Evaluation of Natural Moral Law
- Created by: _bella_
- Created on: 28-01-19 09:59
View mindmap
- Natural Moral Law Evaluation
- G.E. Moore- Naturalistic Fallacy
- Good cannot be defined through nature, it is a naturalist fallacy. Goodness is unanalysable and cannot be defined by any reference of nature
- Can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. If our human nature ‘is’ to procreate doesn’t mean we ‘ought’ to.
- Barth- Humans are corrupt
- Relies too much on reason - human reason is too corrupt to be trusted and not enough on the grace of God and revelation
- The Fall is an example of this
- Suggests there is a common fixed human nature that applies to all people
- Interpreted rigidly (e.g. by the Catholic Church), cannot cope with individual moral problems
- Hard to apply basic precepts to complex situations e.g. spending on schools vs. hospitals (one PP over another?)
- Moral law is accessible by our reason and it makes God's reason accessible to a believer because humans and God share the same rationality
- Arguably that is putting God and humans on the same level- despite God being a higher power
- We are made in God's image
- It is logical and doesn't disregard human emotion
- Supports the use of reason and emotion. So it is open to everyone, religious or not
- Simple rules that can be followed by everyone
- PP are common to all societies. Suggests a universal truth
- Doesn't cater to non-religious people, as it argues synderesis is innate due to God
- Double Effect
- Brings in consequentialism. Allows some terrible things because of double effect.
- G.E. Moore- Naturalistic Fallacy
Comments
No comments have yet been made