Explain how belief in the Sanctity of Life may influence ethical approaches to Abortion.
Explain how belief in the Sanctity of Life may influence ethical approaches to abortion. Abortion has been a hotly debated issue throughout history, especially with those who believe in the Sanctity of Life. Abortion was legalised in the England, Wales and Scotland in 1967 but remains illegal in Northern Ireland due to the strong ties to Christianity and also the teaching of the Sanctity of Life that can follow. The sanctity of life argument is often put forward from a Christian viewpoint, and is supported in particular by the Roman Catholic Church, which has always strongly and openly condemned the act of abortion. Believers in the Sanctity of Life take a deontological position in which love and compassion for all human life takes a significant role. These people are referred to as pro-life whilst the opposition, who believe in the mother's right to have an abortion, are known as pro-choice. The latter prefer to argue from a Quality of Life view, which allows the mother to choose the fate of her baby, especially under circumstances such as rape or the disability of the child. Therefore they do not, like the pro-life campaigners, adopt the belief that all life has intrinsic value - that life is deemed valuable because it exists. The Sanctity of Life works on the basis that human life is sacred from the moment of conception and immediately we can see problems conflicting
How does the Judeo-Christian tradition solve Euthyphros dilemma
Asses the claim that God created humanity for a purpose Many people object to this statement due to a variety of reasons. Some question, if God created humanity for a purpose why would he want us to suffer, why would such an almighty one create something that results in the pain of others. This view may come from an Atheists point of view. An atheist could object the statement, '"That if there is a God then there would be no suffering therefore there must be no God". There are many incidents throughout history which back up this belief such as, the holocaust in the Second World War. Millions of innocent Jewish people where brutally killed due to the ludicrous decisions of one man. Surely such suffering is not a purpose for humanity. All the wars that have ever taken place in History also back up this argument that if there was a God would he not have stopped all this mass suffering before it happened or using his powers bring peace. According to the scriptures God is more than able to carry out tasks such as ending the suffering of the world. He is omnipotent, meaning he is all powerful, nothing is impossible for him. Furthermore he is described as omniscient and omnibonevolent, which states he is all loving and all knowing. How can it be possible that such a well described character allow major flaws in day to day life such as suffering and evil? Surely evil and suffering
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
Give an account of the ontological argument for the existence of God
A) Give an account of the ontological argument for the existence of God. 5 marks Ontological means "concerned with being." God's existence is one of the most common and significant questions asked by man though all time. The ontological argument is seen as a priori argument. A priori argument is bases on a general principle before any evidence is produced, it is based on logic. There are many philosophers who have tried to find out the truth about God's existence. One of the main philosophers who argues that God exists is Anslem. He says that God is described as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." God exists in both the mind and in reality. This is a good part of the argument because if he exists in the mind, you can make improvements on him for when he exists in reality. God is described as having necessary existence, there is nothing else out in the world that could have created or destroyed him. If this was the case then it would mean that there is something more powerful out there than can destroy God and he would then be affected by time and space just like the rest of us. The world is full of contingent beings, but God is not one of those he does not depend on anyone for his existence. He is not affected by time and space, if he was then he would be a limited being like everyone else. God has NO limits. God must have necessary existence and be a
Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality
Compare Contrast and Evaluate Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality At the time Nietzsche and Mill were writing conventional morality was, and arguably still is today, Christian morality, best summarised as Kant's Deontological Ethics. Interestingly both of the two Philosophers take a similar stance towards this view of morality. They are both concerned that it's uniform approach leads to a stagnation of ideas, what Mill refers to as an "unthinking mediocrity" and Nietzsche calls "a herd morality". However they offer radically different alternatives, Nietzsche's assessment of the 'herd morality' develops into him championing 'Master Morality', whereas Mill's assessment develops into his liberal utilitarianism. These alternatives come about from the subtle differences in their assessments as to why these problems evolve, and it is through looking at how their alternative moral codes developed from their views on conventional morality that we can get the best illustration of how their views differ. It could be seen that Nietzsche's development from his criticism of conventional morality is more logical, in the sense that his morality is a logical evolution of his assessment, yet we must accept that - on the surface at least - society seems to hold closer Mill's ideals. One example of how Nietzsche seems to have the more logical approach would be Mill's justification of
Aristotle and four causes
