RS

To what extent is original sin the cause of all corruption in human societies? [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

The existence of corruption in human societies is one of the most enduring questions in philosophy and theology. Across history, every society has experienced violence, injustice, exploitation and the abuse of power, raising the question of why human beings repeatedly fail to achieve the moral good they appear to recognise. Christianity offers the doctrine of original sin as an explanation, arguing that humanity exists in a fallen condition which affects human nature itself. Augustine developed the most influential account, arguing that Adam’s disobedience in Genesis 3 damaged humanity’s relationship with God and resulted in all people inheriting a tendency towards sin. However, Augustine’s interpretation has been challenged by biblical criticism, modern science and philosophical objections about God’s justice. This raises the question of whether original sin remains a credible explanation of corruption. This essay will argue that, although Augustine’s literal account of inherited guilt from Adam is difficult to defend, the deeper concept of original sin as a universal corruption within human nature remains the most convincing explanation of why all human societies experience moral failure.

The strongest argument for original sin as the cause of corruption is that it explains the universality of human wrongdoing. Augustine argued that the Fall damaged human nature, leaving humanity with concupiscence, a tendency towards disordered desire. Humans are not completely evil, but they naturally struggle to place goodness above self-interest. This provides an explanation for why corruption appears in every society regardless of culture, political system or historical period. If corruption was caused only by external factors, then societies should eventually be able to eliminate it through better education, laws or political reform. However, history suggests that every society develops forms of corruption because every society is created by morally imperfect people. This insight is not limited to Christian theology. Immanuel Kant argued for the existence of “radical evil”, suggesting that human beings possess a fundamental tendency to prioritise self-interest over moral duty. Although Kant did not accept Augustine’s doctrine of original sin in a traditional Christian sense, his philosophy supports the idea that moral failure is rooted within human nature rather than simply caused by social circumstances. Similarly, Sigmund Freud’s account of human psychology challenged the optimistic belief that humans are naturally good and corrupted only by society. Freud argued that human beings possess unconscious desires and aggressive instincts which civilisation must restrain. Although Freud rejected religious explanations, his understanding of the conflict between human impulses and moral expectations provides further support for the idea that humanity contains a deep internal tendency towards wrongdoing. Therefore, original sin can be understood as a theological explanation of a reality recognised more widely: human beings repeatedly fail to live according to their own moral ideals.

A further strength of original sin is that it explains why human attempts to create perfect societies repeatedly fail. Augustine argued that earthly societies, the civitas terrena, are inevitably flawed because they are based on humanity’s tendency towards self-love rather than love of God. This does not mean governments and institutions are useless, but it suggests that no political system can completely remove corruption because the individuals operating those systems remain morally imperfect. This provides a challenge to thinkers such as Rousseau, who argued that humans are naturally good and are corrupted primarily by society. Augustine would argue the opposite: society is often corrupt because it is created by fallen human beings. G.K. Chesterton famously defended this idea in Orthodoxy, arguing that original sin is distinctive because it is a doctrine that can be observed empirically. His argument was that Christians do not need theology to notice that something has gone wrong with humanity; history itself demonstrates human selfishness, cruelty and irrationality. This does not prove the doctrine scientifically, but it does suggest that original sin provides a compelling explanation of a widespread human experience. Furthermore, the doctrine avoids the unrealistic expectation that education or social reform alone can perfect humanity. While these may reduce corruption, they cannot remove the deeper tendency towards selfishness. Therefore, original sin remains a powerful explanation for why corruption persists despite humanity’s repeated attempts at improvement.

However, critics argue that original sin cannot explain corruption because Augustine’s version depends on a problematic interpretation of Scripture. Augustine understood Genesis 3 as a historical Fall caused by Adam and Eve, and interpreted Romans 5:12 as teaching that Adam’s sin was transmitted to all humanity. Modern biblical scholars, however, argue that Genesis should be understood symbolically rather than as a literal historical account. Furthermore, evolutionary science challenges the idea that humanity descended from a single original couple who experienced a Fall at a particular moment in history. If humans evolved gradually, it becomes difficult to explain how sin could have been inherited biologically from Adam. The doctrine also appears to raise questions about God’s justice: if humans suffer because of Adam’s sin, then it seems unfair for God to hold humanity responsible for an act they did not commit. Pelagius criticised Augustine on exactly these grounds, arguing that humans are born morally neutral and possess the freedom to choose good or evil. However, these criticisms do not necessarily destroy original sin because they rely on a narrower interpretation than many modern Christians accept. Aquinas argued that original sin is not inherited personal guilt but a deprivation of original justice: humanity is born without the perfect relationship with God that Adam possessed. This allows the doctrine to explain human moral weakness without making God unjust. Likewise, rejecting a literal Adam does not necessarily remove the theological insight that humans share a universal condition of alienation from God. Therefore, although Augustine’s explanation requires development, the concept of original sin remains a credible account of why human societies are characterised by corruption.

In conclusion, original sin should be regarded as the fundamental cause of corruption in human societies because it explains the persistent tendency of human beings towards selfishness, injustice and moral failure. Augustine’s traditional account of inherited guilt and a historical Fall faces serious challenges from biblical criticism, science and philosophical objections about divine justice. However, the central insight of original sin survives these criticisms because it is not simply a claim about biological inheritance but an explanation of the human condition itself. Aquinas, Kant, Freud and Chesterton all, in different ways, recognise that humanity contains a deep tendency towards moral failure which cannot be explained solely by external circumstances. Therefore, original sin remains a powerful explanation of corruption: not because humans inherit Adam’s individual guilt, but because humanity exists in a condition where self-interest repeatedly overcomes moral responsibility. If societies are to address corruption, they must therefore recognise not only the need for better systems but also the deeper flaws within human nature itself.

Critically evaluate the Scriptural Reasoning movement as a response to religious pluralism in society. [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

As a result of migration and the communications revolution, religious pluralism has become one of the defining features of contemporary society, creating both opportunities for cooperation and challenges for traditional religious communities. The increasing visibility of different faiths has raised questions about how religions should respond to one another while remaining faithful to their own beliefs. One significant response has been the Scriptural Reasoning (SR) movement, which began in the 1990s through the work of scholars such as Peter Ochs, David Ford and Daniel Hardy. Originally focused on bringing Jews, Christians and Muslims together to study their sacred texts, SR encourages participants to explore differences through respectful conversation rather than attempting to remove disagreement. More recently, some practitioners have attempted to extend the approach beyond the Abrahamic traditions to include religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. Supporters argue that SR provides a realistic way of managing religious diversity because it promotes understanding without requiring believers to abandon their own truth claims. Critics, however, argue that it avoids difficult questions about religious truth and may be insufficient as a response to genuine theological disagreement. This essay will argue that Scriptural Reasoning is a highly valuable response to religious pluralism because it creates meaningful dialogue, strengthens social cooperation and respects religious difference, although it must be recognised as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, theological debate and religious mission.

The greatest strength of Scriptural Reasoning is that it provides a model of dialogue which respects both religious commitment and difference. Unlike John Hick’s pluralism, which argues that all religions are culturally conditioned responses to the same ultimate reality, SR does not require participants to compromise their beliefs. Hick’s approach has been criticised by many religious thinkers because it appears to redefine religions from the outside, reducing their distinctive claims about God, revelation and salvation. In contrast, Scriptural Reasoning allows Christians, Jews and Muslims to approach texts from within their own traditions while listening carefully to others. David Ford argues that dialogue requires “hospitality”, where participants welcome others without needing to eliminate disagreement. This is particularly important in pluralistic societies because conflict often arises from misunderstanding rather than from difference itself. For example, Christian, Jewish and Muslim participants may approach biblical and Qur’anic passages about Abraham differently, but SR enables them to understand why these interpretations matter within each tradition. The movement therefore avoids both exclusivism, which can lead to hostility towards other religions, and relativism, which can undermine genuine religious commitment. Instead, it suggests that people can remain convinced of their own beliefs while developing respect for those of others. Therefore, SR offers a balanced response to pluralism because it recognises difference as something to be explored rather than a problem that must either be ignored or eliminated.

A further strength of Scriptural Reasoning is that it has demonstrated practical value in improving relationships between religious communities. The movement has been used in universities, faith communities and interfaith initiatives to create spaces where people encounter one another beyond stereotypes and political assumptions. For example, the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme has used Scriptural Reasoning groups to bring Jewish, Christian and Muslim participants together for sustained theological discussion, helping build trust between communities. Similarly, the International Scriptural Reasoning Network has supported groups across different countries, demonstrating that the method can operate beyond academic contexts. Attempts have also been made to broaden SR beyond the Abrahamic traditions, recognising that pluralistic societies involve religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism as well. Although these developments raise questions about whether a method originally based around shared scriptural traditions can be transferred universally, they demonstrate the flexibility of SR as a tool for dialogue. Furthermore, the value of SR is not only intellectual but ethical. By encouraging participants to listen carefully and interpret texts together, it develops virtues such as humility, patience and empathy. These qualities are essential in societies where religious communities must cooperate on issues such as poverty, climate change and social justice. Consequently, even if SR does not solve theological disagreements, it provides a practical way for religious communities to live together peacefully.

However, critics argue that Scriptural Reasoning is an inadequate response to religious pluralism because it avoids the central question of whether religious claims are true. Scholars such as Gavin D’Costa argue that genuine interfaith dialogue must engage with competing truth claims rather than simply encouraging mutual understanding. From this perspective, Christianity cannot treat other religions merely as alternative perspectives because it makes distinctive claims about Christ as the means of salvation. Some Christians may therefore worry that SR weakens evangelism by suggesting that dialogue is sufficient without proclamation. This concern is reflected in Catholic teaching. In Redemptoris Missio, Pope John Paul II emphasised the importance of interreligious dialogue but maintained that it should exist alongside the Church’s missionary responsibility to proclaim Christ. Similarly, the Church of England’s Sharing the Gospel of Salvation recognises the importance of respectful engagement with people of other faiths while maintaining the uniqueness of the Christian message. These approaches suggest that dialogue and mission are not necessarily opposites. However, this criticism ultimately does not defeat SR because the movement does not claim to replace evangelism or theological discussion. Its purpose is to create conditions where such conversations can happen respectfully. In fact, dialogue may make religious witness more authentic because it requires believers to understand others rather than simply criticise them. Therefore, while SR cannot answer every theological question raised by pluralism, this is not a weakness if its purpose is understood correctly. Its achievement is not agreement about truth but the creation of relationships where disagreements can be explored peacefully.

In conclusion, Scriptural Reasoning is a valuable and realistic response to religious pluralism because it allows religious communities to engage deeply with one another without requiring them to abandon their distinctive beliefs. Its greatest strengths are that it promotes genuine understanding, avoids the weaknesses of relativism and has produced practical examples of improved interfaith relationships. Although critics rightly argue that SR cannot resolve fundamental disagreements about religious truth and must be balanced with the missionary commitments of traditions such as Christianity, this does not undermine its value. The Catholic Church and the Church of England demonstrate that dialogue can exist alongside commitment to evangelism rather than replacing it. In an increasingly diverse society, religious communities should therefore embrace Scriptural Reasoning as an important tool for building trust and cooperation, recognising that respecting another person’s faith does not require surrendering one’s own.

Church teaching should have no authority in Christian ethics. Discuss. [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

Authority is central to Christian ethics because Christians must decide who or what should determine moral truth. The Roman Catholic Church argues that Church teaching should have authority because Christ entrusted the apostles and their successors with preserving and interpreting divine revelation. Through the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church teaches authoritatively on moral issues, and Scripture and Tradition are seen as complementary sources of revelation. In contrast, most Protestant traditions reject this, defending sola scriptura: the belief that Scripture alone is the supreme authority, while Church teaching is valuable only insofar as it faithfully explains biblical teaching. The debate is therefore not about whether the Church has an important role, but whether it possesses authority in its own right. This essay will argue that Church teaching should have no independent authority in Christian ethics because only Scripture is uniquely inspired by God, the Church has repeatedly shown itself to be historically fallible, and although the Church is indispensable in preserving and interpreting Scripture, it should remain accountable to God’s Word rather than exercising authority over it.

The strongest reason for rejecting the authority of Church teaching is that only Scripture possesses divine inspiration. Protestants appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16, which teaches that “all Scripture is God-breathed”, arguing that while churches, councils and popes are human institutions capable of error, Scripture alone is God’s revealed Word. This conviction lay at the heart of Martin Luther’s challenge to the medieval Church. Luther argued that popes and councils had often contradicted one another, demonstrating that ecclesiastical authority could not be infallible. Consequently, he insisted that his conscience was “captive to the Word of God”, not to the Church. If Scripture is inspired while Church teaching is not, then granting both equal authority risks allowing human opinion to rival divine revelation. This does not mean the Church is unnecessary. Protestants have always recognised the importance of preaching, teaching and theological reflection. However, these activities derive their authority from Scripture rather than possessing authority independently. Critics argue that this places too much confidence in individual interpretation, yet Protestant thinkers such as Calvin respond that the Holy Spirit works directly in believers through the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, enabling Christians to recognise and understand God’s Word. Although sincere Christians may disagree on difficult issues, the possibility of disagreement does not justify transferring authority from God’s revelation to a human institution. Instead, it reinforces the need for humility and continual return to Scripture. Therefore, Church teaching should be respected as an aid to understanding Scripture but should never become an independent source of moral authority.

A second reason why Church teaching should not possess authority is that history demonstrates its fallibility. If the Church were an infallible moral authority, its ethical teaching would be expected to display consistency across time. Instead, many teachings have developed significantly. Attitudes towards lending money at interest, religious freedom and slavery have all changed, while contemporary debates over sexuality, gender and bioethics continue to generate disagreement even within the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics may explain these developments through Newman’s idea of the development of doctrine, arguing that the Church grows in its understanding of eternal truths without abandoning them. However, this response unintentionally weakens the claim that Church teaching deserves independent authority. If moral teaching develops because of new historical circumstances and deeper reflection, then it is difficult to argue that every previous teaching carried unquestionable authority. Rather, Church teaching appears capable of correction, refinement and even reversal. This suggests that its authority is provisional rather than absolute. By contrast, Scripture remains the fixed point against which all later teaching must be measured. Karl Barth expressed this relationship by insisting that the Church always stands under the authority of the Word of God rather than above it. The Church exists to hear, proclaim and obey God’s revelation, not to replace it. Consequently, Christian ethics is best protected when the Church recognises its proper role as interpreter and servant of Scripture rather than as an independent authority capable of defining morality for itself.

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic case presents a serious challenge to this conclusion. Catholics argue that the Church’s authority actually precedes Scripture. Christ founded the Church before the New Testament existed, commissioned the apostles to teach in his name and promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. Furthermore, the canon of Scripture did not fall from heaven fully formed. It was recognised by councils of the early Church, such as Hippo and Carthage, meaning that Christians accept the Bible because the Church identified which books belonged within it. Biblical criticism strengthens this argument by showing that Scripture is neither simple nor self-interpreting. Different literary genres, historical contexts and apparent contradictions require careful interpretation, while the existence of thousands of Protestant denominations suggests that sola scriptura has not produced doctrinal unity. Catholics therefore argue that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium so that authentic interpretation remains possible and Christian ethics is protected from confusion and relativism. This is undoubtedly the strongest defence of Church authority because it addresses genuine weaknesses within Protestantism. However, it does not ultimately establish that Church teaching should possess authority in its own right. The early Church did not create Scripture but recognised the books that were already inspired by God; recognising authority is not the same as originating it. Likewise, the need for interpretation does not imply the existence of an infallible interpreter. The same Holy Spirit who guided the early Church in recognising the canon is also promised to the whole body of believers, not exclusively to bishops or popes. Indeed, if the Spirit prevented error within the Magisterium, it becomes difficult to explain why Catholic moral teaching has itself developed over time. Biblical criticism demonstrates the complexity of interpretation, but complexity is not evidence that authority belongs to the Church rather than to Scripture. Instead, it highlights the need for faithful scholarship, communal discernment and intellectual humility. Church teaching therefore deserves significant respect because of its wisdom, historical continuity and theological expertise, but respect should not be confused with authority. The Church remains accountable to Scripture, not its master.

