Our negative responses to all these things helps to create their outcome. How sad it would be if God has simply created a world devoid of any problems with people who never need struggle with making the right decision. Whether it is called “soul making” or character development the world is enriched by qualities such as love, compassion, generosity, and mercy. No definite answer can be reached as to why evil exists, but philosophy helps us to examine our own beliefs and consider why it is we think as we do. Sources: Augustine, St. Augustine’s Confessions VII.
Inwagen makes a case for the above reasoning by using an analogy that shows human do not always act on their wants, that they are able to bring about, because they have reasons not to and this can be extrapolated to God. (Reason and Responsibility, 109) The next question then is: what this reason, or reasons, to ... ... middle of paper ... ...table to punish Hitler’s son for his father’s crimes? No it’s not morally acceptable because he was simply not responsible for them. Then, how can God inflict humans with evils today for what human ancestors did? There is no morally acceptable reason to do this.
Karamazov would not consent either, and he stated that he would gladly return his ticket to the entrance of heaven because he cannot understand the existence of God as a perfect being if He allows for children to suffer. Karamazov renounces harmony at the cost of all the suffering that takes place in the world because he sees “Chris-like love for people as a miracle impossible on earth” (1). He claims that harmony comes at a high price and demands justness here on earth, not in the after life. Therefore, his rejection of God is the rejection of a place where oppressors and victims live in “harmony” among ... ... middle of paper ... ...sensible validation in catastrophic suffering, and we must not justify it as part of some divine purpose or for the greater good of humanity in the afterlife; humanity needs justice on earth. Such need to justify cruelty and agony eliminates the incentive for victims and their families to overcome sorrow, grief, and misery, especially if the explanation lies in the after-life.
It is, obviously, hard to justify one child hitting another; however the fact that Jeremy continued quietly with his work does suggest that the punch either did not hurt that badly or even that he felt that he deserved to be hit. Furthermore, the teacher can be seen as being right to not act upon Phillip hitting Jeremy, as it was morally right. This links to Buzzelli and Johnston’s belief that “teaching itself involves moral action” and that “teachers are moral agents”. This adds with Homan who said that “ethics is the science of morality”. So, whilst taking these theories into account, the teacher’s lack of acknowledgment (of Phillip’s behaviour) can be seen as being ethical, as it was morally correct for the child who was being extremely provoked to retaliate.
Glaucon’s three examples prefer injustice, and he gives examples of the acceptance of injustice over justice. The only factual foundation that his argument holds, is that sometimes we let our wants and desires muffle our conscience. Sometimes we make bad decisions even though our conscience tells us it’s bad, but we ignore it because we desire our wants. Everyone will have their own views on this, but it really varies upon each person. Someone may be unjust and they can completely agree because they are reaping the benefits from being unjust versus when they were a just person, they just haven’t experienced the consequences of being unjust.
Since God made us in His image, shouldn’t we have some part of us, however small, that is incorruptibly good? He puts the blame of evil on our free will. This means that God was not the creator of evil and could be both wholly good and omnipotent. Augustine also addresses the problem of bad things happening to innocent people. All of his arguments seem valid to me.
Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not. V. Conclusion If it wasn’t already obvious, I believe that Altman is wrong. I believe that strengthening the proverbial skin of society is more important that pitting it’s individuals against each other on issues of what’s ok and not ok to say. Altman appeals to his own morals in which giving individuals the equality that is due to them and the right to not be treated as a lesser member of society are of ultimate importance.
At some point his idea makes sense. To live in a strict utilitarian society you would need someone to decide what the greater good would be for all. I would to some extent agree with him on that point. But the truth is we don't live in a utilitarian society. “A good will is not a good because what of effects or accomplishes because of its fitness to attain some proposed end but only because of its violati... ... middle of paper ... ...ately lights upon what is in fact in common interests and in conformity with duty and hence honorable, deserves praise and encouragement but not esteem; for the maxim lacks moral content, namely that of doing such actions not from inclination.” (Page, 11, Kant) Second, possessing and maintaining one's moral goodness is the very condition under which anything else is worth having or pursuing.
Besides deontology’s forgetfulness of consequences, it also has other unforgivable flaws. Kant clearly states that you can only be a good person if you do good actions strictly out of duty, and nothing else. I don’t believe this is true. While an individual may find happiness from doing a good action, it does not mean they are a bad person. In fact, I would say finding happiness from a good action would make a person better than if they were only doing the action for a duty and because they felt they had to.
If God were omnipotent, He would have the capability to stop them. If God were omnibenevolent, loved us, and only wanted the best for us, then why would He even make us miserable in the first place? Surely, there must be a morally sufficient reason (even if we do not know, nor may we ever know). If God possessed these characteristics, then He would seek to find solutions to these sufferings in order to make His creations happy. If God knows of and is able to do this yet He refrains, then He must not be perfect.