Anselm’s argument is an example of ‘faith seeking understanding’, as
he believed that true understanding of God can only be a result of pre-existing
faith and belief – his personal motto was ‘credo ut intelligam’, meaning ‘I
believe so that I may understand’. Therefore Anselm’s argument is heavily
influenced by his ideas of God, and uses these to understand God’s existence,
unlike other arguments which aim to use a posteriori evidence and use inductive
logic to explain how these point towards God’s existence.
In the first half of Anselm’s argument, he explains how the
definition of God means that his existence is necessary through deductive
logic. He states that we conceive of a God as ‘a being than which none greater
can be conceived’. Anselm then shows that this is the universal view of God,
regardless of whether the person is religious or an atheist. This is because
Anselm believes this to be a priori, meaning it is an objective truth and
therefore true by definition, so the concept of God is true even in the mind of
‘the fool’, Anselm’s term for atheists. This definition therefore implies that
God is the greatest being, as we cannot imagine anything greater. Anselm is, in
a way, describing God’s perfection in a similar way to how we describe
infinity. It is difficult to pinpoint an exact definition, but is never-ending
and is always greater than we can conceive. In order for God to be this
perfect, he must not lack any qualities, as this means that something with the
qualities he is lacking could be greater than him, which is impossible.
Therefore, if we are to accept the definition of God being the greatest being,
then it is logically necessary for us to also accept that he must have the
quality of existence, as without this, he would not be perfect.
This is how Anselm explains God’s existence, however this
could simply explain how God exists in the mind as a concept, not necessarily
that he exists in reality. Anselm then goes on to address this issue by saying
that something which exists in reality must be greater than something that
exists solely in the mind. For example, if we were to imagine the perfect
island, the perfect island that exists in reality must be greater than the concept
of the perfect island we are thinking of. Therefore, Anselm applies this logic
to the topic of God’s existence. He says that if we accept that God is the most
perfect being and therefore must exist, he must exist in reality as well as in
the mind, as this is the only way for him to truly be perfect. Existing as a
concept in the mind is not quite perfect, as it still lacks the quality of
existing in reality, meaning anything else that does exist could be better than
God, which is impossible.
In the second part of his ontological argument, Anselm looks
at how it is impossible for God not to exist, and looking how this then proves
that God’s existence is necessary. The fool, or atheist, would state that God
exists in the understanding alone, as it is clear that everyone has a concept
of God, just as we have a concept of all other imaginary creatures like fairies
and mermaids, however this does not mean God exists in reality. However, Anselm
states that this argument is a contradiction and therefore a fallacy and cannot
be true. This is because if God does exist as a concept, then the concept we
have of him must be ‘a being than which none greater can be conceived’, meaning
that he is still the most perfect being. If this definition is accepted, then
it is logically necessary for God to exist in reality as well as just the mind,
as things which exist in reality are more perfect than things which exist
simply as concepts. Therefore, by proving the fool’s statement illogical using
Reducto ad Absurdum, he is further supporting his own viewpoint that it is in
fact necessary for God to exist in reality.
Linking back to Anselm’s point of ‘faith seeking
understanding’, he believes that atheists’ lack of belief in God is simply due
to a lack of understanding about what God is. If atheists are made aware of the
definition and nature of God, for example that he is the most perfect being,
then they will have no choice but to also accept the necessary conclusion that
he also exists in reality.
Mark: 25/25, comment: "Excellent - concise yet detailed. Full use of philosophical concepts. I like your patient style of writing."
AS Classical Telelogical Argument
a) Explain the classical design argument for God's existence. (25)
The teleological argument is one of the most popular and successful arguments for the existence of God, and is an example of Natural Theology, as it uses a posterior evidence and draws upon observations of the world to support our understanding of God. As it is based on the natural world, the argument has a vast amount of supporting evidence, one of the key concepts being that everything in the universe shows evidence of having complexity and purpose ('telos' itself meaning 'purpose'), suggesting that there was a mind behind the apparent design within the universe, and this must have been designed by a higher being. However this higher being is not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God, as Platonic theories point towards a 'demiurge', a minor God who created the universe but is not a theistic deity.
