'Divine Command Theory, Objectivism, Diversity and Dep Theses\r'

'1. Explain what is meant by saying that a think of is internal? How atomic number 18 instrumental values cogitate to intrinsic values? A value is state to be intrinsic if an object has the value for its avow sake or because of its nature. A value is say to be instrumental if it assists in achieving or acquiring somewhatthing with intrinsic value. For example, unmatchable’s hypothesise could have instrumental value in that it acquires cash. Furtherto a greater extent, money could have instrumental value in that it puke provide objects from which one derives happiness or pleasure, something with intrinsic value.Objects or activities with instrumental value typic completelyy aid in acquiring things with intrinsic value. 2. According to the portend Command scheme (DCT), does graven image command what he commands because it is in and of itself full(a); or is what perfection commands â€Å" goodish” because it is divinity who commands it? The bode Command Theory suggests that what God commands is â€Å"good” because He commands it, but this view is non necessarily valid. According to the DCT, â€Å"goodness” is equated with â€Å"God-willed,” suggesting that the commands of God ar â€Å"good” because they atomic number 18 His commands.A statement such as â€Å"God is good” becomes redundant and illogical if â€Å"good” is equated with â€Å"God-willed. ” It would be more logical to think that God’s commands have intrinsic goodness since dis cerebraters and other(a) non imaginers can identify with some chaste foundation. An atheist business leader choose to believe that God was reclaim in saying that â€Å"killing is wrong” not because he believes in God’s war cry but rather he believes that the rule is intrinsically good. 3. According to the Divine Command Theory why should we obey the clean fairness?According to the Divine Command Theory, we should ob ey the moral law because it is the develop of God. The DCT suggests that â€Å" chastely counterbalance-hand(a)” means â€Å"willed by God,” so acting in respect with moral law is essentially synonymous with acting in compliance with the word of God. Since God determines the moral law, no other reason is required for us to obey. 4. Explain why the DCT logically makes morality arbitrary. Why is arbitrariness a problem for morality? The Divine Command Theory suggests that chastely â€Å" serious” simply means willed by God.If something is morally â€Å" business” based solely on what God determines, an unsettling arbitrariness arises come in of His commands. It would seem that God could just as easily make manifestly â€Å"immoral” acts â€Å"moral” (i. e. rape, genocide). The problem with arbitrariness is that it makes the growth of a deeper, more appreciative morality short impossible. An example can be made out of the story of Josh ua and the battle at Jericho. If we are to believe that God determines what is morally â€Å" correct” and â€Å"wrong,” then we believe that Joshua was just in slaughtering the men, women, and chelaren because it was God’s command.In this scenario, this printing prevents the development of a moral understanding that get rid of is wrong, a severe problem for morality. 5. Define and relieve respectable Relativism, Ethical Absolutism, and Ethical Objectivism. Ethical relativism is the opinion that moral â€Å"right” and â€Å"wrong” are fix at bottom a society/culture or by an individual. The difference between society (conventional estimable relativism) and an individual (subjective respectable relativism) defining morality is truly clear. Subjectivists hold that individuals are allowed to define what is â€Å"right” or â€Å"wrong,” but this would suggest that criminals (i. . murderers, cannibals, rapists) are correct and morally â€Å"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 â€Å"right” and â€Å"wrong. ” However, it would allow for any collection to declare their topicls â€Å"right” or â€Å"just,” suggesting that groups with â€Å"immoral” ideals (i. e. congregations of rapists, murderers, etcetera ) would be just as morally â€Å"right” as pro-life activists. Ethical absolutism holds that fundamental, arbitrary moral â€Å"right” and â€Å"wrong” exist and moldiness not be defied by anyone, regardless of context.However, the estimable objectivist believes that there exists a universal morality germane(predicate) to all people and cultures, but with context interpreted into consideration. For example, the honourable absolutist would believe that a drive stealing medicine to help her sick child is wrong because the bot tom line is that stealing is wrong. However, the ethical objectivist would hold that the mother’s reasoning was give out and that her moral obligation to help her child overrides her moral duty to the law. 6.Explain how the â€Å"Diversity Thesis” together with the â€Å"dependence Thesis” logically imply the conclusion that Ethical Relativism is true. Then, give at least two 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 â€Å"right” and â€Å"wrong” falsify amongst different societies, so there are no fundamental or universal morals held by all societies. The Dependency Thesis states that what is morally â€Å"right” and â€Å"wrong” is dependent upon what the society defines as right and wrong.If both of these hold true, and conventional ethical relativism is set forth by a societ y in which moral â€Å"right” and â€Å"wrong” are defined within the society, then the connection is clear. The Diversity Thesis united with the Dependency Thesis entail the conclusion describe in conventional ethical relativism. There 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 basic rights (and in some cases, inflicting genital mutilation).While this may be seen by a majority of the society as acceptable, it is often argued that the give the axe for mankind rights is immoral. The ethical relativist would argue that the society 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 eternally correct in defining moral â€Å"right” and â€Å"wrong” by its own standards. Additionally, the ethical relativist might argue that the pro-slavery movement in early th e States was morally sound because the society thought that what they were doing was morally â€Å"right. The notion that slavery is wrong is now more widely accepted, but a glimpse not too far into our country’s foregone would prove otherwise. This is an obvious example of why ethical relativism is incorrect and can inadvertently allow sinfulness 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 variable degrees in different parts of the world, it is safe to roll in the hay human life as something to be universally valued by all societies.\r\n'