The effect of rejecting DCT on our notion of God – when you take away God’s power over morality, are you taking away something important?

Well I’m not aware of whether you can place any relevance in our perception of God’s power over morality, certainly it seems rational to question the source of morality in coherence with God’s decree. God is in essence a concept of faith and therefore our judgement over his power in relation to morality is theoretically inconsequential. But, for argument sake I would like to state that rejecting the Divine Command Theory is essential in clarifying, or at least asking the question of whether God is rational? It’s not to say that it has not been stated before that God is perfect, and never incorrect, But what’s to say our logical understanding of religion is a fallacy, and our faith is unfounded. Would this make or knowledge of life somewhat misconstrued and nonetheless ignorant. I would like to state that God’s morality and rationale have to be unquestionable, and will never change in any case, however that is robbing myself of any true search for the understanding of my existence. Now it’s not to say that my ideas are illogical and have no bearing in anything pertaining to the premise of philosophy, but I would want to fulfill some emotional desire which motivates me to ponder these notion of whether God’s morality is truth… what I mean to say is whether faith is fact, or just some general belief that has been mandated by man as a mean to unite society toward some common interest.   


Once again You are not forced to comment on this blog… Hint Hint Hint

Objection to Mill’s Utilitarianism

  Objectors to mill’s definition of utilitarianism state that men should be able to live without happiness, because it cannot be in essence “a rational purpose of human life and action”; it is believed that self-sacrifice of ones happiness is noble and in many ways virtuous, validating the renunciation of self-satisfaction as a plausible reason for one to be considered noble and/or virtuous to the will of god. Mills counters this objection with the premise that self-renunciation is a means to increase the overall sum of happiness. Mills believes that to do without happiness ultimately is the best way to bring about the prosepct of realizing such that happiness can become attainable. Utilitarian morality does states that self-sacrifice has to have a purpose which increases the sum of happiness, and has a genuine purpose, other wise the act in itself is a wasted attempt to do something virtuous.  Objectors to utilitarianism do have the belief that individuals must be required to remain impartial, with the interest of maintaining happiness as a benevolent spectator. However, Mills believes that individuals must in essence promote the general good, having these motives and actions become habitual. Mills happens to make reference to the fact that an association with individual happiness, and education as well as opinion is paramount toward establishing a a mindset which states that individuals can create an “indissoluble association between individual happiness and the good of the whole.” An acknowledgement  is made which states that sacrifice is in itself ones concern to subdue any emotional state which would refrain one  “cultivating tranquilty,” in an effort to ascertain satisfaction and hope to derive a purpose which benefits the whole, with that intention in mind.

Mills suggests that human perceived “higher,” mental pleasures are better than human “lower,” physical pleasures, is he right about this?

  Mills suggestion that our pursuit of intellectual achievement and other “higher” pleasures are better ultimately than “lower” pleasures to reach a greater happiness in life. In spite of human urge to give into certain desires, mostly sexual; our willingness to accept higher pleasure are more beneficial toward human health and mental satisfaction. Mills exacts certain opinions of humans lowering themselves into lower animals, yet he states that humans would not allow themselves to be looked upon as fools because, of there pride and emotions. Mills comparison of humans as rational beings and beasts’ are quite quintessential of his feelings toward human acceptance in different pleasures.Utilitarianism is the doctrine which encourages the greatest happiness clause, and therefore mills suggestion holds credence, yet human desires and pleasures are subjective and should be accepted on the right pretense. Human pursuit of satisfaction is in itself is a great thing and should be widely accepted, and should bring happiness to each individual.


  We are morally responsible for the general well-being and happiness of ourselves, as well as other individuals based on the theory of Utilitarianism.  Certainly, are own pursuit of individual happiness is accepted; our willingness to accept tranquility and interpret it’s meaning in relation to happiness, as opposed to excitement is relevant and distinguishes individual measures of happiness. However, does this mean we should be held morally responsible for the outcome of our actions? The truth is that our actions as individuals have a resulting effect of pleasure, or pain, and are in measure acts which have a resullting viable outcome. Human actions should be held morally accountable when afflicting immeasurable pain on ourselves as well as other individuals.  The measure of total happiness is somewhat bias to each cultures moral beliefs  Selfishness and mental cultivation are key concepts which adhere to these philosophic princinpals, preaching sufficient pursuit of mental as well as physical gain, depriving the outcome of total happiness. On the other hand self sacrifice is split issue, certainly, an act of this measure can be viewed as virtuous and benefiting  the general good of the people; however, Utilitarianism rejects this notion on the premise of decrease the total happiness of everyone. I would like to think that our act can be seen as virtuous in the end, yet, Utilitarianism expresses the key notion of happiness as a general basis in lifes’ ultimate pursuit of understanding, and the greater good.

If perhaps God decided to change his mind on a specific issue should his actions be viewed as ethically wrong? and in that case would God be perfect?

Certainly God an omnipotent spiritual force dictating, and in essence judging the moral acts of each individual is within his means to differentiate right from wrong as he sees fit; even if that requires changing his mind on a specific issue. God is viewed as an infallible creator of the moral concepts of which humans abide by, and would never succumb to the moral defects of human thought. Of course moral views are stricken with the reasonable flaws that humans have placed upon them, yet there are laws and standards of which we abide by in order to justify are motives and sufficiently organize the structural system of society. Let’s say perhaps God decided to change his mind on a key moral view such as the issue of genocide, mandating just cause for killing, should we say god is indecisive and thus flawed? I argue that it is rational for God to change his mind because he is perfect and all-knowing, thus his reasons are just and have no defect or evident flaw. I want to clarify that I do not in any way justify Genocide, but let’s say God decided to accept the Darfur incident as a new moral good, would that be opposed by humans? Or is it rational to ask whether or not we would be able to control our actions? I’m under the impression that humans believe that our thoughts are independent of God’s control. Certainly, God as fore-mentioned is omnipotent therefore his acts have a major influence on a perception of reality. I do not want to delve into the issue of freedom or independence too much, because that is not the purpose of this assignment. However, What’s to say God has not changed his mind before, and we as humans are ignorant of his methods, I believe that god as a rational essence has a distinct comprehension of moral good and evil, and we as humans are just test subjects at the mercy of god’s decree, and that morality in itself is pre-determined.

Hopefully, nobody comments on this post… ;’ l

Moral Disagreement Between Cultures in relation to Cultural Relativism.

    Child Labor for the most part has been analyzed and scrutinized since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Children from the ages of 3-18 have been utilized as expendable assets which garner extreme beneficial outcomes for the industries they work for; most countries have implemented this form of labor into society throughout history. Common Cultural expansions in moral comprehension, and various common beliefs, as well as the realization of a child’s importance to society has had a profound affect on many societies. However, certain present cultures have abhorred these philosophical beliefs, of whether a child should have a job, and receive the treatment and abuse they are subjected to. Certainly, Cultural Relativism as a concept preaches the  belief  that cultures should refrain from passing judgment on other cultures, though in this particular case cultural relativism seems wrong due to human rights standards, a moral stance on child treatment, and the overall perception on labor rights acts passed through legislation, as well as the mindset that if children are allowed to be exploited for profit, then it would become permissible to exploit other means of a child’s rights in society without opposition.