Divine Command Theory, Objectivism, Diversity and Dep Theses

1. Explain what is meant by facial expression that a take account is immanent? How are instrumental determine related to intrinsic hold dears? A value is said to be intrinsic if an object has the value for its knowledge sake or because of its nature. A value is said to be instrumental if it aids in achieving or acquiring almostthing with intrinsic value. For example, iodines job could have instrumental value in that it acquires m sensationy. Furthermore, money could have instrumental value in that it can provide objects from which one derives happiness or pleasure, something with intrinsic value.Objects or activities with instrumental value typically aid in acquiring things with intrinsic value. 2. consort to the Divine education conjecture (DCT), does deity command what he commands because it is intrinsically good or is what God commands good because it is God who commands it? The Divine Command Theory suggests that what God commands is good because He commands it, yet t his view is not necessarily valid. harmonise to the DCT, goodness is equated with God-willed, suggesting that the commands of God are good because they are His commands.A statement such as God is good becomes redundant and illogical if good is equated with God-willed. It would be more logical to think that Gods commands have intrinsic goodness since infidels and other nonbelievers can identify with some object lesson foundation. An atheist might choose to believe that God was level in saying that killing is handle not because he believes in Gods ledger but rather he believes that the rule is intrinsically good. 3. According to the Divine Command Theory why should we obey the moral jurisprudence?According to the Divine Command Theory, we should obey the moral law because it is the word of God. The DCT suggests that chastely well(p) means willed by God, so acting in compliance with moral law is essentially synonymous with acting in compliance with the word of God. Since God determines the moral law, no other suit is required for us to obey. 4. Explain why the DCT logically makes skillfuleousness arbitrary. why is arbitrariness a problem for morality? The Divine Command Theory suggests that morally right simply means willed by God.If something is morally right based solely on what God determines, an unsettling arbitrariness arises extinct of His commands. It would bet that God could just as easily make seemingly scrofulous acts moral (i. e. rape, genocide). The problem with arbitrariness is that it makes the development of a deeper, more appreciative morality absolutely impossible. An example can be made out of the story of Joshua and the battle at Jericho. If we are to believe that God determines what is morally right and prostitute, then we believe that Joshua was just in slaughtering the men, women, and children because it was Gods command.In this scenario, this belief prevents the development of a moral understanding that murder is wrong, a severe problem for morality. 5. Define and explain honourable Relativism, Ethical Absolutism, and Ethical Objectivism. Ethical relativism is the idea that moral right and wrong are be deep down a monastic order/culture or by an individual. The going between society ( pompous honorable relativism) and an individual (subjective estimable relativism) defining morality is very clear. Subjectivists hold that individuals are allowed to define what is right or wrong, but this would suggest that criminals (i. . murderers, cannibals, rapists) are correct and morally right when they engage in their crimes, since no one can ever be wrong. Conventionalists would hold that a society or culture is left to define moral right and wrong. However, it would allow for any group to declare their ideals right or just, suggesting that groups with degraded ideals (i. e. congregations of rapists, murderers, etc. ) would be just as morally right as pro-life activists. Ethical absolutism holds that f undamental, absolute moral right and wrong exist and must not be defied by anyone, regardless of context.However, the ethical objectivist believes that there exists a universal morality relevant to all concourse and cultures, but with context taken into consideration. For example, the ethical absolutist would believe that a mother stealing medicine to help her sick child is wrong because the bottom line is that stealing is wrong. However, the ethical objectivist would hold that the mothers reasoning was sound and that her moral obligation to help her child overrides her moral duty to the law. 6.Explain how the transformation dissertation together with the Dependency Thesis logically imply the conclusion that Ethical Relativism is true. Then, give at least dickens arguments against ethical relativism. Are there reasons to believe that there are some objective values that apply in any society? The Diversity Thesis is an anthropological fact stating that moral right and wrong take leave amongst different societies, so there are no fundamental or universal morals held by all societies. The Dependency Thesis states that what is morally right and wrong is dependent upon what the society defines as right and wrong.If twain of these hold true, and conventional ethical relativism is described by a society in which moral right and wrong are defined within the society, then the connection is clear. The Diversity Thesis coupled with the Dependency Thesis entail the conclusion outlined in conventional ethical relativism. on that point are a number of arguments to be made against the idea of conventional ethical relativism. For example, some cultures view their women as inferior to men, withholding elementary rights (and in some cases, inflicting genital mutilation).While this whitethorn be seen by a majority of the society as acceptable, it is often argued that the disregard for military personnel rights is immoral. The ethical relativist would argue that the societ y is right in doing whatever it collectively thinks is right. In this case, and in many more, it is clear that the society is not always correct in defining moral right and wrong by its own standards. Additionally, the ethical relativist might argue that the pro- thraldom movement in early the States was morally sound because the society thought that what they were doing was morally right. The notion that slavery is wrong is now more widely accepted, but a coup doeil not too far into our countrys past would rotate otherwise. This is an obvious example of why ethical relativism is incorrect and can unwittingly allow immorality to be permissible. It is sound to think that the value of human life is an objective value relevant to all societies. While it may be recognized to varying degrees in different parts of the world, it is right to acknowledge human life as something to be universally cute by all societies.