As Clearly And Carefully As You Can Essay Sample

morals requires ethics to be free. Conversely, Brink notes that voluntarists reject moral autonomy, claiming that objective ethics presupposes divine command (assuming God's existence).

Threshold references the concept that something is considered good or right only if it has the approval of God. He argues that objective morality is dependent on faith in God and that this morality can only exist if God is present and issues divine commands, which we as humans can use to gain moral knowledge.

The statement of voluntarists presents certain challenges. It suggests that all moral truths depend on the approval of God. If God had a different will and favored other things, then these things would be considered good or bad, right or wrong.

Moreover, the moral position of things changes if God approves something that is different from what he approves of now. Brink gives an example that suggests if God had not condemned rape and racism, they would not be considered morally wrong. Similarly, if God were to approve something in O, it would alter its moral status.

According to K., these actions are deemed morally acceptable, despite having a fundamental flaw. Brink acknowledges that theists may argue that God would not condone such behavior.

Brink argues that even though people may claim that God is absolutely good, this does not address the arguments of voluntarists. They assert that even if God is good, this does not necessarily mean that He cannot do certain things.

The statement "and hence god wouldn't O.K. bad things" actually weakens voluntarism because it implies that God's goodness lies in his approval of himself, which is arbitrary and dependent.

One argument against voluntarism is that it suggests

that what is right or wrong may not be certain. This goes against common sense, making the deduction of voluntarism counterintuitive. Another argument is known as the "supervenience argument," which challenges the notion that moral facts depend on the will of God.

If the moral properties of a situation are determined by its natural properties, then the moral properties supervene on the natural properties. Brink contends that if a situation's natural properties dictate its moral properties, then its moral properties cannot be dependent on the Will of God. He adds that if voluntarism is correct, then two situations could possess different moral properties despite having no natural distinctions between them.

It is possible for one system to be unfair if God has different attitudes towards two items of the same type. However, having an absolute, identical system does not necessarily mean it will be unfair.

The second objection lodged against voluntarism is that it entails rejecting the supervenience of moral properties on natural ones, a counterintuitive deduction. The third objection is a substantial claim asserting that if God arbitrarily selects what is deemed good or right, it undermines the concept of morality as a objective and universally applicable system.

When individuals express the phrase "God is good," it can seem trivial and lacking in substance. This statement suggests that if voluntarism is accurate, then ascribing goodness or correctness to God would be insubstantial. For example:

Even though we have the liberty to pick our own courses, the standard of our output is not dependent on which course we opt for. Despite the fact that gaining an A and receiving compliments may appear noteworthy, it might not accurately represent our capabilities.

Opponents

of non-voluntarism argue that it could weaken God's all-encompassing power. Non-voluntarists hold the belief that moral qualities exist independently from God's desires.

According to the text, moral Torahs that are beyond God's control would pose a challenge to His omnipotence, implying that naturalism is incompatible with omnipotence.

When considering the existence of God, naturalism is rendered misleading according to George Mavrodes. He also asserts that faith is crucial to the foundation of morality. Essentially, Mavrodes argues that if faith were disregarded, morality would suffer.

According to Mavrodes, the lack of belief in God not only has psychological but also actual consequences. This is exemplified by Dostoevsky's quote: "If there is no God, then everything is permitted."

According to Mavodes, morality can be assumed from faith and a moral statement can be made about God's existence. He argues that without God, people would not be obligated to fulfill moral duties. To support his argument, Mavodes refers to Russell's non-religious view of the universe and explains that in such a universe, morality would be unevenly valued. In essence, what he is saying is that in the Russelian universe...

There are certain situations where we are obligated to behave morally, even if it means experiencing negative consequences. For example, fulfilling duties like paying off a debt or taking risks can result in personal losses and harm. Mavodes argues that it would be unreasonable if meeting obligations always led to negative outcomes.

According to Mavodes, the absence of a Russelian universe could nullify moral obligations, thereby indicating that non-religious morality is subjective and based on faith. Nevertheless, this viewpoint contradicts the stance of non-voluntarists who claim that spirituality is not necessary for upholding moral principles.

Voluntarists

and non-voluntarists have long debated the foundation of morality. Voluntarists believe that morality originates from God's will, arguing that moral properties existing independently from God would challenge His omnipotence. On the other hand, non-voluntarists refute this claim by stating that it implies contingency regarding what is right or wrong or denies the supervenience of moral properties over natural ones, both leading to counterintuitive conclusions and should be dismissed.

Although both positions entail singing, I personally prefer the non-voluntarist stance as it presents a stronger opposition to voluntarists.