The Student Room Group

ocr christian moral principles a level help

Hi guys, for the DCT topic Christian moral principles, would it be fine to argue that none of the approaches- heteronomous, autonomous, or theonomous- are convincing? or do examiners consider that 'sitting on the fence'? Because I don't find a single one that convincing. Thanks, would appreciate any help!
Reply 1
What sort of reasons would you be arguing they all fail and would that point to another view of christian moral principles?

If so it would be fine. However if you're just saying something like they all fail because there is no God then that wouldn't work so well.
Original post by Joe312
What sort of reasons would you be arguing they all fail and would that point to another view of christian moral principles?
If so it would be fine. However if you're just saying something like they all fail because there is no God then that wouldn't work so well.

Hi, thanks for the reply. I would basically argue that the theonomous approach is not fully convincing because of problems of interpretation and contradictions in the Bible, which make it an impractical source for moral decision making. The heteronomous approach might seem convincing because it allows the use of reason to apply natural law- which in turn allow for Christian morals to keep up with the times. Yet I don't find it fully convincing because, at least from a Christian perspective, our reason is very flawed and corrupted by original sin so I don't see how Christians can use it as a reliable tool. The Church too has a history of corruption. And autonomous ethics seems to be too subjective- especially Fletcher's agape approach- and from a Christian perspective it doesn't sufficiently take into account all of Jesus teachings. Would that be ok? I don't know if I'm justified in taking this stance to be honest because I'm not sure what I would support as a good source for morality.
Reply 3
Original post by Henriettawinter
Hi, thanks for the reply. I would basically argue that the theonomous approach is not fully convincing because of problems of interpretation and contradictions in the Bible, which make it an impractical source for moral decision making. The heteronomous approach might seem convincing because it allows the use of reason to apply natural law- which in turn allow for Christian morals to keep up with the times. Yet I don't find it fully convincing because, at least from a Christian perspective, our reason is very flawed and corrupted by original sin so I don't see how Christians can use it as a reliable tool. The Church too has a history of corruption. And autonomous ethics seems to be too subjective- especially Fletcher's agape approach- and from a Christian perspective it doesn't sufficiently take into account all of Jesus teachings. Would that be ok? I don't know if I'm justified in taking this stance to be honest because I'm not sure what I would support as a good source for morality.

it would be better to defend one of these approaches.

How about defending the heteronomy view - JP2 has apologised for past corruption - Jesus started the church, he knew it would be run by corruptable humans but started it anyway and gave it a social mission anyway. So corruptability can't be a reason to be against it, since Jesus would have anticipated that. Also, they solve the bible issues because the Church does the job of interpreting the Bible, which also gives it flexibility at interpreting its continued relevance for today.

Natural law does have the original sin issue (from Karl Barth etc) - but Aquinas would respond that original sin has not totally destroyed our reason otherwise we'd be on the level of animals. So reason must still have some ability to know God's natural moral law.
Original post by Joe312
it would be better to defend one of these approaches.
How about defending the heteronomy view - JP2 has apologised for past corruption - Jesus started the church, he knew it would be run by corruptable humans but started it anyway and gave it a social mission anyway. So corruptability can't be a reason to be against it, since Jesus would have anticipated that. Also, they solve the bible issues because the Church does the job of interpreting the Bible, which also gives it flexibility at interpreting its continued relevance for today.
Natural law does have the original sin issue (from Karl Barth etc) - but Aquinas would respond that original sin has not totally destroyed our reason otherwise we'd be on the level of animals. So reason must still have some ability to know God's natural moral law.

ok yh I think I will take that line of argument, thank you!

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending