Philosophy:
Introduction
In the contexts of the three highlighted articles, they all focus on the various societal norms that should be followed by the individuals and the general relationship with the divine creature who is god. Robert c. Mortimer’s article on “the divine command theory and relativism” and “morality is based on god's commands” highlights the individual moral ethics in relation to god divine interventions to the matter. “A defense of ethical relativism” by Ruth Benedict argues that morality is ultimately tied up to the socially approved customs. And “morality without God” by john Arthur argues that morality is based on divine commands and divine revelation.
In “Morality Is Based on God’s Commands and divine interventions” by Robert Mortimer, he actually goes to the focal point in the context of discussing the conviction that Christian religion is “essentially a revelation of the nature of God,” and in that overview, without God, certainly there would be no morality in the GOD’S created universe. This consequently follows that in shrewd what type of person God is helps the humankind to know what actually one would have us do and what our ethics should be. This is in the general understanding of the normal life’s issues and the daily living of the individuals. He brings out a few examples to draw attention to in his credence that this religious conviction sets out a cipher of regulations that is not only for Christians, but for all mankind.
It is according to Mortimer’s view that the wrongs and actually how righteous an individual is depends on GOD’s divine commands. Hence he goes in the accordance to the holy scriptures that there are valid moral principles that are revealed to human kind. And these moral ethics are what keep them moving in the general action regarding the daily performances of life issues.
At first, he takes attention to detail to point out that actually we as human beings are the formations of Him and that throughout this; He manifests himself to us and really crediting us our bodily features to be servants over it. With the indulgent that we consequently tag along well with His decrees and, when we depart this life, we shall go back to Him pro an accounting of our deeds when in ownership of the bodies He gave us. He goes on stating that, despite the fact that not each and every one of the men may perhaps enclose this information, there is something inside them that for all time knows this. Christians basically have a recovered acquaintance of this. He goes ahead to spot out that, at eras, our possess awareness may pilot us off target from His decrees, which is why we need to be conscious of them throughout the exposure prearranged in scripture.
The argument by Mortimer’s fetches criticisms in the context that it specifies that morality does not need religion to in order to make it exist. In this context it outlaws the common societal norms and the specifications that, the Holy Scripture does illustrate. In the matter of fact “Religion complicates morality and causes more confusion than it helps to clear up”. He uses quite a few examples to exemplify this tip as well as the conviction that if theists really looked at all the Godly dominion conjecture states, they too would recognize it as fact.
The second criticism that it does fetch is the fact that despite the overview that specifies that through a clear revelation of God’s nature he ultimately reveal and enlightens the consciences of man. He contradicts the overview because he then says that religion depends on the supernatural powers which determine the daily activities of the individuals. He then goes a step further to point out that, for the reason that there is no moral code, this ultimately does not automatically go after the course that there is no religion in that world. He actually points out that; “to have a moral code, is to consequently tend to weigh up the required manners of others and generally to experience culpability at certain actions”. In that essence it contradicts the overview he specified that morals do not depend on the GOD’S intervention in the universe.
Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), a leading American anthropologist, argues that morality is ultimately tied up to the socially approved customs. In this essence of the socially integrated ideas and practices it brings to the social systems of the communities with various common beliefs. In that overview she brings into the limelight that once a society has prepared the choice, normalcy will give the impression of being dissimilar, depending on the idea-practice prototype of the culture.She further illustrates that the immediate surrounding environment plays a key role in the determination of the individuals’ behavior in the essence of the acquired morals. This is in relation to the common essentials of artistic environment and the penalty of these in human behavior. She goes ahead to clarify that varied shared orders primordial peoples providentially offer a laboratory not yet completely vitiated by the stretched of an unvarying worldwide development. Hence this illustrates her clear overview on the matter that ultimately defines that morality is defined by the normal approved customs in the societal set up which is also determined by the environment in which the individuals are consequently engraved in.
In the same context Benedict’s overview is further illustrated by the fact that the various individuals’ activities and the predominance behaviors are ultimately are molded and generally shaped by strapping social forces. She brings out that, Even a very gentle spiritualist is peculiar in our culture. This is in the overview that culture plays a crucial goal in ensuring that the pivotal issues are inculcated in the general mutual revolve of a person’s behavior. In the illustrated example she brings out the essence that; even in their own cultural background in that era specified, Catholicism consequently made the thrilled knowledge in the mark of sainthood.
This definitely brought in the context in which many individuals in the society found themselves being indulged in the situations which led them to be priests in that era. This ultimately and clearly brings in the limelight those individuals consequential behavior is determined by the immediate environment in which they immediately find themselves into. Hence the social behaviors in the immediate environments play a pivotal role in ensuring how the diverse peoples carry themselves.
On the critical Mortimer's claim that morality is based on divine commands and the will of God. In this context, the Christian belief tells men what is the willpower of God for them, and this consequently goes ahead to show them how they have got to live if they would gratify God. The sorts of demeanor which will give pleasure to God depend on the kind of person God is. This means that faith influences conduct of an individual. In diminutive, he concludes that, ethics would be real with religion and religion is necessary for morality to exist. Hence since GOD is the creator of all mankind and the things that exists in the universe hence he is the sole controller of all of all the peoples will.
Works cited
John Arthur, Morality and Moral Controversies, 2nd edition. (1986), pp. 10-15.
Robert C. Mortimer, Christian Ethics by Robert C. Mortimer Hutchinson's University Library; 1950
Benedict, Ruth, "Anthropology and the Abnormal," Journal of General Psychology, 10, 1934.
