The desire-satisfaction theory of well-being says, in its simplest form, that a person's level of welfare is determined by the extent to which their desires are satisfied. A question faced by anyone attracted to such a view is, Which desires? This paper proposes a new answer to this question by characterizing a distinction among desires that isn't much discussed in the well-being literature. This is the distinction between what a person wants in a merely behavioral sense, in that the person is, for some reason or other, disposed to act so as to try to get it, and what a person wants in a more robust sense, the sense of being genuinely attracted to the thing.
Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people? Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people?
A non-believer might even concede some version of a theistic argument has some evidential force, but claim that the overall balance of evidence does not support belief. A major issue that cannot be settled here concerns the question of where the burden of proof lies with respect to theistic arguments.
If such evidence is lacking, the proper stance is atheism rather than agnosticism. A second way to challenge the presumption of atheism is to question an implicit assumption made by those who defend such a presumption, which is that belief in God is epistemologically more risky than unbelief. The assumption might be defended in the following way: One might think that theists and atheists share a belief in many entities: Someone, however, who believes in leprechauns or sea monsters in addition to these commonly accepted objects thereby incurs a burden of proof.
One might think that belief in God is relevantly like belief in a leprechaun or sea monster, and thus that the theist also bears an additional burden of proof. Without good evidence in favor of belief in God the safe option is to refrain from belief. However, the theist may hold that this account does not accurately represent the situation.
In fact, God is not to be understood as an entity in the world at all; any such entity would by definition not be God. The debate is rather a debate about the character of the universe. The theist believes that every object in the natural world exists because God creates and conserves that object; every finite thing has the character of being dependent on God.
The debate is not about the existence of one object, but the character of the universe as a whole. Both parties are making claims about the character of everything in the natural world, and both claims seem risky. This point is especially important in dealing with moral arguments for theism, since one of the questions raised by such arguments is the adequacy of a naturalistic worldview in explaining morality.
Evidentialists may properly ask about the evidence for theism, but it also seems proper to ask about the evidence for atheism if the atheist is committed to a rival metaphysic such as naturalism. Presumably he means that some things that are good are better than other good things; perhaps some noble people are nobler than others who are noble.
Obviously, this argument draws deeply on Platonic and Aristotelian assumptions that are no longer widely held by philosophers. For the argument to be plausible today, such assumptions would have to be defended, or else the argument reformulated in a way that frees it from its original metaphysical home.
The latter condition implies that this end must be sought solely by moral action. However, Kant held that a person cannot rationally will such an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve such an end, and this requires a belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to the achievement of this end by moral means.
This is equivalent to belief in God, a moral being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world. Kant-inspired arguments were prominent in the nineteenth century, and continued to be important right up to the middle of the twentieth century.
Such arguments can be found, for example, in W. SorleyHastings Rashdalland A. In the nineteenth century John Henry Newman also made good use of a moral argument in his case for belief in God, developing what could be called an argument from conscience.
In recent philosophy there has been a revival of divine command metaethical theories, which has in turn led to new versions of the moral argument found in such thinkers as Robert AdamsJohn Hareand C.
This book examines a comprehensive form of moral argument and extensively explores underlying issues. It goes without saying that these renewed arguments have engendered new criticisms as well.
There are objective moral facts. God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.Compare and contrast ethics, morals, and values. Explain how ethics, morals, and values interrelate.
- Answered by a verified Writing Tutor Compare and contrast ethics, morals Compare and contrast ethics, morals, and values. Write a short essay for each of the following topics. Part 1: Provide a detailed description of what worms and.
Moral values Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between the ones that are good and the ones which are bad. important value domains includes your moral values, those personal qualities and rules of conduct that distinguish a person (and group of people) of upstanding character.
The Genealogy of Morals, Having established his “historical” depiction of the origins of values in the first essay, Nietzsche turns again to his strength, psychological interpretation, for the second and third essays.
The Satirist - America's Most Critical Book (Volume 1) Online Ads Amazon. But I would be less than candid if I said it was easy. At times, there is some moral conflict because these roles do not always work in harmony.5/5(3).
Moral Values And Its Impact On The Consumers Commerce Essay. Print means and misleading their consumers by giving out false information or by showing advertisements that are against the moral. This paper discusses about the factors that are major reasons for the deteriorating moral values in the business, and how this is affecting the lives.