Essay: Aristotle Q1a) Explain Aristotle's Theory of the Four causes. (33 marks) Q1b) Aristotle's theory of the four causes is convincing. Discuss. (17 marks) A1a) Aristotle was a Greek Philosopher who was a pupil of Plato. Aristotle rejected Platonic dualism. Aristotle was an empiricist; he believed that knowledge is only attainable through experience and the senses. He believed that the Form of something is physical, observable and not abstract. Aristotle identified four causes that he believed to completely explain what causes something to exist. The material cause answers the question what does it consist of? The efficient cause answers the question how does something happen? The formal cause answers the question what are its characteristics? The final cause answers the question why is it here? Or what is its purpose? Once all four causes have been established, it was Aristotle's belief that the complete explanation for the existence of an item has been found. The most important of these causes is the Final Cause This is concerned with the ultimate end or function of why something exists. Aristotle believed everything had a purpose (Final Cause). This belief is known now as the teleological explanation for the existence of God. The final cause of a natural object - a plant or an animal - is not a purpose, plan, or "intention. The four causes, especially the first two,
Ensayo de teoria de conocimiento
"Al ampliar el campo del conocimiento no hacemos si no aumentar el horizonte de la ignorancia." (Henry Miller) "Al ampliar el campo del conocimiento no hacemos si no aumentar el horizonte de la ignorancia." Esta frase nos puede dar la impresión que es simple pero en realidad se encuentra detrás de un sinfín de interrogantes. Para saber entenderla es necesario saber lo que significa los dos factores que sustentan la pregunta: conocimiento e ignorancia. Y ¿qué es conocimiento? Es el conjunto de datos sobre información y hechos que son almacenados a través de la experiencia, de lo que cada persona durante su vida va a aprendiendo (aprendizaje) o de la introspección. Para tener bien en claro el término conocimiento hay que saber las diferencias que hay entre éste e importancia ya que a veces confundimos la inteligencia con el conocimiento y creo que de esa forma podríamos salirnos o desviarnos sencillamente del tema principal. La inteligencia es la capacidad mental para entender, recordar y emplear de un modo práctico y constructivo, los conocimientos en nuevas situaciones. Si se compara esta definición con la de conocimiento, podemos distinguir la diferencia sin problemas. La inteligencia es una capacidad con la que se nace y es el que facilita el acceso y el procesamiento de conocimiento mediante nuestra mente y nuestros sentidos. En cambio, el conocimiento
HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY IN EXPLAINING THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL & SUFFERING IN OUR WORLD?
PHILOSOPHY ESSAY TASK: 'HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY IN EXPLAINING THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL & SUFFERING IN OUR WORLD?' Throughout history, the problems of evil and suffering have always been prevalent in the world. The problems can be split up into two types: moral evil and natural suffering. Moral evil is generally viewed as anything that is caused by humans and inflicts pain (physical or psychological) or death or obstructs life's freedom and/or expression; for example, murder, war, crime. Natural suffering is generally viewed as events that occur because of the physical world or environment; for example, earthquakes, volcanoes, flooding. Evil and suffering therefore present believers in the 'God of Classical Theism' with a logical problem- one of them being the 'Inconsistent Triad'. The 'Inconsistent Triad' consists of three premises: 1- God is omnipotent; 2- God is omnibenevolent; 3- there is evil in the world. All three premises cannot be true at the same time which means either God does not exist or there is no evil in the world. St Augustine of Hippo, who lived from 354 to 430 AD in the Roman Province of Africa, was a Manichaean (Persian and Dualist religion) in his early until he later converted to Christianity. Augustine proposed a theodicy, which is an attempt to reconcile the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God with the undeniable fact of
Writing to argue.
writing to argue "Writing to argue" is a very popular choice of writing for both exams and coursework. By carefully following the advice below you should be able to improve your grade ARGUMENT OR PERSUASION? Argument and persuasion are very similar styles of writing; indeed many treat them both as "writing that seeks to influence". There are some differences, however. An argument is an issue about which reasonable people disagree. An effective argument, therefore, will put forward a well-reasoned point of view, one that recognises but aims to counter other equally valid views; persuasion tends to be far more single-minded in its aim to change minds. A good argument is based, therefore, mainly on reason (even if this is passionately - even emotionally - conveyed); persuasion tends to be a more one-sided, personal and emotional conviction that only one way is the right way. ARGUMENT AND THE ANCIENT ART OF "RHETORIC" The art of argument and persuasion has been studied for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks called it "rhetoric" and its two most famous teachers were the two Greek philosophers, Aristotle and Cicero. CLASSICAL RHETORIC The Greeks believed that the ideal way to persuade someone was through the use of reason alone (which they called logos); however, they recognised that human weakness meant that two further techniques were also useful: the appeal to
Theories of the resurrection of the body are logically coherent.
Theories of resurrection of the body are logically coherent. Discuss. The idea of the resurrection of the body immediately implies life after death. It also implies that a body that has been destroyed can come back in a state of physicality. In this essay, I will argue that such way of approaching the idea of life after death is not wholly logically incoherent. However, I will also consider dilemmas linking to questions such as: does the idea of the resurrection of the body defies our personal continuity? Is the body necessary for personal continuity? And, finally, is death a reality or a type of incarnation of the body into another form? The key issues in arguing for the resurrection of the body comes when we begin to explore such questions as: does life after death necessarily necessitate a body? Can life after death ensure continuity of our personal identity? Firstly, I believe it is important to distinguish between the concept of 'resurrection' of the body and that of 'immortality' of the soul as both concepts argue for life after death. By 'resurrection' of the body I understand that a body that has experienced death and physical disintegration is able to come back to its original form. For instance, the example of Jesus' resurrection fits exactly the category. The body is destroyed and then resurrected exactly to how it was prior death. According to the doctrine of
