Clifford argues that the ship owner is morally responsible for the death of the passengers because he failed to fulfill his duty. He didn't inquire into the matter or gather any evidence; instead he let his emotions and greed guide his belief. Furthermore, Clifford argues that even if the ship didn't sink, the ship owner would still be guilty, since it was morally wrong for him to hold the belief that the ship was safe. His belief was of great importance to the other people on the ship, but he failed to form it in the right way, which is immoral in itself regardless of the consequences of the belief. Moreover, Clifford explains that holding a belief for reasons other than sufficient evidence even in cases of trivial beliefs that don't influence other people is wrong, since it can corrupt or weaken a person's abilities of reasoning and self-control.…
The article written by Robert Merrithew Addams, A Modified Divine Command Theory of Ethical Wrongness, expresses a unique view of the Divine Command Theory in which Addams has modified to answer certain controversial issues. The main controversy being towards the theory’s implications of ethical wrongness and the different situations it can be applied. In Plato’s, Euthyphro, the controversy can be seen through the statement, “… nor the pious the same as the god-loved,” (70). This argument presents questions of what applies towards someone’s beliefs in God. Furthermore, the original theory, according to Addams, implies a connection between “wrong,” and “contrary towards God’s commands,” (39).…
Clifford Vs James In the “Ethics of Belief”, William K. Clifford presents us with an example. The example tells us why we always need sufficient evidence to believe something. He says that no one should believe something from a gut feeling or something we just think is true without any evidence of that it proves that it is right. We think of this as if it were a joke because it may not affect us now, but if everyone begins to follow this it will be a big difference from the way we think now.…
In “Reasonable Religious Disagreements,” Richard Feldman posits that two reasonable peers cannot come to a reasonable disagreement. The premise of a “reasonable disagreement” has various conditions, in short being that the peers must be epistemic, and they must have shared all of their evidence pertaining to the argument. By this criteria, it is not plausible for two epistemic peers with access to the same body of evidence to ever reach reasonably different conclusions. However, a problem arises with the previously stated criteria when examining the point regarding full disclosure of evidence. When examining Feldman’s article from this perspective, it is possible that it may not be considered fully viable.…
The world of Pojman On behalf of Pojman and his interpretation of universal moral principles “The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences” The executive board of the American Anthropological Association (69) The executive board of the American Anthropological Association proposal was meant to acknowledge moral diversity in different cultures around the world. This fragment was part of an introductory reading to the essay, “ The Case Against Ethical Relativism” by Louis Pojman. In this essay, he elaborates different arguments against ethical relativism, explains his own interpretation of universal moral principles and reconciles cultural…
The second principle of faith that Maimonides points to is the “truth of prophecy.” The second purpose of the “test” was to teach the prophets to believe in his or her own prophecies and to show no doubt in them. To explain this it is necessary to know that, according to Maimonides, God’s command came to Abraham in a dream or a vision, or in other words, a prophecy. As it is known that Abraham didn’t question this and didn’t doubt the truth of the prophecy, it is meant to be an example to other prophets. A prophet is supposed to see his or her own prophecy as true just as much as anyone would see true anything that they physically saw, felt, or heard with their physical senses.…
In defense of the survivors’ guilt arising from not helping the poor, he claimed that “the net result of conscience-stricken people giving up their unjustly held seats is the elimination of that sort of conscience from the lifeboat”. He defined guilty about one’s good luck as a type of conscience and the newcomer’s lack of guilt about the rich people’s loss as conscience drain; but the author deliberately omitted the morality of rich people’s indifference to the poor asking for help. Counting the negative effects on total conscience in the lifeboat if no rescue is attempted, the final solution to the lifeboat dilemma might be changed. Essentially, the author’s negligence of social injustice against impoverished people and the ethical issue indifference is just a result of his bias for the rich countries.…
Many people write about their personal beliefs and perspectives; Gary Soto, Anna Quindlen, Chief Dan George, and Alex Haley also wrote about their personal beliefs. The essays were read to pinpoint the personal beliefs of the authors and to distinguish their personal beliefs from one another. Our general population has disparate and homogeneous beliefs but they can all be formed by experience, stories, culture, and peers. Alex Haley, Anna Quindlen, Gary Soto, Chief Dan George all formed some of their personal beliefs from experience.…
The Influence that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism has had on my Worldview and my Response to that Influence. Before this course began, I had never heard of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. Now that we have studied it in depth, I believe that it is a spiritually unhealthy habit, yet we all have it to some extent. I have always seen God as kind of a Therapist in the weird sense that he will always listen to me gripe and will never complain. The morality part is clearly addressed in the Bible multiple times.…
Even though Clifford’s and Wood’s principles challenge each other, they come to a consensus when this issue involves harm to others or honesty to one’s self. Clifford’s view on the ethics of belief is simple: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” His principle is short and sweet; if the evidence is adequate, then the belief can be true.…
Teenagers today are pre-occupied with social media, trying to fit-in, and being accepted by their peers. The majority believes in God, and they probably even go to church but don’t have an understanding of the word of God, and how to live accordingly to his expectations. The problem is that parents today, with all the new technology, are working more hours and even bringing work to the house, many families do not eat dinner together anymore. Family time does not exist, when they are together, usually, they are on their cell phones, there is no more communication.…
One of the most persistence questions we as thinking having often tends to challenge the existence of God. That question is, ‘if God is good and made us in His likeness, then why is there evil in the world?’ This question has plagued both theist and philosophers alike. I personally have encountered this very question in both Religious Quest, as well as Philosophy. While the latter concentrates on the logical problem of evil in order to argue that there can not be a perfect God who could then allow evil, the theist believes in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God.…
A trolley is moving down a track. The trolley can not be stopped, but it a nearby switch is able to move the trolley from one track to another. One track has five people, and the other has one. Flipping the nearby switch will cause the one person to die while leaving the switch alone will mean the five people will die. The question is: what would you do?…
The Correspondence Theory Over the last century, the world has become a place of everlasting technological advancement. The yearn for knowledge and advancements in academics has brought about an magnificent change in the world. Societies across the globe are rapidly changing and evolving due to new discoveries in the fields of knowledge, but many may ask the question: How can this knowledge be trusted? How is knowledge justified?…
Determining what the true definition of knowledge is has been a topic of debate among philosophers for centuries. Establishing the difference between knowledge and opinion is no easy task, and many theories dealing with this issue have arose over the years. Today, the most widely recognized theory for quantifying knowledge is the justified true belief theory, based on three conditions that each need to be satisfied for one to be considered to have knowledge. While this theory holds true in a great deal of cases, there are counter examples in Gettier cases that show the justified true belief theory to not always hold strong.…