In conclusion, Church teaching should have no independent authority in Christian ethics because only Scripture is uniquely inspired by God and therefore capable of functioning as the final standard for Christian moral decision-making. The Church undoubtedly plays an essential role in preserving the biblical canon, teaching believers and helping Christians interpret difficult passages, and the Catholic emphasis on the guidance of the Holy Spirit rightly reminds Christians that faith is lived within a community rather than in isolation. Nevertheless, these important functions do not justify granting the Church authority equal to or above Scripture. History demonstrates that Church teaching is capable of development and correction, whereas Scripture remains the enduring measure against which every tradition must be judged. Christians should therefore value the Church as a faithful teacher and interpreter, but continually test every ethical claim against God’s revealed Word, ensuring that the Church remains the servant of Scripture rather than its sovereign.

“Knowledge of God only comes through Jesus Christ” Critically evaluate this claim. [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

“Knowledge of God only comes through Jesus Christ” is a claim strongly associated with twentieth-century neo-orthodox theology. It rejects the idea that human beings can discover God independently through reason or nature (natural theology) and instead insists that God is known only where God chooses to reveal himself (revealed theology), but also rejects the more common Protestant claim that knowledge of God can be derived from Scripture in itself, arguing instead that knowledge of God comes only through Jesus Christ, to whom Scripture is a witness. Scholars such as Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer strongly support the claim because they argue that sinful humanity cannot reach God through its own intellectual efforts. Instead, revelation in Christ is the sole reliable source of divine knowledge. Although some theologians defend natural theology and religious experience as genuine paths to God, this essay will argue that knowledge of God ultimately comes only through Jesus Christ because human reason is too limited and corrupted to attain true understanding independently of divine revelation.

Firstly, knowledge of God comes only through Jesus Christ because human reason and natural theology are fundamentally unreliable after the Fall. Barth argues that God is wholly transcendent and cannot be discovered through ordinary human investigation. Human beings cannot “climb up” to God through philosophy, science or ethics because sin has distorted human understanding. Instead, God must reveal himself freely and graciously. For Barth, this revelation occurs uniquely in Jesus Christ, who is “the Word made flesh” from John 1. Jesus is therefore not merely one source of knowledge about God but the only true revelation of God’s nature. Barth famously rejected natural theology during his dispute with Emil Brunner, declaring “Nein!” to the suggestion that there is a natural human capacity for knowledge of God. Barth believed that attempts to know God apart from Christ risk creating an idol shaped by human desires rather than encountering the true God. This position is supported by biblical evidence, particularly John 14:9 where Jesus says, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” The implication is that God’s character is fully disclosed only in Christ. Barth’s view is persuasive because it recognises the limitations of finite human reason when discussing an infinite being. Natural theology may reveal only vague concepts such as a “first cause” or “designer”, but Christ reveals God personally as loving, sacrificial and redemptive. Furthermore, Barth’s emphasis on revelation protects Christianity from reducing God to an abstract philosophical principle. Critics may argue that Barth dismisses too quickly the value of reason, yet his approach successfully explains why Christian knowledge of God is centred on the incarnation rather than speculation. Therefore, Barth strongly supports the thesis that genuine knowledge of God comes only through Jesus Christ.

Secondly, Bonhoeffer develops this argument further by insisting that God is known only through participation in the suffering and person of Christ rather than through detached intellectual inquiry. Writing during the rise of Nazism, Bonhoeffer believed liberal theology had failed because it reduced Christianity to moral philosophy and ignored the radical revelation of God in Christ. In “Letters and Papers from Prison”, he argues that “God lets himself be pushed out of the world onto the cross.” This means that God is revealed paradoxically through weakness and suffering in Jesus rather than through worldly power or rational certainty. Bonhoeffer’s theology is profoundly Christocentric because he believes Christ stands “in the centre of human existence”. Human beings encounter God not through abstract reasoning but through discipleship and relationship with Christ. This is evident in his famous work “The Cost of Discipleship”, where he condemns “cheap grace” and argues that authentic Christianity requires following Jesus completely. Bonhoeffer’s ideas strengthen the thesis because they show that knowledge of God is experiential and relational rather than merely intellectual. Christ reveals not only that God exists but what God is like: self-giving love expressed on the cross. Bonhoeffer also demonstrates the practical consequences of revelation, since his opposition to Hitler arose from his understanding of Christ’s teachings. This gives his theology moral credibility and existential depth. Supporters would argue that natural theology could never reveal the specifically Christian understanding of forgiveness, sacrifice and salvation found in Christ. Although critics may claim Bonhoeffer’s approach is overly exclusive toward other religions, his theology compellingly explains why Christians see Jesus as the decisive revelation of God rather than simply one teacher among many. Consequently, Bonhoeffer reinforces the claim that knowledge of God comes only through Jesus Christ.

However, a significant counterclaim is that knowledge of God can also arise through natural theology, reason and religious experience independently of Christ. Thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas argue that the natural world reflects its creator and therefore provides genuine knowledge of God. Aquinas’ Five Ways attempt to demonstrate God’s existence through observation of motion, causation and contingency. Similarly, William Paley argued through the design argument that the complexity of nature points towards an intelligent designer. More modern scholars such as Richard Swinburne defend the cumulative power of natural theology and religious experience. These thinkers challenge the thesis because they suggest human reason is capable of reaching at least partial knowledge of God without Christ. Nevertheless, this counterclaim is ultimately unconvincing. Firstly, natural theology may indicate the possibility of some creator, but it cannot reveal the specifically Christian God of love and redemption. The cosmological and teleological arguments reveal little about God’s character, intentions or relationship with humanity. Secondly, the problem of evil undermines the idea that nature straightforwardly reveals God. If nature points to God, then disease, suffering and natural disasters may suggest a cruel or indifferent deity rather than the loving Father revealed by Christ. Barth therefore argues that natural theology produces ambiguous and contradictory conclusions. Furthermore, religious experiences are subjective and vary enormously across cultures and religions, making them unreliable as universal sources of truth. By contrast, Christians claim Christ provides a concrete historical revelation accessible through scripture and tradition. Even Aquinas himself believed revealed theology was necessary for salvation because reason alone was insufficient. Therefore, while natural theology may provide hints or preparation for belief, it does not provide complete or certain knowledge of God. The counterclaim ultimately fails because only Christ reveals the fullness of God’s nature and purposes.

In conclusion, knowledge of God comes only through Jesus Christ because human reason and natural theology are incapable of attaining full and reliable understanding of the divine. The strongest argument is Barth’s claim that sinful humanity cannot discover God independently and therefore depends entirely upon God’s self-revelation in Christ. Bonhoeffer deepens this insight by showing that God is encountered personally through the suffering, love and discipleship embodied in Jesus. Although natural theology and religious experience may point vaguely towards the existence of a creator, they cannot reveal the distinctively Christian understanding of God’s character and salvific purpose. Ultimately, Christianity stands or falls on the belief that Jesus Christ is not merely a messenger about God but God revealed in human form. Therefore, theologians and believers alike should prioritise Christ-centred revelation over purely rational approaches if they wish to attain authentic knowledge of God.

