The questions are in red, and the answers are in black Question 1 The nature of Theological Ethics is often misunderstood. Describe some common misunderstandings concerning what theological Ethics involves. Also provide a valid definition of Theological Ethics (33 marks) (600 words) Answer Theological ethics basically is a combination of all ethical concerns and most ethics are action based.
Theological ethics encompass various religious beliefs and ideals; forever the term “theological” refers mainly to the Christian beliefs and understandings. This is not to say that other religious or philosophical beliefs and ideas are wrong, we should certainly look at them to gain knowledge of other cultures and religions ideas of morality in order for us to understand how and why various societies and people act in certain ways. Most people believe that theological ethics are taken directly from the Bible and it is either right or wrong according to the scriptures.
There are people who believe that Christianity is the only religion and eek to convert as many people as possible to Christianity, however although they are passionate about their cause they can actually land up doing more harm than good in the zealousness as their passion can often be misguide and misconstrued by other faiths causing conflict. There are various misconception one being that “Witnessing is converting people to the Christian religion”. This is certainly not true because Christians cannot convert people, only God can cause a change of mind and heart.
Also nowhere in the Bible does it say the Jesus says the Christians must convert people to his religion. He says to share the good news and to and ask people to follow him Secondly it is wrong to tell people that they are morally corrupt if they do not believe in the Christian God. All of humanity has moral standards based on various beliefs, followings and laws. Most people are taught right from wrong at an early age and carry this on throughout their lives. They are not sinners and do not need to be “saved” by embracing someone else’s religious beliefs.
Therefore Christianity is not morally superior to other religions and the non-religious. There are those who believe that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions must therefore be false. This is impossible to prove. Religions are all different in their belief and practices and not one can decree that one is truer than the others. History would show that Christianity in the past has in fact practiced oppressing and defeating others which actually casts a rather bad light on Christianity being more truthful than other religions.
The most common misconception, no doubt involves the threat that those who do not believe, will be dammed. They are threatened with words form people who say things like “If you die today without being saved, you will spend eternity in hell. ” Only Heaven or Hell. Putting the fear of God into people by forcing people to become Christian so that they can escape the place called hell in order to get into a place called heaven is not what it meaner to follow Christ. It seems that Jesus has a clear message for people to follow, and that is to be his witnesses, and love and honor and respect one’s fellow human beings.
Question 2 Outline and evaluate the ethical approaches or theories of any two of the allowing: 0 Aristotle 0 Augustine of Hippo 0 Existentialism 0 Kant 0 Karl Birth (33 Marks((600 Words) Answer For this question, I have chosen to evaluate Aristotle and Kant. Most ethical theories are action- based, however Aristotle ethics are not. Philosophers like Kant would as ask “What ought I to do in this situation? “, while Aristotle would ask “What kind of character do I want to have? ” Therefore Aristotle ethics are is character-based, I. . Character is the basis of action. Aristotle simply says that an ethical man will automatically know what is right or wrong in a situation ND will if necessary adjust his thinking bases on whatever situation he may find himself in. However Aristotle does explore his conception of goal of the ethical life, which is demoniac, or “human wellbeing. ” He believes that in order to lead an ethical life you need to have both moral and intellectual virtue. Quite simply reality is seen in the categories of either accidents or substance.
There is a theoretical science which has the purpose of obtaining the truth and the productive science which makes things useful and beautiful. Logic, the basis for Aristotle ethics, is the study f these sciences, and logic therefore teaches one how to reason and gain knowledge. For Aristotle ethics is a discipline that is to do with practice. Therefore he says that some practices are good for us and they enable us to fulfill our nature. Right is therefore determined by actions that result in a good ending and wrong would result in bad ending.
Aristotle believes that ethics takes us to the highest good, I. E. Happiness. If we have good moral virtue we form a good character which leads us to become exceptionally virtuous as a person and in our day to day lives. The question would be “What is the best person to be? ” 2 Virtue cannot exist if there is no ability to make the right choices that also must avoid both excess and defect. Emmanuel Kant bases morality on rational principles of duty rather than on the consequences of our actions.
He believes that the existence of God can’t be proven, however for the purpose of morality it must be assumed as necessary. Religion is therefore defined the individuals obedience for their own moral duty. He has a very critical system of philosophy which states that the individual is supreme, and those communities, and also religions must be rejected in favor of the individual needs. I. E. Not for the good of mankind, but for self- preservation. A person must do what reason requires – at a minimum, not having inconsistent or self-contradictory policies.
Morally Kant believes we are all equal. No one is privileged. The only things which any person can be held accountable for are those this which are under our own control. We cannot control the consequences of would be “What ought I to do? ” People can have courage and virtue etc. But still to be good person. In order for a person to be morally good, he must have a good will. Just because a person has natural or social advantage like wealth and education or virtues like friendliness and courage it does NOT mean that they are a good person.
One of Cant’s ideals basically implies that you should treat people the way you would want to be treated, which is certainly a moral ethic to follow – where you are religious or not. These philosophers both differ in their philosophies, however many of their theories are adopted as moral ethics in society today. Question 3 Moral formation upends on the influence of internal and external factors. Describe how these factors have contributed to your own moral formation.
Answer The Oxford dictionary definition for morality is:- noun (plural moralities) [mass noun] principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior:the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed 0 [count noun] a particular system of values and principles of conduct:a bourgeois morality 0 the extent to which an action is right or wrong:the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons But how as individuals do we attain our own moral code or code of ethics and can it be modified based on circumstance, but still stand up to modern ethical norms?
As children we are taught right from wrong by our parent’s, families and society as a whole. This is the acceptable level of morals held by the people in our lives. There morals may have been determine by different or the same factors as ours, but I find that each person although accepting of the “norm” of ethics will generally take them and adjust them to fill their lifestyles. I think I work on a “background” or “sub- unconscious” moral code. Situational awareness is needed daily.
Your morals will determine how you act in a given situation We all know it is morally wrong to lie, however I found myself lying to protect other people. We had an armed robbery in our home while I was hosting a book club. We were held at gunpoint by four men and everyone except me was cable tied together and we rob of Jewelry and handbags, TV’s and laptops were taken too. I was asked if there was anyone else in the house – and all moral dilemmas went out the window – I LIED and said “no” knowing that my aren’t were in their section of the house which is blocked off from the main house.
Then I was asked, “Where is the money’ and “where is the safe”, and again I LIED, and Somehow they believed me and left a short time later. The scary part for me was that everyone else had believed me too. Knowing that I could lie so blatantly, would they ever believe anything I said again or would they applaud the moral stand that I took. I still wonder. But I know this, if it happened again I would do exactly the same – because for me at the time it was the “right” I”morally’ right thing to do. Where is that oral line?
In a TV show the other night the character said they r would not hesitate to murder someone if they thought it was necessary to protect their family. I wonder about that, would I do the same if I really needed to protect myself or someone I cared about. I respect life and personal liberty and I am not one to hurt even insects if I don’t need to, but I do what needs doing. I think that is what anyone or any animal at all for that matter would do. Further, I could never trust someone who could not. I don’t question ethical morals as I believe that everyone is entitled to their own levels.