Ethics is the philosophical study of morality. If a person begins with a description and proceeds directly to a normative (moral) judgment, what fallacy has one committed? Use your critical thinking skills to determine how a person would create a valid argument about morality (hint: it has to do with premises)—that is, an argument that does not commit this type of fallacy. Explain the notion of just deserts. Under what kinds of conditions is this notion reasonable? Under what kinds of conditions is it not? That is, explain and discuss the applicability of the notion of just deserts.
- First of all, one needs to establish their premises and ensure that they are true. Clarity and consistency should also be maintained. Regardless of one’s stance on a particular issue, uniformity in one’s argument should be upheld. Ambiguity should also be avoided at all cost. Morality is a contentious phenomenon that has elicited many sentiments. With this in mind, one should ensure that their premises are factual to guarantee a corresponding conclusion.
- Just deserts is a phrase that is often used by philosophers to denote the idea of a fair and an apt punishment for a particular crime. When one considers a typical just desert claim, it merely suggests that one deserves whatever repercussions or consequences they encounter based on something they did or said. Primarily, tit for tat is justified when one considers the argument of this particular phrase.
- The just desert notion is seen as reasonable when a society lacks a social or legal institution that with the task of specifying judgment to the individuals who do not want to conform to the set standards. If a legal or a social structure exists in society, then the just desert notion will not be applicable. This means that it only exists when there are no set ideals. Laws and standards often dictate how people live and also what kinds of punishment that are accorded to people. These statues from the structure that guides behavior and ensures that the society thrives on some set principles. However, a society that abides by the just desert notion nullifies the significance of any laws and whatever repercussions one’s actions warrant they will get.
Explain and discuss the main problem with Divine Command theory that Plato pointed out about 2,400 years ago. What are the details of the problem and why is it a dilemma for any theist? Why does posting the problem not commit a fallacy? Use your examples to explain other philosophical issues that the Divine Command theorist might face.
- The biggest problem with the Divine Command theory is the Euthyphro argument. Plato highlighted this issue through a question that Socrates asked. In Plato’s dialogue, Socrates asked: is an act right/moral because God approves it or is an act approved by God because it is right/moral. With this argument in mind, the clarity that is often presumed to exist in the relationship between religion and morality becomes blurred. Accepting one part of this discussion or question leaves one with the other part which might also not be consistent with one’s beliefs.
- Regardless of how one answers the question, there will be several valid concerns. A major dilemma, therefore, exists primarily to theists who find it difficult to side or answer either part of the question. On one end, one would be questioning God’s ability to or involvement in determining what is morally right and what is morally wrong. This, of course, contradicts almost all religions’ view of God. On the other hand, one would be suggesting that God is indeed all powerful and that it is in His power and will to alter the world’s morals whenever He wants to. However, human beings have not been keen to consider religion whenever they are making decisions, and this grooms an enigma particularly to that individual who chooses to answer the second part of the question.
- Asking this question does not commit the fallacy of false dilemma because neither of the opposing views is true or false. It affects people’s beliefs and hence no answer will bridge the gap between the opposite sides regardless of the premises.
- First of all, morality can be based on some of the following, reason, choice, self-interest, human nature, etc. This issue undermines the DCT theory in that people can base their morals on different things and not necessarily religion as DCT suggests. For example, when presented with a choice, most of the time people choose based on their tastes and preferences as well as self-interest but not based on their religion. The other issue is that many religions exist, and they all present their God differently. This means that human beings do not agree on one single God that dictates morality.
