Analysis Of Samuel Clarke's Unalterable Obligations Of Natural Religion

Improved Essays
Samuel Clarke set out to refute Thomas Hobbes in his second set of Boyle Lectures: A discourse Concerning the Unalterable Obligations of Natural Religion, to do so Clarke stated in it that there are different relations among people. Which he goes on to explain that from these relations arise “Fitness” and “unfitness” in behavior among people. To explain this, we must look at the relationship between man and god. The relationship between man and god is infinitely disproportional, there for as people we praise god, by worshipping, praising, and attempt to imitate him in our lives. Though he states most rational people, with sound judgement understand this relationship, not all can distinguish right from wrong. Clarke believes that people are …show more content…
The problem with this is that for his argument Clarke does not explain fully what the relationship is between people and morality. When he talks about “Fitness and Unfitness”, he addresses people worship and praising of God which just means that people can try to imitate God and try to fulfill his will, but they can never be God. He also doesn’t help to explain if good is necessarily bad. He does however address later in his writing that people know that things are bad, and things are good because we can use rational thinking to understand the difference. He says that men should obey God opposed to disobeying him, but this also do to God has the power to punish man if he does not obey his will. Clarke is addressing that does man follow Gods commandments because they believe that it is right, or do they follow it because God commands it. This raises the question if people act of their own self-interest or they do it just because it is the right thing to do though they cannot make the line of difference between the two (Page

Related Documents