The document discusses ethical approaches to reverence for life and the dignity of the human person. It examines different rules and perspectives people use to decide what is the right thing to do, such as following religious values, doing what enables personal growth, increasing pleasure, producing happiness, or doing the most loving act depending on the situation. It also discusses biblical prohibitions against killing innocent human life, noting there is extraordinary gravity in morally attacking another person's life as it is considered a sin before God.
CouchApps are web applications built using CouchDB, JavaScript, and HTML5. CouchDB is a document-oriented database that stores JSON documents, has a RESTful HTTP API, and is queried using map/reduce views. This talk will answer your basic questions about CouchDB, but will focus on building CouchApps and related tools.
In this talk we'll see how to build CouchApps using CouchDB, Javascript, and HTML5. We'll look at related tools such as the couchapp command ine tool, the Evently jQuery plugin, the CouchDB API jQuery plugin, the CouchApp Loader, Pathbinder, and the Mustache templating framework.
Ethical Theory PaperElijah KimWhat is the meaning of being a hBetseyCalderon89
Ethical Theory Paper
Elijah Kim
What is the meaning of being a human? What is the meaning of being a good person? What is good? And why do we have to be good? The word ethic carries many implications and foundations. In Christianity, God creates this universe, earth, and man/woman in "his" image. However, the Human is not God and made many ethical mistakes that ask God for forgiveness. "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." (Romans 2:1). No human being is innocent in front of God and not allow to judge each other. The ethical theory sets the foundation for a "right human being" and has numerous ways to break down.
Ethical theory "is the systematic effort to understand moral concepts and justify moral principles and theories" (Fieser 2017), which means the study of Right Action. This "Right Action" can be divide into three different divisions. Metaethics can be defined as a God's view. For many religious believers and religious cultures, the Metaethics can be easily found. However, people who do not believe in a higher power or bird view have a problem with divine command metaethics (Morriston 2009). In the Metaethics view, moral obligations are taught and fixed by religious belief. For the non-religious believers there Metaethics can be set by the Karma they heard of or the own belief system. Just because of believing in religious belief and Karma, Metaethics do not take the basics from realism or antirealism. Instead, it contains the focused theories (Davis 2021).
Moral Realism in Metaethics asses the meaning of the moral. Moral realism is the position of right and wrong in a variety of situations. Religions like Christianity made committed to moral realism for three different reasons. First, "constructivists tend to attribute moral facts to agents as their origin" (Jung 2015). In Christianity bible has the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. These Ten Commandments are the fundamental moral value of Christian belief and set the standard. Commandments like "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not kill" are the well-known rule as a "basic human being." Like the last sentence, the bible has a clear example of do's and don'ts, right/ wrong.
The bible also advised what evil (bad) can affect the person "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Corinthians 15:33). Many religious people believe in God's purpose. An example of Christianity, Genesis advised, Human were made to glorify God and his creation. Adam and Eve were also created to manage God's creation. "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). The explicit purpose gave men and women a clear vision of life and motivated them to stay in God's ...
Does Morality Need Religion – Yes!Professor Derrick Willis.docxelinoraudley582231
Does Morality Need Religion – Yes!
Professor Derrick Willis
The question of whether”morality needs religion” is an important one in both philosophy and religion. The central concern is where exactly does our sense of morality, of right and wrong, come from. Does our moral consciousness come from religion or God, or is it a socially constructed phenomenon - does it come from our parents, social environment, or community. If it is socially constructed, then where do we draw the line in terms of differences between cultures or cultural attitudes. For example, during Nazi Germany 12 million people were murdered, 6 million of whom were Jews. Their skin was used for lampshades, and they were tortured and used as slaves. If morality is socially constructed (that is based on culture) then does that mean that the cultural viewpoint of the Nazis was correct. And since we come from a different culture, then where and on what basis do we say that their cultural paradigm was incorrect or wrong? Who are we to tell them that their moral views (murder and torture) are wrong? This is the substance of the debate.
Author’s Viewpoint
Author C. Stephen Layman argues that morality does need religion because God becomes the absolute standard that draws the line. So Layman argues that:
Any claim concerning the Good must be based on religion as an independent idealprinciple.
Morality is a claim concerning the Good.
Therefore, morality must be based on religion as an independent ideal principle.
Layman argues that morality is not an emergent phenomenon, i.e., emerged into existence at a particular time and place, or in a particular social environment, but was established by God. Even though various cultures oppose murder, stealing, and lying, the foundation and groundwork for that was laid by God. We have a tendency to assign human value to principles that have ordered our universe from the beginning. Even though human beings twist religion to their own devices, there are in essence some universally agreed upon principles that they all share, opposition to murder and torture are two.
If our sense of right and wrong comes from culture then what about secret violations when no one’s looking. For the religious person secret violations aren’t permitted because God is watching, and as we know, you can’t hide from God. But if right and wrong are culturally determined then why not cheat or murder if you can get away with it. If no one knows; no harm, no foul.
And further still if it is culturally determined, then doesn’t this just simply insulate one culture in relation to the next. My culture is right, so I really have no moral obligation to a culture other than my own. This, according to Layman, creates a kind of cultural tribalism. My culture is my culture and you can’t judge it. If I need to kill my citizens to make life “better” in my country, then so be it. Your culture is your culture, and my culture is my culture, so butt out!
But if God is in.
CouchApps are web applications built using CouchDB, JavaScript, and HTML5. CouchDB is a document-oriented database that stores JSON documents, has a RESTful HTTP API, and is queried using map/reduce views. This talk will answer your basic questions about CouchDB, but will focus on building CouchApps and related tools.
In this talk we'll see how to build CouchApps using CouchDB, Javascript, and HTML5. We'll look at related tools such as the couchapp command ine tool, the Evently jQuery plugin, the CouchDB API jQuery plugin, the CouchApp Loader, Pathbinder, and the Mustache templating framework.
Ethical Theory PaperElijah KimWhat is the meaning of being a hBetseyCalderon89
Ethical Theory Paper
Elijah Kim
What is the meaning of being a human? What is the meaning of being a good person? What is good? And why do we have to be good? The word ethic carries many implications and foundations. In Christianity, God creates this universe, earth, and man/woman in "his" image. However, the Human is not God and made many ethical mistakes that ask God for forgiveness. "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." (Romans 2:1). No human being is innocent in front of God and not allow to judge each other. The ethical theory sets the foundation for a "right human being" and has numerous ways to break down.
Ethical theory "is the systematic effort to understand moral concepts and justify moral principles and theories" (Fieser 2017), which means the study of Right Action. This "Right Action" can be divide into three different divisions. Metaethics can be defined as a God's view. For many religious believers and religious cultures, the Metaethics can be easily found. However, people who do not believe in a higher power or bird view have a problem with divine command metaethics (Morriston 2009). In the Metaethics view, moral obligations are taught and fixed by religious belief. For the non-religious believers there Metaethics can be set by the Karma they heard of or the own belief system. Just because of believing in religious belief and Karma, Metaethics do not take the basics from realism or antirealism. Instead, it contains the focused theories (Davis 2021).
Moral Realism in Metaethics asses the meaning of the moral. Moral realism is the position of right and wrong in a variety of situations. Religions like Christianity made committed to moral realism for three different reasons. First, "constructivists tend to attribute moral facts to agents as their origin" (Jung 2015). In Christianity bible has the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. These Ten Commandments are the fundamental moral value of Christian belief and set the standard. Commandments like "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not kill" are the well-known rule as a "basic human being." Like the last sentence, the bible has a clear example of do's and don'ts, right/ wrong.
The bible also advised what evil (bad) can affect the person "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Corinthians 15:33). Many religious people believe in God's purpose. An example of Christianity, Genesis advised, Human were made to glorify God and his creation. Adam and Eve were also created to manage God's creation. "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). The explicit purpose gave men and women a clear vision of life and motivated them to stay in God's ...
Does Morality Need Religion – Yes!Professor Derrick Willis.docxelinoraudley582231
Does Morality Need Religion – Yes!
Professor Derrick Willis
The question of whether”morality needs religion” is an important one in both philosophy and religion. The central concern is where exactly does our sense of morality, of right and wrong, come from. Does our moral consciousness come from religion or God, or is it a socially constructed phenomenon - does it come from our parents, social environment, or community. If it is socially constructed, then where do we draw the line in terms of differences between cultures or cultural attitudes. For example, during Nazi Germany 12 million people were murdered, 6 million of whom were Jews. Their skin was used for lampshades, and they were tortured and used as slaves. If morality is socially constructed (that is based on culture) then does that mean that the cultural viewpoint of the Nazis was correct. And since we come from a different culture, then where and on what basis do we say that their cultural paradigm was incorrect or wrong? Who are we to tell them that their moral views (murder and torture) are wrong? This is the substance of the debate.
Author’s Viewpoint
Author C. Stephen Layman argues that morality does need religion because God becomes the absolute standard that draws the line. So Layman argues that:
Any claim concerning the Good must be based on religion as an independent idealprinciple.
Morality is a claim concerning the Good.
Therefore, morality must be based on religion as an independent ideal principle.
Layman argues that morality is not an emergent phenomenon, i.e., emerged into existence at a particular time and place, or in a particular social environment, but was established by God. Even though various cultures oppose murder, stealing, and lying, the foundation and groundwork for that was laid by God. We have a tendency to assign human value to principles that have ordered our universe from the beginning. Even though human beings twist religion to their own devices, there are in essence some universally agreed upon principles that they all share, opposition to murder and torture are two.
If our sense of right and wrong comes from culture then what about secret violations when no one’s looking. For the religious person secret violations aren’t permitted because God is watching, and as we know, you can’t hide from God. But if right and wrong are culturally determined then why not cheat or murder if you can get away with it. If no one knows; no harm, no foul.
And further still if it is culturally determined, then doesn’t this just simply insulate one culture in relation to the next. My culture is right, so I really have no moral obligation to a culture other than my own. This, according to Layman, creates a kind of cultural tribalism. My culture is my culture and you can’t judge it. If I need to kill my citizens to make life “better” in my country, then so be it. Your culture is your culture, and my culture is my culture, so butt out!