“The word conscience is best understood as an umbrella term for various factors involved in moral decision making.” Discuss (40)

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

We use the word “conscience” every day, but rarely stop to think about what it really means.  In broad terms, it usually refers to our inner moral compass, yet it can also refer to the voice of God within us, reason, how we apply our moral principles, our moral framework or even the internalised voices of our parents within our subconscious mind. Because of this, and because the arguments of those who have attempted to define the conscience as a specific thing are not persuasive, it is best to understand conscience as an umbrella term for various factors in moral decision-making.

Firstly, in the Bible various different words are used to refer to and sometimes translated as conscience.  In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word “lev” for heart suggests that there is an inner moral guide.  For example, “David’s heart condemned him after he had numbered the people. So David said to the LORD “I have sinned greatly in what I have done…” 2 Samuel 24:10 It was not until the rabbinic period that the Hebrew word matzpun referred to conscience. Etymologically it means “hidden north”, giving the suggestion of an inner moral compass. In the New Testament the Greek word syneídēsis means the capacity to apply general principles of moral judgment to particular cases.  The word is used frequently by St Paul, for example in Romans Chapter 2 “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” After the 4th Century AD the Greek word Synderesis / Synteresis started to be used in commentaries on both Old and New Testaments. The word synderesis is by most scholars reckoned to be a corruption of the Greek word syneidêsis (συνείδησις).  On the other hand, also in the New Testament, St Paul speaks of those whose consciences have become “seared with a hot iron,” 1 Timothy 4:2 meaning they no longer feel guilt for sin. Conversely, a “good” or “clear” conscience is seen as one that is aligned with God’s will (1 Timothy 1:5). In 1 Peter 3:16, Peter encourages Christians to maintain a clear conscience, so that they may stand firm in their faith and defend it with integrity when challenged. These references suggest that conscience is a distinct faculty that all human beings have.  Given that the Bible uses different words for conscience and implies that it is God’s law, an inner moral guide or compass, the capacity to apply general principles to specific cases, our moral character and a faculty which can be corrupted, it seems that the word conscience is not a single thing, but best understood as an umbrella term for various factors involved in moral decision making.

Secondly, following the Bible, different Christian scholars have used the word conscience to refer to different things. For example, Aquinas uses three different words to distinguish between three things people usually use the word conscience for; Ratio, Synderesis and Conscientia.  For Aquinas, the God-given and rational part of conscience is called RATIO, it commands us to pursue good and avoid evil and cannot be wrong. For Kant, this is reason itself, issuing us with Categorical Imperatives which we must choose to follow.  For St Augustine, Butler and Newman this is conscience as the “voice of God” speaking through our minds and calling us to do what is right, which they admit is not always the same as what is rational. For Aquinas also, the conscience is not a synonym for reason but also refers to a specific habit of reason that tries to work out what good and evil consist in. This practical part of reason (what Aristotle called Phronesis) is known as SYNDERESIS and it requires formation, moving from offering only the most general guidance towards being more and more specific.  While it is a duty to follow the guidance of synderesis, which is after all part of Ratio which cannot be wrong, because its guidance may be too general to be useful it might mislead us, such as leading us to pursue an apparent good and not a real good. In addition, for Aquinas, another part of conscience is CONSCIENTIA, the act of applying synderesis-guidance to specific situations.  This is what Fletcher refers to as conscience, defining it as a verb not a noun.  This shows that scholars use the word conscience to refer to the faculty of reason, the voice of God, the habit of practical reason and the act of applying moral rules to a specific situation… and that conscience is not a single thing, but best understood as an umbrella term for various factors involved in moral decision making.

Thirdly, psychologists have a variety of ideas about what the conscience consists in, that are independent of the Bible and based on scientific observations. While his methodology was criticised by Popper as pseudo-scientific, Freud saw conscience as part of the super-ego, part of the subconscious mind that represents internalised voices of our parents, societal norms, religious beliefs and moral ideals. Conscience is formed during early childhood, particularly through the oral, anal and phallic phases of psycho-sexual development, suggesting that while conscience is a specific part of the psyche, it is made up of the values of our parents or care-givers as influenced by repressed experiences in different ways, explaining why peoples’ consciences seem to guide them in different directions that are not always rational or consistent with prevailing social norms. Freud’s ideas influenced other psychologists, whose methodologies are more credible, again seeking to explain how consciences develop through childhood and differ between adults.  For Piaget, consciences develop from being heteronomous in early childhood to being autonomous during the teenage years, and developmental disorders therefore explain why some adults lack a moral conscience, why others have a strong sense of the conscience being like a moral compass pointing towards fixed rules and still others see it as a more flexible and situational process of decision-making.  Similarly, for Fromm conscience usually develops from being authoritarian into being more humanistic, but some people fail to develop leaving them with an authoritarian conscience into adulthood and conforming to rules imposed on them from outside without really engaging reason. This explains how totalitarian regimes sometimes succeed, and why there will always be those who oppose them on humanistic grounds.  Finally, Kohlberg built on the ideas of Piaget and Fromm to suggest that conscience continues to develop in adulthood for some, towards a post-conventional level which at Stage 6 involves the conscience being reason, applying universal moral rules. Kohlberg explains why some peoples’ consciences demand that they follow rational deontological ethics, while others suggest they should be more situational and relativistic in their decision-making while others still command them to conform with social norms. While Freud, Piaget, Fromm and Kohlberg suggest that there is a specific thing called the conscience, they stress how it develops and changes, giving guidance of different sorts.  They also have slightly different ideas of conscience from each other.  This also suggests that conscience is not a single thing, but best understood as an umbrella term for various factors involved in moral decision making.

In conclusion, the word conscience is not a single thing, but best understood as an umbrella term for various factors involved in moral decision making. From a Christian perspective, Friedrich Schleiermacher, a German theologian and philosopher, agreed with this, viewing conscience as an umbrella term that integrates various factors of moral self-awareness. From a social-scientific perspective Carol Gilligan (b.1936) in “A Different Voice” (1982) argued that conscience is an umbrella term that includes different moral orientations depending on one’s ethical approach (e.g., care ethics versus justice ethics). She suggested that the conscience is influenced by not just reasoning, but also empathy, relational dynamics, and the emotional ties that influence moral judgment.  Whether one is approaching conscience from a religious or non-religious perspective, seeing it as an umbrella term for various factors involved in moral decision making is the most credible approach.

Critically discuss different Christian interpretations of what heaven is like. [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

All Christians believe in heaven.  The belief is affirmed in the last line of the Nicene Creed “We believe also in… the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, in the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.” Yet Christians have different interpretations of what heaven is like, ranging from belief that heaven is a place much like earth, but perfected and everlasting, through to belief that heaven is a spiritual state or even entirely symbolic. Overall, it is the first of these interpretations, that heaven is a perfected, eternal place, that is most consistent with Christian doctrine.

Firstly, the Roman Catholic Church affirms that while human beings have a soul and a body, these form a single human nature, and according to Catechism 366 “[the soul] will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.” This suggests that our eternal life in heaven will be much like our life on earth, so that each person will have a soul and a body, but our life in heaven will be eternal and we will be with God, much as Adam and Eve were with God in Eden.  This view of heaven is consistent with Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels and with the fact that Jesus ascended into heaven, where he remains “at the right hand of the father”, which suggests that heaven is a place.  In the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25 Jesus describes a final judgement where people are judged and then sent off for an eternal life in heaven or eternal punishment in hell.  This confirms that there will be a final resurrection and judgement, as the Catechism says, and that heaven will be eternal life. Also, the Parable of Dives and Lazarus in Luke 16 describes heaven being separated from hell by a chasm, with those in hell being able to see and call to those in heaven.  Again, this suggests that heaven and hell are eternal places, of reward and punishment respectively.  Nevertheless, it is true that the two parables give different impressions of when people will go to heaven.  The Parable of the Sheep and Goats suggests that there will be a final judgement, followed by eternal heaven or hell, whereas Dives and Lazarus suggests immediate judgement and entry into heaven and hell while life on earth continues.  Despite this, Roman Catholic teaching makes sense of this through its teaching about purgatory, whereby the soul separates from the body and is reclothed in a heavenly body for purification in purgatory, a temporary hell, the gates of which will then be opened at the final judgement so that souls can be released and reunited with their risen bodies for final judgement and eternal reward in heaven, as appropriate. While purgatory is not supported by clear Biblical evidence, the Church was given authority to “bind and loose” by Jesus in Matthew 16:19 so the authority of the Church to add to Biblical revelation such as regarding purgatory is consistent with the Bible. Further, purgatory makes sense of how sinners can still hope for eternal life given what Revelation 21:27 says about heaven namely that “nothing impure will ever enter it”, and how God’s goodness and justice are compatible.  It follows that the Roman Catholic view of heaven as a place is most consistent with the Bible and Christian doctrine. 

