Assignment First

美国保育学论文怎么写:道德陈述和道德义务 强而弱的神圣命令理论可以用来理解善后困境及其含义。神圣命令理论的更强大版本争辩说,道德陈述和道德义务被看作是根据神的论述或上帝的诫命来定义的。这个强大的版本不留歧义。道德义务的解释只能在上帝的语境中理解,而不能在其他语境中理解。另一方面,较弱的观点被认为是上帝的立场(神学观点)和虚拟观点共存的观点。这里考虑两种立场之间的共同点。上帝的命令并不决定道德,而是告诉我们它的内容。我接受较弱的立场,因为在这个合理化的领域,这对我更有意义。上帝的命令与道德的要求共存。可以理解的是,上帝本质上并不决定道德。这可能是因为他的规则会更好地告诉我们道德问题。道德责任可以来自对神的规则的理解。

美国保育学论文怎么写:道德陈述和道德义务 我认为弱者的立场会更好,因为弱者的立场可以让人们有更广泛的理解。如果有人认为上帝是所有道德立场的起源,那么就意味着上帝不得不被要求解释一切。为什么一些道德行为会导致他人的伤害,为什么有些行为虽然看似道德,但后来可能会导致道德问题,或者为什么一些貌似道德的人最终会采取伤害他人的行为。可能有许多问题无法单独用神学观点加以解释。另一方面,将道德理解为源于自我在某些情况下可能是最好的,但在其他情况下则不然。我们确实有一种内在的道德感,可以帮助指导我们的行为,但这种道德内在感有时需要依靠外部代码或外部文字才能生存。只有人类可能无法在不断增长的冲突世界中保留道德内容和规范,因此需要上帝作为理解此类困境的因素。

美国保育学论文怎么写:道德陈述和道德义务 The strong and weak divine command theory can be useful to understand the Euthyphro dilemma and its implication. The stronger version of the divine command theory contends that moral statements and moral obligations are seen to be defined in terms of theological statements or the commandments of God. This strong version leaves no area for ambiguity. The interpretation of moral obligations is understood only in the context of God and no other. On the other hand, the weaker view is considered as one where God’s standpoint (the theological perspective) and the virtual standpoint coexist. A coextensive situation between both standpoints is considered here. God’s commands do not determine morality, but rather inform us about its content. I accept the weaker standpoint because it makes more sense to me in this area of rationalization. Commands of God are coextensive with the demands of morality. It can be understood that God does not in essence determine morality. It could be that his rules inform us better about morality. Moral obligations could be derived from the understanding of God’s rules.

美国保育学论文怎么写:道德陈述和道德义务 I think that the weaker standpoint is better because the weaker standpoint allows for a more broader understanding. If one were to consider that God was the origination of all moral stances, then it would mean that God would have to be called on for explanations about everything. Why do some moral actions lead to the hurt of others, why some actions although seemingly moral might lead to situations of questionable morality later or why do some seemingly moral people end up doing actions hurting others. There could be many questions which cannot be explained using the theological standpoint alone. On the other hand, understanding morality as being derived from the self can be best in some situation, but not others. We do have a inherent sense of morality in us that helps guide our actions, but this inherent sense of morality sometimes needs to rely on outside code or outside words in order to survive. Man alone might not be able to survive the moral content and codes in an ever-growing world of conflicts and god is needed as a factor to understand such dilemmas.