Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Vegeterian-Morality Argument Has A Big Hole

Announcements Posted on
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    It's different because God exists in the real world, not just the ideal world (assuming Christianity is true).

    I think natural law's a load of **** too.



    Well, the causal story isn't quite so simple there. And there's a pretty strong case that the Church has acted hideously immorally, so I'm not so sure that this is a remotely effective reductio.

    Intelligent Christians have been utilitarians, deontologists and virtue ethicists. I'd agree that it's probably better for the Christian to be a deontologist or a virtue ethicist, but it's not an open and shut case.

    Not possible. Consequentialism = the right action is that which maximises the good. Deontology = there is a right action which does not maximise the good. Not compatible. The Christian could be a consequence-sensitive deontologist though, but that's not consequentialist, because consequentialism doesn't just mean that "consequences matter".
    But I wouldn't say that consequentialism can fit in with Christian philosophies.
    You can be Christian and ignore the general teachings laid out in the bible.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    It's different because God exists in the real world, not just the ideal world (assuming Christianity is true).
    Well, that's easy. Assume that possible worlds are real, if only in the platonic sense. They're just as accessible to us as God is.

    Neither is this just a random supposition no one would make in real life. The idea of an action being "good in principle", even if not "good in practice", is commonly used in decision-making and in saying something is justified or moral. This is essentially no different.

    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    And there's a pretty strong case that the Church has acted hideously immorally, so I'm not so sure that this is a remotely effective reductio.
    Not according to their moral theory, and as such, a real-life disaster wouldn't be a moral disaster according to universalizable consequentialism either.

    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    Not possible. Consequentialism = the right action is that which maximises the good. Deontology = there is a right action which does not maximise the good. Not compatible.
    If this is so, then the words really lose most, if not all of their descriptive power. It would be much more descriptive to consider a continuum, or even a description of how much "the good" relates to real world consequences (my type, of course, might not).

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: February 3, 2010
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.