Describe Aristotle's teaching about the differences between the final cause and other sorts of causes.
a) Describe Aristotle's teaching about the differences between the final cause and other sorts of causes (33). Aristotle had different idea's, about philosophical knowledge and how we acquire it, to Plato. Aristotle came up with the theory of causality. He believed there was a relationship between cause and effect. He thought each thing or event has more than one "reason" that helps to explain what, why, where and how it is. Aristotle distinguished four causes. These four causes were the material cause, the efficient cause, the formal cause and the final cause. The final cause is, in Aristotle's opinion, the most important cause of all. This cause is what and object or some type of "thing" was designed to do or be. It is like the goal, or full development of an individual, or the intended function of a construction or invention. This is completely different from the other three causes. The material cause is the matter out of which a thing is made. Aristotle believed everything has a purpose and this wasn't enough to make the "thing" what it was designed to do. The efficient cause helps the "thing" to for fill its function. It is the means, which brings something about. It is the source of motion, generation or change. Thirdly, the formal cause, this cause produces the characteristics, which make the "thing" fit into whichever category it fits into. It is the species, kind
What is it meant by 'moral relativism?'
Situation Ethics 'What is it meant by 'moral relativism?' Moral relativism is the view that there are no objective ethical truths, that moral facts only hold relative to a given individual or society. According to this ethical theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa, there are no moral absolutes. The individual form of moral relativism is called subjectivism; this is where each individual has his or her own moral principles. An idea or opinion is limited by own experience, that opinion is true to the person even though another person may not agree. Conventionalism is an observable fact that moral values differ from society to society, for example, in the United Kingdom we believe that hanging is wrong, where as in China they do. The dependency thesis, moral values are created by society, they are a product of culture. The young experience and internalize values, they then conform to society; stick to the values and in the end everyone is conventionalist. Situation ethics deals with the situation. It's the action that brings the greatest number of love (agape) to the greatest number of people, which is good. With situation ethics you cannot prescribe rules but must make decisions to deal with the situations. It is a way of imitating Jesus or Gods love. The strengths of moral
Should euthanasia be legalised in the UK?
Should Euthanasia be legalised in the UK? Usually, ethics and morality-related topics are held responsible for yielding most of the controversial issues among societies. Those issues tend to vary from one place to another. One of the core concerns the Western world has been elaborately debating about is euthanasia, or, sometimes, preferably called physician-assisted suicide. Whilst involuntary euthanasia is found to be consensually morally impermissible, people still argue the acceptance and the moral aspect of voluntary euthanasia. Furthermore, passive form of euthanasia doesn't seem to fit our definition given at the onset since it results sometimes in a rather painful death and prolonged suffering. Therefore, active euthanasia seems to draw the most attention among activists and lawmakers. Is active euthanasia ethically acceptable? Should it be legalized? From my perspective, it's my belief that euthanasia should be legalised in this country. What if an individual would want to carry on living such a hard life to the extent were they cannot move or talk and have to have the burden of having someone spend their entire life attending to their needs. It's very understandable that they would not want this, as you or me may agree. But then if they did decide they wanted to die, it is not even legal to expect euthanasia in Britain. Is it really fair to send a highly
Comment on some weaknesses of the cosmological argument
Comment on some weaknesses of the cosmological argument The cosmological argument goes back to Plato and Aristotle. It was later developed by Arab philosophers such as Avicenna and Averroes, before its classic formulation in the first three of the Five Ways of Aquinas. It is based on the notion that an infinite regress (going backwards forever) is impossible, and that the existence of everything must be traced back logically to a first cause, God. The cosmological argument is based on the cosmos - the world - and so is a posteriori. The argument comes in three forms; motion or change, cause and contingency. The cosmological argument is so- called because it is based on the evidence of the cosmos, or world. From an examination of the world, it is claimed; we can prove the existence of a being who must have created it. This is called a posteriori reasoning; that is, reasoning that follows experience, or reasoning based on experiential data. However, it has been objected that the argument also relies on a priori reasoning; that is, reasoning that precedes experience. For instance, the claim that every event must have a cause is not the same as saying that every event in our experience has a cause. As David Hume said, perhaps the world has no cause, since we have no experience of universes being caused. The belief that every event must have a cause cannot either be proved
Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Be Opened to Oil Drilling?