Secondly, the idea that heaven is a spiritual state has always been popular because there is no physical evidence supporting the belief in heaven as a place while heaven as a spiritual state would not require such evidence.  Belief in heaven as a spiritual state is also compatible with Platonic Dualism; heaven would be like the world outside the cave in Plato’s famous allegory, illuminated by the sun and filled with the “forms” of things we only encounter as shadowy particulars in the body. Naturally, St Augustine’s view of heaven was influenced by neo-Platonism; he spoke of heaven as the eternal contemplation of God in Confessions Book XII.  Patly because of St Augustine, Platonic Dualism dominated the Classical and then Medieval worldviews, with philosophers such as Descartes seeing the soul and heaven saw as purely spiritual, with death being a liberation from the mechanistic snares of the physical body. There is some Biblical support for the view that heaven is spiritual; for St Augustine and later for Descartes, the ultimate reward was to see God face to face and have a perfect understanding of reality, as was promised in 1 Corinthians 13:12 and also in 1 John 3:2.  This might explain why Pope John Paul II seemed to imply that heaven and hell are spiritual states more than places in some remarks he made in 1999.  He spoke most particularly of hell, describing it as the absence of God in a way that is consistent with 2 Thessalonians 1:9 “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might”.  But the Pope also said “Heaven “is neither an abstraction not a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit…” this seems to suggest that the Pope supported the view that heaven is a spiritual state and not a place, contradicting his own Catechism.  Yet this is a misunderstanding of the Pope’s meaning. The Catechism affirms that through the sacraments we participate in Christ, who is in heaven at the right hand of the father, so through the sacraments Catholics have a “living personal relationship with the Holy Trinity” in heaven while they are still alive, tasting the heavenly reward they will one day enter each time they partake of the sacraments.  The Pope in his remarks was telling Catholics to focus on what heaven is to them now rather than speculating about what it might be like in the future in a way that cannot be accurate.  After all, the “Kingdom of Heaven” – at least as it will be after the end of time and judgment – does not exist yet. Also, neither the Bible nor Pope John Paul II’s remarks exclude the view that the Kingdom of heaven will ultimately be a place.  It could be that people are shut out from God’s presence while in a place that is Hell, or that they see God face to face and know God as he is while in the place that is heaven, described in other Biblical references.  Seeing heaven as a spiritual place casts doubt on the numerous references which suggest that heaven is a place.   Further, if heaven is a spiritual state only, this suggests that only our soul goes to heaven.  This implies that “I” am my soul and that my body is less important, which might encourage me to denigrate the body and/or see its actions as less important than those of the soul, as Gnostic heretics did during the first centuries of Christianity, and as Cathar heretics later did.  Because of the practical implications of these heretical positions, such as for sexual ethics, the Roman Catholic Catechism 362-368 specifically rejects these ideas, affirming that the body and the soul are a unity and are both necessary for eternal life.  The Roman Catholic theology of the body is consistent both with the doctrine of the incarnation, which shows the importance of the human body in that God chose to become incarnate in one, and with St Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honour God with your bodies.” So, it follows that the idea that heaven is a spiritual state is less consistent with the Bible and Christian Doctrine than the idea that heaven is a place.

Thirdly, the idea that heaven is a symbol of a person’s spiritual and moral life on Earth and not either a place or a spiritual state has grown in popularity through the later 20th and early 21st Centuries amongst ordinary believers, seeking to reconcile their faith with a scientific worldview. Amongst philosophers, Paul Tillich is most often associated with the argument that words used to describe heaven are symbolic.  However, by Tillich’s understanding of symbolic language, this does not suggest that heaven is not a place or spiritual state, because for Tillich symbolic language is cognitive and symbolic words participate in the objective reality to which they refer.  For Tillich, just as God is not a thing but is the “ground of our being”, ‘immortality does not mean a continuation of eternal life after death, but it means a quality which transcends temporality’ (Tillich 1963: 410 [vol. 3]).  This suggests that it is mistaken to imagine that heaven is a place like earth, because it will be timeless as God is timeless.  Nevertheless, Tillich did not suggest that “heaven is a symbol of a person’s spiritual and moral life on earth and not either a place or spiritual state.”  This idea might instead be associated with anti-realism and the belief that religious language takes its meaning not from correspondence and reference but from coherence within a religious form of life.  By this view, when a believer speaks of heaven, they would not be referring to a specific place or state after death, but to their hope for reward in union with God more generally.  It is fair to say that this position is neither compatible with the Bible nor with mainstream Christian doctrine.  The Bible speaks of what is “True” and not of what is “true for us” and so does Christian doctrine. Also, it is difficult to find scholars who really accept this anti-realist position.  While John Hick had some unconventional views about the afterlife and went so far as to describe the incarnation as a metaphor, he never suggested that talk of heaven is only symbolic.  In his earlier writings he implied that heaven was a place, populated by people in replica heavenly bodies, while in his later writings he spoke of some form of re-incarnation, whereby the energy of one life is reused in and influences future lives.  Hick was not an anti-realist and neither did he see heaven as a symbol.  Some textbooks suggest that DZ Phillips is a good example of a Christian who saw heaven as a symbol and not as a place or a spiritual state, and yet Patrick Horn describes this as a “caricature” of Phillips position, and is supported by others including Mikel Burley, who reject the basic claim that Phillips is a non-realist. While Phillips did claim that much religious discourse is “not fact stating”, he did not mean that it is non-cognitive but rather that it refers not to the worldly reality in which there can be facts, but to a different kind of reality.  For Tillich, Hick and Phillips, as for many other Philosophers of Religion through history, God’s existence is not like our existence.  God does not exist in the way that a cat exists, but that does not mean to say that he does not exist either.  As Aquinas put it, there is no-thing that is God… but God is not nothing.  Extending this to heaven, if heaven exists it would not be a place quite like earth but that doesn’t mean that it is not a place, so Tillich, Hick and Phillips is right to point out that religious language about heaven is neither like ordinary language nor only an expression of our own beliefs and hopes. This shows that the view that heaven is only a symbol is not compatible with the Bible, with mainstream Christian doctrines or indeed, even with the philosophy of those claimed to share this view.

In conclusion, the Roman Catholic view of heaven as a place is most consistent with the Bible and Christian doctrine.  While the view that heaven is a spiritual state is supported by some Biblical references and by parts of Catholic doctrine, both in the Catechism and in Pope John Paul II’s 1999 remarks, the view that heaven is ONLY a spiritual state is not compatible with the Bible or Christian doctrine as a whole. It could be that heaven is a spiritual state AND a place therefore.  Further, while some Philosophers have explored the nature of language that refers to heaven and have shown that claims are not ordinary fact-stating claims, the view that heaven is only a symbol is not found in scholarly works, probably because it is not compatible with either the Bible or with Christian doctrine.

