Euthyphro & Classics of Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Euthyphro Classics of Philosophy Essay In its simplest term, the divine command theory holds that given that god exists; an act is good only because God commands it. In other words, anything that is not approved of by God cannot be considered to be good. A major problem associated with this view is raised in Euthyphro. The Euthyphro argues that the gods command things because they are good rather than that they are good because they command it. Seen from another angle, the goodness of things precedes Gods command. However, considering the polytheistic nature of the society that Socrates and Euthyphro lived in, the conception that what is good is only good because gods command it may be challenged by holing that the gods may have differences in opinion especially with regard to issues of morality. As such, what may be dear to one god may not necessarily be dear to another. As such, one action may be both pious and impious. The divine command theorists hold that the source of all moral value is the will of God (Hall et al). Whatever is willed by God is morally good or obligatory and whatever he forbids is morally evil. With this regard, murder, theft and adultery are morally wrong because, and only because they are forbidden by God. On the other hand, justice and mercy are morally good only because they are approved by God. The majority of divine command theorists hold that there is no intrinsic Good. Whatever is done and willed by God is good and whatever opposes the will of God is bad. As such, the good has its foundation and existence solely in Gods will. Indeed, it can be conceived that God can alter his mind and command murder. This is especially seen in the scriptures when he commanded Abraham to kill his son. He can also forbid acts of clemency. Simply by an act of will, God can change virtue into vice and vice into virtue. The divine command theory is first broached as a philosophical theory in Euthyphro. Euthyphro and Socrates are attempting to define holiness with Euthyphro proposing a definition that holiness is whatever is loved by the gods. According to Socrates, this definition is ambiguous in the sense that it does not offer any clear comprehension of whether something is holy simply because it is loved by the gods or whether its loved by the gods because it is already holy. By making a generalization from the case of holiness, it can be said that either something is morally good or right because God commands it to be so or that God commands it because it is morally good or right to begin with (Pojman, 2002). In other words, either moral value depends on the will of god or the will of god depends on moral value. In Euthyphro, the two options are dramatically presented. That is, either the source of value depends on the divine will or elsewhere. Both Socrates and Euthyphro agree that it lies elsewhere and therefore reject the divine command theory. They however do not explain where it rests. Platos view is right considering his god-independent Form of the Good. However, the argument in Euthyphro can be hardly applied to the Christian God. Platos argument, as taken by Leibniz and other philosophers may be seen in the following context; that â€Å"honoring ones parents is good because God has commanded it† implies the counterfactual that if God commanded other things, those other things would be good. God, by the theory, could have commanded those other things considering how powerful He is. According to the divine command theory, therefore, if God had commanded that one should dishonor his parents, then dishonoring parents would be obligatory instead of forbidden (Wilkens, 1995). This is however absurd. The divine command theory is thus committed to counterfactuals about what would have been good that are patently false. The implication is that, even though God commanded the good, this is only so because it is good and not that it is good because He commanded it. The dilemma in the question of whether what is holy is holy because the gods approve of it, or approve of it because it is holy can only be clearer if the polytheistic assumptions are eliminated and the term â€Å"holy† is replaced with â€Å"right†. If the question is restructured, it will appear as follows: does God command us to do what is right because it is right or something is right because God commands it? The question presents two possibilities. First, God’s commands can be conceived of to be right-indicating or pointing towards rightness. Second, it can be conceived of to be right-making or creating rightness. This question is whether God is viewed as a Supreme Court justice or a legislator. The justice comprehends the statutes and can therefore suggest what should be done for one to stay within the boundaries of the law. However, the law itself is independent of the justice. The legislator on the other hand does not just interpret but also creates law. Until the lawmaker legislates, the law is not in existence. The question thus is; which gives a better conception of God? Voluntarists see God as a legislator since they emphasize on His freedom, will and sovereignty. As such, God is not bounded to the dictates of some standard that He did not create. Instead, right is right because God legislates it. The declaration of God that particular actions are good is right making. This view of God as a legislator evades restricting His freedom and power. However, this may create another problem. If God is so radically free and powerful, could he create a world in which torture is good? If His saying so makes it right and there are no limitations on God, could he decide that rape is virtuous? Affirming this option is frightening since there is a natural inclination to believe that a command that we ought to rape would be morally repugnant, even if it emanated from God (Ross Stratton-Lake 2002). However, there is need to notice its implication. It assumes a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Otherwise we would not have at our disposal anything by which to measure the commands of God. With this regard, a conclusion can be derived that the gods approve of holy (right or goodness) because it is holy (right or good). Holiness is an objective feature of the world and as such, the moral order is just as a fundamental nature of the universe as the spatial or numeric structure of the universe. Our moral attitudes do not make actions good or right. Rather, they are responses to rightness or goodness. What makes our belief that something is good is the property or objective characteristic of being good that it possess. If one defines holiness as meaning what is approved by the gods, one is putting forward a naturalistic definition. If one however defines it as such that it ought to be desired, one is putting forward a non-naturalistic definition. However, both the definitions show that what is good is intrinsic as opposed to what the divine command theorists attempt to postulate. Holiness, goodness or rightness refer to a property or a quality of something and thus, this quality or property cannot be decided by the goods but rather exist independently of the will of the gods. However, there comes a challenge when they refer to a relational property rather than the intrinsic property of the things of which it is predicated. This is the major challenge not only to the divine command theorists but also to Euthyphro. References Plato, Euthyphro Pojman, L. (2002). Classics of Philosophy. Oxford University Press Ross, W. Stratton-Lake, P. (2002). The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press Wilkens, S. (1995). Beyond bumper sticker ethics: an introduction to theories of right wrong. InterVarsity Press