Issue 7: Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Be Opened to Oil Drilling? The issue within these opposing arguments is focused on whether or not the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be opened to oil drilling. Dwight R. Lee argues that the benefits derived from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil exceeds the costs, so that drilling should be made allowable. Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins claims that ANWR oil should not be used as it is too expensive to utilize in comparison to other oil sources, it is too limited in its amount to compensate our energy needs, and the approach of its use is too susceptible to disorder. From a conservationist's perspective, the value of nature is fundamental in the benefits it offers to humans, while from a preservationist's perspective, nature possesses the right to maintain its value and the has right to be left alone. Both arguments, however, have comparable perspectives on this issue. "Both views agree that nature has a value; however, they disagree on the form that value" (118). Dwight R. Lee's argument primarily centers on the Audubon Society, which owns the Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary, and focuses into their strategy, which is to help others promote their business, which in turn promote their own business. The Audubon Society "has serviced to reaffirm and promote those values in a way that helps others, many of whom
Explain what is meant by Moral Relativism
Explain what is meant by Moral Relativism Moral relativism is the belief that morality does not relate to any absolute standards of morality to which everyone should comply with. It believes there are circumstances and situations in which actions or behaviour, that is usually considered to be 'wrong', can be considered 'right'. Many of these circumstances are to do with religion and cultures, traditions are frowned upon by outsiders but are acceptable to those within the culture, moral relativism respects their views and beliefs. Moral relativism is the opposite of absolutism. Absolutism believes that there are right and wrong rules which apply to all people all the time. It also believes that an immoral act is intrinsically wrong; it is not made wrong because of its situation or results. An absolutist would not look at a situation from ones perspective; they would look at it objectively and not take into account the consequences. It is deontological as they believe it is ones duty to act in that specific way. Directly opposing absolutism, Fletcher says that no actions in themselves are wrong it is their results that make them wrong and it is love that decides the good from the bad. This love is known as 'Agape' and is a self giving love for all. A clear example of the difference is abortion. A young girl has been raped and is now pregnant with a child; however this child
Moral absolutism. Moralism seems to be an essential component of American conservatism, whose adherents feel far more comfortable evaluating ethicality in terms of simple rules (i.e. morals) than in terms of harm/benefit.
Mrs Kirk Ethics - Moral absolutism Moralism, also know as moral absolutism, is the practice of interpreting the ethicality of various subjects (actions, people, etc.) as good or bad things based solely in terms of how well they conform to a particular moral code rather than by attempting to evaluate the harm or benefit caused by those subjects. It can also be described as "the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act." Most moralists allow for some exceptions to their moral rules, permitting conscience and empathy to override in cases where "sticking to the rules" would be clearly harmful. Those who refuse to allow exceptions to moral rules tend to be regarded as extremists Most religion is based on moralism, as one of the defining characteristics of religion is reliance on dogmatic rules for evaluating ethicality rather than an open and rational examination of the effects of ethically-significant entities. Moralism seems to be an essential component of American conservatism, whose adherents feel far more comfortable evaluating ethicality in terms of simple rules (i.e. morals) than in terms of harm/benefit. This sort of thinking seems to form the basis of much of the extreme right's attitude towards homosexuality, for example: homosexuals don't
Religious Studies - Ethics: Natural Moral Law
Religious Studies - Ethics Natural Moral Law a) Critically examine what is meant by Natural Moral Law. (8 marks) b) Analyse and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Natural Moral Law as a definitive ethical theory. (12 marks) a) Natural Moral Law is the ancient belief that we can deduce what is right and wrong by looking at nature, this being the one moral code that is applicable to all people. The main features of Natural Moral Law as an ethical theory are that it is unchanging, universally applicable and relevant to all circumstances. The theory is absolutist, objective, deontological and thought to be God-given. Natural Law has also been interpreted to promote the idea that human law through government is an extension of divine law. Although Natural Law is consistent with Christian thinking and scripture, it is not reliant upon them and fundamentally, it is a system of morality based on human reasoning. The origins of Natural Law can be found in the ancient world amongst the philosophers Plato and Aristotle who believed that there was a law within nature that could be applied to everyone. In the 4th Century BC, Plato presented the idea through a debate between 'Nomos' (human law) and 'Phusis' (natural law). Aristotle, who wrote 'Nichomachean Ethics', distinguished natural justice from human justice in his claim that human justice was subject to change according
Mark Smith Utilitarianism essay Jeremy Bentham's theory of utilitarianism states that when you make a decision, you should make this decision on how many people will receive pleasure or happiness from this decision. Bentham said that good was happiness. He believed that motives are unimportant and that only consequences count. He argued that motives can not be measured but consequences can. Utilitarianism is not based on religion but on consequences of an action, or thought and reason. Therefore a person can ignore rules and tradition when making a decision. Bentham states, "Morality is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to abstract rules. Morality is nothing more then an attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible to the world." Utilitarianism is based on teleology which identifies a theory which is not based on rules. Utilitarianism in it's simplest form can be summed up by the phrase, "the greatest happiness for the greatest number." E.g. most people like eating crisps and a minority likes eating oranges based Benthams theory everybody would have to eat crisps as the majority prefer crisps. Bentham believed that it is simply the quantity of pleasures that counts and that all pleasures had equal value and that one pleasure is no better then another. E.g. Playing chess has the same pleasure value as eating crisps. The hedonic
"It is impossible to be a Christian and joined the armed forces!" Do you agree? Support your answer with evidence from Christian (and other) teachings. I believe that it can be very difficult to be a Christian and join the armed forces but I do not believe that it is impossible. War is defined as armed hostilities between peoples, frequently different nations, sometimes between different parties within a nation, as in a civil war, or between one small group and the state, as in a guerrilla war. For followers of world religions often caught up in conflict, war poses fundamental questions about human worth and dignity. Many have questioned the ethics of the great bombing raids of WW II, When British and American bombers rained down fire and destruction on millions of German women and children, and the use by America of the Atomic bombs on Japan. In addition, when the Americans waged war in Vietnam in the 1960's, their express desire was not to kill the enemy but to 'incapacitate' as many civilians as possible. At one time individuals like Alexander and Rameses II were given the title 'the Great' for slaughtering human beings on the battlefield, but today few would view the killing of vast numbers of non-combatants for no rational purpose as anything other than a crime against humanity. The German Protestant reformer Martin Luther, alluding to the story of Samson in the