Assess the claim that love (agape) is sufficient as the only source of Christian Ethics. [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

In John Chapter 13 Jesus taught his disciples “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”  The Greek word translated “love” in this passage is agape, which refers to the non-preferential humanitarian love that Jesus showed to people rather than the erotic eros or the friendly philos.  This is why some Christians regard agape-love as the only source of Christian ethics, because it was Jesus’ single new commandment and, of course, Jesus was God. Nevertheless, today few Christians agree with this, given that Roman Catholics follow heteronomous ethics and most Protestants a broader Divine Command ethic based on the whole Bible.  It follows that agape is not sufficient as the only source of Christian ethics.

Firstly, while John 13 does state that agape-love is the one commandment by which Christians will be known as Jesus’ disciples, Jesus said this in context.  In Jeremiah 31:33 God promised that “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” This suggests that Jesus was referring to the new covenant when he gave the commandment of agape-love, and meaning that Christians would follow all God’s law automatically in both letter and spirit, rather than that they would abandon the rest of the commandments and do whatever they felt was loving instead.  This interpretation is consistent with Matthew 5:18 “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished…” and with the rest of Jesus ethical teaching, which is more demanding than the Law of Moses and not less.  For example, in Matthew 5 teaches that Jesus equated anger with murder and lustful looks with adultery.  While Jesus was demanding that Christians should act with agape – treating others as they would wish to be treated and not only following the letter of the law – there is no sense that agape is an alternative source of ethics to the rest of God’s commandments.   The point is that a person acting with agape would neither be angry with somebody nor murder them, neither look lustfully at a woman nor commit adultery with her.  In this way it would be wrong to say that agape is sufficient as the only source of Christian Ethics.

Secondly, for Roman Catholics seeing agape-love as a sufficient basis for Christian Ethics ignores the importance of a well-formed conscience as well as of Scripture, Tradition and Reason (Natural Law) in shaping Christian teaching. Following St Thomas Aquinas’ reasoning, the Catechism affirms that the primary source of Christian ethics is the conscience.  When we face a difficult choice, it is a moral duty to follow conscience.  Our conscientia is that part of our practical reason that applies the general principles of Christian Ethics that we know through synderesis (principles which are consistent with Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law) to the specific situation at hand.  Nevertheless, because consciences can err, leading us to pursue apparent and not real goods, and because synderesis is a habit that needs to be developed, we must take care that consciences are properly formed through a Catholic education.  Church teachings, which underpin Catholic education, provide a short-cut to the decisions that a well-formed conscience would make and when the conscience diverges from Catholic teachings it is a good indication that the conscience is erring.  Pope Pius XII rejected situation ethics in 1952, even before its more agapeistic versions were developed by Joseph Fletcher and JAT Robinson, because while it is consistent with the Roman Catholic understanding of Christian ethics in encouraging Christians to act in conscience, because it ignores the need to form consciences or ensure that their decisions are consistent with Scripture, Tradition and Reason, it leaves individuals vulnerable and without proper moral guidance when they face difficult situations. Fletcher’s claim that there should be no absolutes in Christian ethics, no always and no nevers, conflicts with the Bible’s long list of prescriptive commandments and suggests that agape is instead of the law rather than a fulfilment of it, as Jesus taught.  It is also difficult to define agape-love.  For example, Immanuel Kant argued that human beings are “pathologically loving” and that an action motivated by this love always treat human beings as ends in themselves and never as mere means.  By contrast, Fletcher defends what he calls the agapeic calculus, the greatest amount of neighbour-welfare for the largest number of neighbours possible, making agapeistic ethics seem much like utilitarianism.  While by Kant’s definition, agape could never justify involuntary abortion, suicide or adultery… but Fletcher freely discusses situations in which these would, he implies, be the most loving course of action. Because of this central confusion, it is difficult for people not to confuse a genuinely agapeistic motivation with a more preferential or even selfish motivation. All this shows that it is wrong to say that agape is sufficient as the only source of Christian Ethics.

On the other hand, it is true that Jesus sometimes seemed to break the laws of Moses situationally, for the benefit of people. According to Mark’s Gospel, He healed on the Sabbath and allowed his disciples to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath, neither of which in life-threatening situations. It seems that Jesus was maximising peoples’ welfare and putting this ahead of obedience to the law, as Fletcher suggested.  Nevertheless, the laws concerning the Sabbath were, Jesus reasoned, there to serve man and therefore could and should be broken when they harm peoples’ welfare.  The same might not be true of other laws, such as the prohibition on murder in Exodus 20:13.  In Genesis 4 God says that Abel’s blood cries out to him from the ground and in Genesis 9 God demands an accounting for any human blood that is shed.  This might suggest that the law against murder is not only to serve humans, but also to serve God because God has an interest in human blood.  As St Paul confirms in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies.” Which implies that human life is sacred and owned by God, so murder offends against God and not only human beings.  If this is true, then it would be impossible to act out of agape-love and kill a human being, even in situations as extreme as outlined by Fletcher, because agape puts love of God first and ahead of love of neighbour, according to Mark 12:28-32. Kant would be right that agape always treats humanity as an end and never as a means to an end, even of maximising human welfare. This suggests that agape-love is not sufficient as a source of Christian ethics, unless one specifies that it includes love of God as well as and ahead of love of neighbour, which would bring following all of God’s commandments into the scope of agape, rather than accepting God’s laws only selectively. This interpretation would be consistent with a more mainstream Protestant Ethic, which aims to follow all those Divine Commands in spirit at least. 

In conclusion, it is wrong to say that agape is sufficient as the only source of Christian Ethic unless one is very specific in defining agape, stipulating that it includes love of God as well as and ahead of love of neighbour, so leads to a broader biblical ethic which always upholds the sanctity of human life.  Certainly, it is wrong to say that situation ethics is the only or even an acceptable Christian Ethic.

In meta-ethics, the term “good” has an objective factual basis. Discuss [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

In meta-ethics, in the past most scholars have held that the term “good” has an objective factual basis. Moral realists include ethical monotheists, who see the term good referring to God and God’s commands, as well as ethical naturalists, who see the term good referring to some quality that can be observed, and ethical non-naturalists, who see the term good referring to a rational intuition. On the other hand, since the early part of the 20th Century moral non-realism has come to dominate.  For example, non-realists like AJ Ayer and JL Mackie argue that the term “good” has no objective factual basis because it does not refer to a verifiable point of reference but rather expresses subjective feelings and emotions.  Overall, today the claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis is not persuasive.

Firstly, ethical monotheists claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis in God and God’s commands.  The Bible claims that “only God is truly good” Mark 10:18 and this is supported by both Classical Theism and Theistic Personalism, which have in different ways established that God is the omnibenevolent creator and the source of goodness in human actions. Further, at least for Protestant Christians, faith is Sola Scriptura and the Bible is a comprehensive moral guide, which suggests that what is good depends on God’s commands, which can be checked against the Bible, objectively.  Nevertheless, ethical monotheism is not credible.  Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma shows that if God is the source of moral standards, as ethical monotheism suggests, then God cannot be good but is an arbitrary tyrant.  On the other hand, if in fact there are objective moral standards that God follows, he can be good but is not the origin of goodness as ethical monotheists suggest, and neither is He all-powerful.  Bertrand Russell found the Euthyphro Dilemma so persuasive that he used it as the basis for a disproof of God. Further, centuries of Church history demonstrate the problems with the ethical monotheist claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis, when Christians so rarely agree on what it is or involves. Biblical Criticism shows that God’s commandments are not clear from the Bible, existing in different sometimes contradictory lists, being obviously influenced by the contexts of the biblical authors and being wide open to interpretation.  For example, the ten commandments are detailed in Exodus 20 and Exodus 34 and again in Deuteronomy 5.  The versions are phrased and organized differently, and the order of the coveting commandments is different between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.  Further, Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were love God and love of neighbour in Mark 12 and also that love was the only commandment in John 13.  Which commandments should a Christian follow and with what priority?  Further, the Commandments have always been interpreted differently by different Christians.  For example, Catholics and Lutherans combine the first two commandments, “no other gods” and “no graven images” while other Protestant Christians separate the first two commandments, making “no graven images” a separate commandment and leading to radically different attitudes to art and architecture even within Protestantism.  These examples show how ethical monotheism and its claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis is not credible.

