Evaluation of Natural Moral Law

  • Created by: _bella_
  • Created on: 28-01-19 09:59
View mindmap
  • Natural Moral Law Evaluation
    • G.E. Moore- Naturalistic Fallacy
      • Good cannot be defined through nature, it is a naturalist fallacy. Goodness is unanalysable and cannot be defined by any reference of nature
      • Can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. If our human nature ‘is’ to procreate doesn’t mean we ‘ought’ to.
    • Barth- Humans are corrupt
      • Relies too much on reason - human reason is too corrupt to be trusted and not enough on the grace of God and revelation
      • The Fall is an example of this
    • Suggests there is a common fixed human nature that applies to all people
    • Interpreted rigidly (e.g. by the Catholic Church), cannot cope with individual moral problems
    • Hard to apply basic precepts to complex situations e.g. spending on schools vs. hospitals (one PP over another?)
    • Moral law is accessible by our reason and it makes God's reason accessible to a believer because humans and God share the same rationality
      • Arguably that is putting God and humans on the same level- despite God being a higher power
      • We are made in God's image
    • It is logical and doesn't disregard human emotion
      • Supports the use of reason and emotion. So it is open to everyone, religious or not
    • Simple rules that can be followed by everyone
    • PP are common to all societies. Suggests a universal truth
    • Doesn't cater to non-religious people, as it argues synderesis is innate due to God
    • Double Effect
      • Brings in consequentialism. Allows some terrible things because of double effect.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Ethics resources »