No School Should Usurp the Rights of Any Student Essays -- Teaching Ed

No School Should Usurp the Rights of Any Student   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Children are forced to go to school. This has been the way for a long time. School is a place where students go to learn a curriculum given by government officials. They are not there to get their rights taken away from them. Although teachers have power, they cannot stop students from hearing the issues, speaking without censorship, or knowing their rights.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Students are living, breathing human beings. We go to school to learn about and succeed in the outside world. Government officials are to teach us these things and see how well we learn them. We are curious creatures. We need to know everything or else we will rebel. Teachers should tell us both parts of a certain subject to allow objectivity in our minds. If we hear only one side of a controversial issue we tend to assert ourselves with the only point of view. We may also find out information on our own that is bad and believe what we find out. Teachers are here to guide us to the correct information. If a teacher takes a side he/she may tell us only the negative points to his opposing side. He/she may, also, just tell us good points about his side. Either way, he/she gives us a one sided perception. We need to hear both sides in order to make up our own minds.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Many believe that teachers have more power than students. This is a weak argument because teachers cannot remove rights of students. The Supreme Court stated this: â€Å"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate† (Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District). Therefore, students are just as powerful as teachers. Teachers want to discipline their students how and when they choose. This is a major dispute among parents, teachers, and students. A teacher may not ever hit a student purposely. A teacher may lower our grade for not doing work or failing class criteria. They may not lower our grade just because they don’t like us or we act slightly out of hand. Many people say that students don’t know what is best for them. This is may be true at lower elementary, but in high school, students can speak for themselves and know what they need. In some court cases or public meetings, teachers or the school bo... ...rookfield: Millbrook,1997. â€Å"Student Government†. World Book: Millennium 2000. 2000ed. â€Å"Student Rights†. Natural Math. 21 Jan. 2002 . â€Å"Students Rights†. Rethinking Schools. Vol. 14, Issue 4 (Summer 2000). 21 Jan. 2002 . â€Å"Students Rights†. Y and M Online. 21 Jan. 2002 . â€Å"Students Rights and Responsibilities†. University of Virginia. 21 Jan. 2002 . â€Å"Students Rights Guide†. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. 21 Jan. 2002 . â€Å"Students‘ Rights of Free Speech†. The American Center for Law and Justice. 20 Jan. 2002 . â€Å"Students Rights on Public School Campuses†. Liberty Counsel. 20 Jan. 2002 http://www.lc.org/OldResources/Students_rights_0900.html. â€Å"Teachers‘ Rights on Public School Campuses†. Liberty Counsel. 20 Jan. 2002 . Young, David. Survey. Oakridge High School: 30 Jan. 2002.

Describe How DNA Has Enhanced Law Enforcement

DNA has emerged as a remarkable crime fighting tool. DNA has the potential to be the best crime solving tool of the 21st century. DNA has been very critical in solving some of the nations most serious crimes. DNA analysis is a very powerful tool, because each persons DNA is unique in most cases. DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can implicate or eliminate a suspect. It can also analyze unidentified remains through comparisons with DNA from someone’s relative. Previously, unsolvable cases, more often homicides and sexual assaults, can contain DNA evidence that will help identify the criminal, even though the victim can’t.When evidence from one crime scene is compared through the federal DNA database with evidence from another crime scene those crimes can be linked to the same person locally, statewide, and nationally. Also, plants and animals hold DNA, as well. Newer DNA analysis techniques can yield results from biological evidence that’s invisible to an officer. DNA analysis methods also can be able to help in the identification of missing persons. DNA can be obtained from severely degraded samples, as well.This has enhanced law enforcement tremendously. Without DNA evidence, most people would never be convicted (DNAs Link to Corrections, n. . ). DNA will continue to advance. Some anticipated advances are broader implementation of the CODIS database, increased automated lab procedures, use of computerized analysis, portable devices capable of DNA analysis and remote links to databases and other criminal justice information services (DNA Evidence,n. d. ). Reference DNA Evidence: What Law Enforcement Should Know. (n. d. ). Retrieved November 12, 2012 From: http://www. ncjrs. gov/pdffiles/jr000249c. pdj. DNA’s Link to Corretcions. (n. d. ). Retrieved November 12, 2012 from: http://www. crimescene- Investigations. net/NIJ-DNALinkCorretcion. pdf.

Coca Cola Commercial, Brotherly Love, Aired During Super...

The Coca-Cola commercial, â€Å"Brotherly Love† aired during Super Bowl 50 tells a story of a brotherly bond. Coca-Cola is a company that has spread across the globe, â€Å"through the years, the company has deployed memorable advertising in all media, the latest technology, and a model production and distribution system to increase and maintain its success† (Myers). The success of Coca-Cola relied on advertisements and the diversity of the advertisement. In the Super Bowl 50 advertisement, they showed the bond between two siblings. Although the siblings do not get along with one another, they are still family. Family have a tendency to have each other’s backs throughout the good times and the bad times. Whether the family is going through financial trouble or celebrating a new addition, the support of one another holds the family together. Throughout the commercial, the older brother would constantly tease the younger brother. However, when the younger brother e ncounters bullies, his older brother came in and helped warn off the bullies. Over the course of this commercial, the story plays with family emotions and bonds, has an artistic attitude of telling the story, and supplies an important messages which affects today’s society. The relationship between the two brothers is like any other relationship between siblings; siblings constantly tease one another, but in the end, they love and care for one another under all circumstances. Throughout the commercial, the older brother