In today's discussion, we examined one logical expression of the idea that there is a theological foundation for morality, in the form of a deductive argument:
P1. Person#1 exists.
P2. Person#1 has said that X is morally right.
C. Therefore, X is morally right.
In other words, whether an action is moral or not depends simply on whether (a very specific) someone has said so.
HW: Your task has two (2!) parts. FIRST (as a comment below): Does the above argument work in general - that is, for ANY Person#1 and for ANY X? If not, then why should I suppose that it works for some very specific Person#1 and for certain specific Xes? SECOND: look up the term "biting the bullet." We will be using it in class tomorrow.
The argument does not work in general because one person cannot make moral decisions for anyone but themselves. In terms of god, at least how I understand it, the idea is that god would have made people live perfect lives,by making them incapable of breaking a strict set of morals, but he decided to test them by giving them free will, and letting them choose to follow his code, in a sense the code of the universe, or to go against them. If we can accept that god created morals as a system by which people could live in perfect peace then it seems fair to say that the above argument works for god, and only god.
ReplyDeleteEach person is capable of making his own decisions. There is not a right and wrong decision. Therefore, I do not think that if a person proclaims an action morally right it becomes correct. More specifically, even if god sets guidelines or morals through the ten commandments there are no morally right actions merely because I do not believe that actions can be categorized into right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that this works in general( the majority of the time atleast) because i dont think all people can agree on it because the all have their own opinions on what is moral so no matter what someone says they will make their own opinion about it and be able to decide for themselves whether it is favorable to them to believe what one person says over another person based on trust and instinct.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that this argument works in general. Every person has a different opinion. Of course many opinions may be similiar, every single person in the world does not agree on everything. This argument is assuming, and you can not assume that everyone would agree on a certain subject because almost, if not every time someone is going to disagree.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't work because everyone could be thinking of a different thing and have sets of morals or religious beleifs leading them once place or another. This could lead to a morally right or wrong statement in anothers view point. I thought we went over this in class? ooo i see your checking if people will look on the blogg.....i seee, i think with this statemet you could say rediculous things and i guess it would be morally right. So this statement is easily wrong.
ReplyDeletemake C. Therefore X is morally right for person. It would now be valid, but its also says nothing now. I know im not the first to say that morality is only opinion, and thats all it ca ever be.
ReplyDeleteand why is bullet bill here?
ReplyDelete