Secondly, ethical naturalists claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis which can be observed.  For example, the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham argued that “nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters; the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain”, reasoning that “good” refers to actions which produce the maximum amount of pleasure, which can be observed and measured using the seven criteria of extent, duration, intensity, certainty, propinquity, purity and fecundity, as well as the minimum amount of pain.  However, ethical naturalism is undermined by the is-ought gap, which Hume explained thus “in every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it’s necessary that it should be observed and explained; and while a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”  Hume’s point was that we can observe nature and what is, but we can’t observe any basis for ought claims at all.  Ethical naturalism is based on assertion and not argument and has no observable factual basis for what it claims to be good. Further and despite being a moral realist and thinking that the term “good” has an objective factual basis, G.E Moore claimed that ethical naturalism relies on the “naturalistic fallacy”, the incorrect assumption that something is good because it occurs in nature or is considered normal in society.  For Moore, just because something is natural or normal does not make it good.  For example, misogyny and sexual violence have been endemic through history and still are across the world today… this does not make these good or right.  This shows that the claim that the term good has an objective factual basis cannot b supported through ethical naturalism either.

On the other hand, G.E Moore and other ethical non-naturalists have conceded that what is good depends neither on the commands of God nor on anything that can be observed in nature.  Instead, drawing on Plato, they have argued that we know what is good as a rational intuition.  This explains why people find some actions which go against laws and don’t maximise happiness are good… such as a soldier disobeying orders and getting himself killed while trying to save a comrade.  Nevertheless, ethical non-naturalism is no more persuasive a basis for the claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis than ethical monotheism or ethical naturalism.  The claim that we all know what goodness is as a rational intuition ignores the fact that people have widely different concepts of what is good.  Actions like that of the soldier are controversial… yes, some people would see him as a hero and say that his actions were “good” despite breaking the rules and compounding suffering… but many would reject this and argue that he should have obeyed orders and lived. Further, AJ Ayer was right to point out that claims about good, bad, right and wrong are better seen as expressions of subjective feelings and emotions, having no objective factual basis, than as having an objective basis in a rational intuition that we can’t observe or prove. Ayer’s argument develops that of Hume, that while we can observe what is, claims about what we ought to do are pure assertion and not verifiable.  Further, JL Mackie later agreed with Ayer, pointing out that ethical claims are based on an error and that moral judgments in fact “reflect adherence to and participation in different ways of life.”  Here Mackie was influenced by Wittgenstein, who had cast doubt on the ability of any term to have an “objective factual basis” arguing that meaning in language comes from usage and not reference so that it is not objective or factual. All these points suggest that ethical non-naturalism fails to provide any better defence of the claim that terms like “good” have an objective factual basis than ethical monotheism and ethical naturalism and that in fact ethical non-realism is more persuasive in its suggestion that terms like “good” have only a subjective basis.

In conclusion, the term “good” has no objective factual basis but is rather subjective and best understood as an expression of personal or communal feelings and emotions.  Today, ethical realism lacks credibility, so attention should be focused on refining ethical non-realism to provide the best possible explanation for how and why people use ethical language.

The five primary precepts are the most important part of natural law. Discuss [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

St Thomas Aquinas explained his theory of natural law, which shares many characteristics with other versions of natural law, in Summa 2i. 94.2.  He explained how natural laws are discoverable through RATIO, the human intellect, which is made up of SPECULATIVE REASON and PRACTICAL REASON.  Speculative reason reveals abstract notions and principles, such as “good is that which all things seek after,” then practical reason applies these to real life, developing moral precepts for us to follow.  For example, “this is the first precept of [natural] law, that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” Aquinas goes on to explain how “all other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man’s good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.” He elaborated on the precepts of natural law, listing and explaining primary and secondary precepts, explaining how “Since… good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance. Wherefore according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order of the precepts of the natural law.” Primary precepts are thus established as “objects of pursuit” or prescriptions and secondary precepts as “objects of avoidance” or prohibitions.  For examples, “whatever is a means of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law…” meaning that the preservation of human life is a primary precept and “do not murder” is a secondary precept. Aquinas also lists as primary precepts sexual intercourse, the education of offspring, knowing the truth about God and shunning ignorance as well as living in society, avoiding offending those amongst whom one must live.  Overall, the five primary precepts are not the most important part of natural law.

    Firstly, the five primary precepts are not the most important part of natural law because they are derived from the first precept “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided”, and different scholars have derived different lists of primary precepts, which have gone on to produce different lists of secondary precepts and disagreements in how natural law guides people in practical situations. Aquinas discussed whether or not his list of primary precepts was infallible in Summa 2i. 94. 2 and concluded that the first precept “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided” is infallible, because it is so closely related to the Primary Principle of speculative reason “good is that which all things seek after” and because speculative reason cannot be wrong, its objects being necessary truths.  Nevertheless, the primary precepts of the preservation of human life, sexual intercourse, the education of offspring, knowing the truth about God, shunning ignorance and living in society are known through synderesis, which must develop its understanding of these precepts as it is formed.  While nothing the synderesis suggests can be wrong, the list of primary precepts it provides might be incomplete, which explains why some societies seem unaware of some basic human goods.  Aquinas explains how it is possible to be unaware that living in society and avoiding offending neighbours is a primary precept, “thus formerly, theft, although it is expressly contrary to the natural law, was not considered wrong among the Germans, as Julius Caesar relates (De Bello Gall. vi).”  This would explain why later versions of natural law have listed the primary precepts differently, and particularly why some have added to Aquinas’ five.  For example, John Finnis lists seven basic human goods, including play and aesthetic experience.  This could be because Finnis’ synderesis has developed further than Aquinas’ did, coming to recognise the essential importance of fun and beauty to human flourishing in a way that Aquinas never did.  It follows that the fact that the list of five primary precepts provided by Aquinas, and indeed other lists in other versions of Natural Law, differ and might be incomplete suggests that they cannot be the most important part of natural law.

    Secondly, the primary precepts are general injunctions and need to be translated into secondary precepts in order to provide useful moral guidance. Whereas the primary precepts are positive, secondary precepts are negative and tell people what they must not do.  For example, preserve human life is a primary precept and “do not murder” is a secondary precept.  Yet there are often multiple secondary precepts derived from each primary precept.  For example, the primary precept of living in society would lead to a huge number of secondary prohibitions, ranging from do not steal to do not lie to do not be jealous or aggressive… It follows that the majority of moral rules that people live by in practice are secondary and not primary precepts, suggesting that the secondary precepts are more important than the primary precepts.  Of course, secondary precepts are all derived from the primary precepts, so could not exist without the primary precepts and would differ if the primary precepts differed.  This might suggest that the primary precepts are more important than the secondary precepts, and yet for most people their moral awareness begins with the conscientia speaking against certain actions in a negative way, such as by warning people not to cheat or deceive.  Although it is true that the conscientia does this because it is seeking to apply the primary precepts to specific situations, in practice people are usually aware of the secondary precepts before or even without being aware of the primary precepts, which suggests that in fact the secondary precepts are more important.