One of the main points for the evidence of the classical design argument is that the universe shows order and complexity, and that everything is seemingly governed by natural laws, such as gravity. Isaac Newton was particularly concerned with this idea, demonstrating in 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' that the universe follows mathematical principles, calling this 'the system of the world'. He implied that the world runs very similarly to a machine, with repeated and predictable patterns. Therefore it is only natural to draw the conclusion that if the world is a machine, it needs a machine-maker, as if we know we can't find machines randomly in nature, surely the same applies to the universe?
Aquinas used very similar inductive logic to Newton, as he observed that everything in the universe follows Natural Laws, such as gravity. Aquinas was also influenced by Aristotle in the way he believed that everything in the universe has a goal or purpose that it acts towards. He then states that as this is even true of inanimate objects, and 'something without intelligence could not move towards an end unless it were directed by a deity with knowledge', there must be a being causing the universe to act in this way, just as there must be an archer responsible for guiding an arrow towards a target, and this being must be God.
This 'design qua purpose' approach was also put forward by William Paley, who makes further use of analogous logic. Paley stated that if we were to come across a rock, it would be fine to assume that there was no explanation for it, and it had come about by chance. However, if we were to come across a watch, we would assume that there must be a rational explanation for its existence. The logic we would use follows as: the watch shows evidence of order, purpose and regularity (with several parts working together for one purpose), things which have order, purpose and regularity have a design, therefore the watch must have had a design and designer. Paley states that as the universe shows order, purpose and regularity just like the watch, the same logic can be used, and therefore we can come to the conclusion that the universe had a designer.
Mark: 25/25, comment: "Super! Full explanations of all the key scholars, strong use of technical language (maybe a few more quotes would be useful)."
The teleological argument is one of the most popular and successful arguments for the existence of God, and is an example of Natural Theology, as it uses a posterior evidence and draws upon observations of the world to support our understanding of God. As it is based on the natural world, the argument has a vast amount of supporting evidence, one of the key concepts being that everything in the universe shows evidence of having complexity and purpose ('telos' itself meaning 'purpose'), suggesting that there was a mind behind the apparent design within the universe, and this must have been designed by a higher being. However this higher being is not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God, as Platonic theories point towards a 'demiurge', a minor God who created the universe but is not a theistic deity.
One of the main points for the evidence of the classical design argument is that the universe shows order and complexity, and that everything is seemingly governed by natural laws, such as gravity. Isaac Newton was particularly concerned with this idea, demonstrating in 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' that the universe follows mathematical principles, calling this 'the system of the world'. He implied that the world runs very similarly to a machine, with repeated and predictable patterns. Therefore it is only natural to draw the conclusion that if the world is a machine, it needs a machine-maker, as if we know we can't find machines randomly in nature, surely the same applies to the universe?
Aquinas used very similar inductive logic to Newton, as he observed that everything in the universe follows Natural Laws, such as gravity. Aquinas was also influenced by Aristotle in the way he believed that everything in the universe has a goal or purpose that it acts towards. He then states that as this is even true of inanimate objects, and 'something without intelligence could not move towards an end unless it were directed by a deity with knowledge', there must be a being causing the universe to act in this way, just as there must be an archer responsible for guiding an arrow towards a target, and this being must be God.
This 'design qua purpose' approach was also put forward by William Paley, who makes further use of analogous logic. Paley stated that if we were to come across a rock, it would be fine to assume that there was no explanation for it, and it had come about by chance. However, if we were to come across a watch, we would assume that there must be a rational explanation for its existence. The logic we would use follows as: the watch shows evidence of order, purpose and regularity (with several parts working together for one purpose), things which have order, purpose and regularity have a design, therefore the watch must have had a design and designer. Paley states that as the universe shows order, purpose and regularity just like the watch, the same logic can be used, and therefore we can come to the conclusion that the universe had a designer.
Mark: 25/25, comment: "Super! Full explanations of all the key scholars, strong use of technical language (maybe a few more quotes would be useful)."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)