Module 6 Discussion: God and Ethics

Overview

Module 6’s discussion questions will focus on the content of our textbook’s Chapter 5 Section 5.0-5.1 and 5.3-5.4.

Early and continuing participation in these ongoing online “class discussions” is expected throughout the entire duration of each Module. I strongly recommend reading and contributing to these discussions on at least three days a week, every week.

This discussion forum will close at the end of Module 6, after which time no additional discussion posts may be submitted.

Discussion Question A

Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics: Is maximizing happiness a sufficient principle by which to formulate our ethical judgments? Why does Kant disagree? Is Kant correct? Please reference particular examples and concepts from the text when applicable.

Discussion Question B

God and Ethics: If God does not exist, does that mean that anything is morally permissible? Why or why not? However if God does exist, does that mean we should accept Divine Command theories of ethics? Again, why or why not? Please reference particular examples and concepts from the text when applicable.

Instructions

1. First, respond to EACH of the two Module 6 Discussion Questions presented above (both questions A & B).

2. Then, provide additional subsequent followup responses to posts submitted by others (your fellow students, and/or myself) in BOTH of the subsequent discussion threads that will begin to develop and unfold as this Module proceeds.

See the Schedule in the Syllabus Module for due dates and the Rubric attached to this Discussion for grading information.

Respond to 2 Peers

Peer 1: Chris

Question A

Kant disagreed that maximizing happiness is a sufficient principle by which to formulate our ethical judgements because he believed emotions should not be the driving force in morality (Lawhead. 2018). Kant believed that morality must be based on rational principles and cannot be determined by any variables like feelings or inclinations (Lawhead, 2018). Kant laid out his ideas in his published work The Good Will where he offers his theory that an action either conforms, accords, or agrees with duty compared to when an action is done from duty (Lawhead, 2018). In this theory Kant states that acting in accordance with duty simply means that our external behavior conforms with what we should do. In comparison “acting from duty means that the motive for our actions is simply the desire to perform the action because it is right, then and only then, does the action have moral worth” (Lawhead, 2018). I believe that Kant is correct that emotions such as happiness should not be the only reason we act morally or ethically. We should act morally and follow our ethics because we believe that is the right thing to do and not only because it will serve our own emotions.

Question B

If God does not exist that does not mean that anything is morally permissible as one of the arguments against the need for religion for ethics states. This argument states that there are many morally good people that are not religious or have never been exposed to religion (Lawhead, 2018). This argument is used to poke holes in the Divine Command Theory. If God does exist I do not believe that we should just accept everything in the Divine Command Theory. If we were just to follow God’s will for what is and what is not morally just we would be following the empty statement that “Gods will is that which God wills” (Lawhead, 2018). We would need some independent concept of what is good.

Reference

Lawhead, W. (2018). The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach (7th Edition).

McGraw-Hill Higher Education (US). https://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781260132519

less

Peer 2: Emily Champion

Discussion Question A

Maximizing one’s happiness is something Kant can’t agree because maximizing happiness is for one’s own benefit. Utilitarianism would be benefiting the majority of happiness. Maximizing happiness can almost disregard ethics as the decision to maximize one’s happiness is for one’s own benefit. Every decision would essentially disregard others’ opinions because what would make one happy, might make another not happy.

Discussion Question B

If God didn’t exist then the evolution of morals might have taken much longer. The longer one lives the more life lessons are taught. Through life lessons, we as people develop personal morals. The bible has given us a great foundation for our moral and our laws. Though as individuals, things are also learned. The Divine Command theory is currently accepted as the bible presents a good foundation for our ethics and morals. Though if the divine decided to go complete opposite and say killing and adultery was okay. Many would question the divine’s decision. The Divine Command theory shouldn’t be the one and only we should accept, but one we can look and analyze.

“Divine Command Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #33.” YouTube, CrashCourse, 31 Oct. 2016, https://youtu.be/wRHBwxC8b8I. Accessed 17 Oct. 2021.

Etext for referencing and reading for main initial post: https://online.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781260132519

Refer to chapter Chapter 5 Section 5.0-5.1 and 5.3-5.4.

Module 6 Discussion: God and Ethics

Previous

Next

Overview

Module 6’s discussion questions will focus on the content of our

textbook’s Chapter 5 Section 5.0

–

5.1 and 5.3

–

5.4.

Early and continuing participation in these ongoing online “class

discussions” is expected throughout the entire duration of each

Module. I

strongly recommend reading and contributing to these discussions on at

least three days a week, every week.

This discussion forum will close at the end of Module 6, after which time

no additional discussion posts may be submitted.

Discussion

Ques

tion

A

Utilitarian

and

Kantian

Ethics:

Is maximizing happiness a sufficient

principle by which to formulate our ethical judgments? Why does Kant

disagree? Is Kant correct? Please reference particular examples and

concepts from the text when applicable.

Dis

cussion

Question

B

God

and

Ethics:

If God does not exist, does that mean that anything is

morally permissible? Why or why not? However if God does exist, does

that mean we should accept Divine Command theories of ethics? Again,

why or why not?