    On the other hand, Proportionalists like Bernard Hoose would argue that the primary precepts of Natural Law are more important than the secondary precepts because there are sometimes proportional justifications for breaking secondary precepts, but never for breaking primary precepts.  For example, the primary precept of preserving human life might lead to the secondary precept, don’t run inside… because running causes accidents and people might get hurt… but in the case of an explosion it might be proportionally justified to run, risking accidents, when this is the only way to save lives. Similarly, the primary precept of preserving human life might lead to a secondary prohibition against abortion, but in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where inaction would lead to the death of both mother and child, it might be proportionally justified to abort in order to preserve the maximum number of human lives. Hoose points out that even Aquinas uses proportional reasoning to justify war, capital punishment and even the toleration of prostitution… so surely this suggests that primary precepts are more important than secondary precepts, given that secondary precepts can be broken in the pursuit of good, but not primary precepts.  Nevertheless, while Hoose is right that proportional reasoning in the writing of Aquinas and later scholars suggests that secondary precepts are less important than primary precepts, proportionalism has been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, the main adopter of Natural Law.  The Church sees proportionalism as a slippery slope towards situation ethics, utilitarianism and antinomianism in ethics. Instead, the Church has chosen to adopt a Heteronomous Ethic, with the Magisterium using Natural Law alongside Scripture and Tradition to develop Church Teachings which are Secondary Precepts.  These are then used as the basis for encyclicals, Catholic instruction and advice as well as for formation. It follows that for ordinary Roman Catholics secondary precepts are more important than Primary Precepts, because they are encouraged to follow Church Teaching rather than to try to develop it!  While the Church accepts Aquinas’ teaching about conscience, it emphasises the importance of formation so that the Synderesis and Conscientia guide Catholics to follow Church teaching in all matters, rather than really to think for themselves.  This suggests that in practice secondary precepts are in fact more important than primary principles, even though this might not be true to Aquinas’ intention.

    In conclusion, the five primary precepts are not the most important part of natural law. As has been established, the list of five primary precepts might be incomplete and is certainly disputed, while also depending on the key precept “good is to be done and evil avoided”.  Further, secondary precepts make more difference in peoples’ lives today than primary precepts.

    To what extent is the cosmological argument a sufficient explanation for the existence of God? [40]

    / vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

    The cosmological argument has its roots in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, but is most associated with Aquinas’ first, second and third ways to demonstrate God’s existence and today with William Lane Craig’s Kalam argument.  While cosmological arguments see God as the “sufficient reason” for the universe, overall, they do not provide a sufficient explanation for the existence of God.

    Firstly, Leibniz’ version of the cosmological argument saw God as the “sufficient reason” for the universe. God is needed, he reasoned, to explain why there is anything at all. In “The Existence of God” Richard Swinburne writes how this is the most basic and persuasive argument for God’s existence.  Leibniz’ reasoning built on Aquinas’ third way, which started with the premises that everything in the universe is contingent and that something cannot come from nothing, concluding that there must be a necessary being – a being which exists because of itself and cannot not exist – to explain the existence of everything else. Yet Kant rejected this line of argument in the introduction to his “Critique of Pure Reason”, pointing out that as everything that we experience exists contingently, necessary existence is not something we can posit or discuss.  For Kant, to exist is to exist contingently and to be capable of non-existence… the idea of necessary existence is contradictory and impossible. While there are those who reject Kant’s argument and indeed his whole worldview, such as Willard Quine and Charles Hartshorne, it remains the dominant position in philosophy. While Kant may not have shown that necessary existence is impossible, his observation that it falls outside the scope of our experience strongly supports that conclusion.  This shows that God is not needed to be the necessary explanation for the universe we experience.

    Secondly, as David Hume observed through his character Philo in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, despite being presented as deductive proofs for God’s existence cosmological arguments fail because there is no way to show that their premises are true. For example, Aquinas starts his first way with the premises that everything in the universe is moved and that things can’t move themselves, concluding that there must therefore be a Prime Mover and that this is what everybody calls God. As Hume pointed out, there is no way to know if everything in the universe is moved or that no thing can move itself because our experience of the universe is too limited to support such sweeping claims.  It is possible that while things in the universe are moved and must be moved by other things, the universe itself could be unmoving and/or self-moving.  As Bertrand Russell later asked, why should not the universe itself be considered a “brute fact”?  Although Big Bang theory seems to have falsified the idea that the Universe could be considered a “brute fact,” in other ways science supports Hume’s scepticism, finding that sub-atomic particles like Quarks do not follow standard laws of causation and logic and forcing William Lane Craig to use more limited premises in his Kalam argument than Aquinas did in his Cosmological Argument.  Craig reasons that since “everything that begins to exist must have a cause” and “the universe began to exist” it follows that “the universe must have a cause”.  Although it strategically stops short of concluding that the cause of the universe is “what everybody calls God” – leaving this for people to infer – Craig’s argument seems persuasive in the context of a layman’s understanding of the standard model of Physics. Yet, Stephen Hawking criticised his argument for assuming that causation must or even could apply where there is no time or space at and before the Big Bang. This shows that the cosmological argument fails to demonstrate God’s existence

    On the other hand, other versions of the cosmological argument have been presented as inductive or even abductive arguments, suggesting that God is the most probable explanation for many observations of movement, causation, contingency and other forms of order in the universe.  This approach acknowledges that science could provide natural explanations for these phenomena, but dismisses these as less probable than the simple, elegant explanation provided in God. Yet, while the prime mover, uncaused cause or necessary being supported by Aquinas’ ways seems   to be a simpler explanation than the complex natural accounts presented by science, as Hume pointed out, the prime mover, if such there is, would be very far from being “what everybody calls God.”  In terms of prime movers, uncaused causes or necessary beings, there could be several for all we know and it/they would hardly need to be personal, immanent or good.  Also, the God of the Bible is nothing if not a complex character, being possessed of many characteristics outside the scope of those possessed by the prime mover, so that Richard Dawkins was right to reject the claim that “God” could ever be a simpler explanation in “The God Delusion”.  While Aquinas did attempt to show how the prime mover, uncaused cause and necessary being demonstrated by the cosmological argument was really the God of Christianity, these explanations were outside the scope of the cosmological arguments and unconvincing.  For example, Aquinas claimed that because God is the prime mover, uncaused cause and necessary being He must be timeless-eternal and outside the universe.  It follows that divine attributes like power, knowledge or goodness must be understood as analogies when describing God. Yet Aquinas’ classical theism is unconvincing because although it attempts to provide a philosophical justification for believing that “God” exists – not least through the cosmological argument – this justification is flawed and comes at the price of undermining both the Bible and Christian Doctrine as sources of knowledge about God.  This shows that inductive or abductive versions of the cosmological argument are no more useful as explanations for God’s existence than deductive versions.

    Further, all versions of the cosmological argument are part of Natural Theology, the attempt to explain that and how God exists using reason. Natural Theology has long been controversial within Christianity, because it assumes that human beings can discover God and potentially salvation for themselves without God’s grace, which idea was dismissed by St Paul (e.g. Ephesians 2:8) and later made a heresy because of St Augustine’s theological arguments.  It follows that for most Christians Natural Theology cannot provide sufficient knowledge of God’s existence or concerning God’s nature for human beings to attain salvation apart from God’s grace.  Instead, Christians must rely on Revealed Theology, such as through Scripture, Jesus and/or personal religious experience, to demonstrate God’s existence, nature and will.  In one way, this makes sense of the cosmological arguments’ failure to show that God is the necessary or even the most probable explanation of the universe and of the disjunct between the attributes of the prime mover and the God of the Bible.  It could be that the cosmological argument, and wider Natural Theology, provides only an indication that God exists, showing that faith is rational and that atheists are as St Paul put it “without excuse”, while maintaining the necessity of revelation and grace for salvation. Yet it seems terribly convenient that Christian doctrine should so cover for the failure of Natural Theology and the cosmological argument. St Paul and St Augustine would both have been aware of versions of the cosmological argument in the work of Plato and Aristotle and that these arguments are not sufficient explanations for the God of Christianity.  Could their theological arguments have been pragmatic rather than principled in their attempt to sideline reason in favour of revelation?

    In conclusion, the cosmological argument does not provide a sufficient explanation for the existence of God. None of the versions of the argument succeed in demonstrating God’s existence. Deductive versions rely on uncertain premises and don’t contain the full conclusion of the Christian God’s existence. Inductive and abductive versions fail to establish that “God” is a simpler explanation of the universe than natural explanations provided by science.  Also, theological attempts to explain why Natural Theology should fail are unconvincing.