But if God is in.
Chapter 9. Can We Reason about MoralityChapter 8Can We Re.docxtiffanyd4
Chapter 9. Can We Reason about Morality?
Chapter 8
Can We Reason about Morality?
Copyright by Paul Herrick, 2020. For class use only. Not for distribution. This chapter: 34 pages of reading.
1. Come, Let Us Reason Together
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once observed that if a man-made law conflicts with morality, it is unjust and should be repealed because morality, not man-made law, is our highest standard of behavior. Similarly, if a businessman could increase his profits by putting false labels on his products, he should not do so, even if he can get away with it, because it would be immoral. Morality takes precedence over deceptive business practices—no matter how profitable they might be. Morality also takes precedence over unexamined self-interest. A criminal may want to snatch a purse from an old lady walking with a cane, and perhaps he needs the money and could get away with it; however, he should not do so because it would be morally wrong.[endnoteRef:1] Surely these are eminently reasonable observations. [1: Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from the Birmingham City Jail,” reprinted in James M. Washington, ed. A Testament of Hope. Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. (New York: Harper One, 1986), 289-302.]
These thoughts remind us that morality is the ultimate criterion of good and bad, right and wrong, that we ought to live by, all things considered. Morality is ultimate in the sense that the obligations it imposes on us take precedence over all nonmoral considerations, including laws passed by legislatures, the profit and loss calculations of businesses, social customs, instincts, and the irrational impulses of ego, desire, prejudice, unexamined self-interest, and cognitive bias.
One reason to agree with Dr. King, that morality is our highest standard, is that any human law, social custom, institution, business practice, desire, action—even traits acquired through the evolutionary process--can be evaluated and judged on a moral basis, using our faculty of critical thinking.
The principles or “laws” of morality have a number of important properties. First, they are prescriptive rather than descriptive. That is to say, they prescribe how we ought to act, they do not describe how we do in fact act. Put another way, moral principles are not empirical generalizations about the way people actually behave, and they are not statements about the way people have behaved in the past or will behave in the future. Rather, they are norms or standards that we ought to follow, whether or not we do in fact follow them and whether or not we want to follow them. If someday it should come about that most people hate each other, that descriptive fact would not make it moral to hate. Hatred would still be morally wrong. If someday it should happen that every government in the world practices genocide, that descriptive fact would not make genocide morally right—genocide would still be morally wrong. For (again) morality is.
Relativism and Medical Ethics Exploring the Nature of Trut.docxsodhi3
Relativism and Medical
Ethics
Exploring the Nature of Truth & Euthanasia
When in Rome, Do as Romans Do
What is Relativism?
Relativism grounds the truth of something in the individual. So that,
when we want to know whether or not something is right or wrong,
who has the final say so? The individual. One of the major goals of
relativism is that it seeks to take away harsh judgment and replace it
with tolerance and peace.
Some Positive Aspects About Relativism
Living in America, our culture is a melting pot. Relativism reminds us
that we should not take our standards as being obvious for others.
Relativism can raise the question of whether or not we believe
something because it's actually true, or just because we are
comfortable with it.
Another example could be that we should not think of ourselves as
morally (or in any other way) superior because of our technological
advances. The temptation may be that we look down on primitive
tribes as being simple and uneducated. However their convictions and
beliefs run as deep as ours.
There are many kinds of relativism. Ultimately, the main tenants of
relativism are that:
1 There are no objective truths.
2 Objective truths are those truths which are true even if no one wants
to believe it.
3 Relativism says that because all truths are determined by
themselves, their cultures, language, etc. that objective truths
are actually an illusion.
4 Even truths such as 2+2=4 isn't necessarily truth, other than the fact
that we have all agreed historically that it is true.
• Because of this, "Man is the measure of all things". No one person's
ethics is better than another's. But with this we have to mean
that my ethics is no better than someone who lived 1500 years
ago in another country. One is no better than the other, just
different. A Buddhists' ethics are equal in merit to an American
atheist.
• Culture is responsible for the way we see and experience the world,
including our morality. Thus, we never really see things as they
really are, we always place our interpretation on reality. No
absolute standard for how we should act can be given because
we are not in a position to know (because knowledge of
universal truths is impossible) which system is "better." There is
no "better" - only different.
• As we will see, many ethical systems refer to some sort of absolute
"yardstick" to ground the correctness of their view. As we have
seen, relativism rejects any yardstick altogether. In relativism, we
are not burdened with trying to defend any sort of ethical system.
Instead we look at a common practice within a society.
• However, we should not conclude that just because there are no
moral absolutes, that therefore we should never make moral
judgements. For order and stability in our lives, we need rules,
and we life is best when we work together. This is why, for
example, it is okay in one culture to cut off the hand of ...
Chapter 9. Can We Reason about MoralityChapter 8Can We Re.docxtiffanyd4
Chapter 9. Can We Reason about Morality?
Chapter 8
Can We Reason about Morality?
Copyright by Paul Herrick, 2020. For class use only. Not for distribution. This chapter: 34 pages of reading.
1. Come, Let Us Reason Together
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once observed that if a man-made law conflicts with morality, it is unjust and should be repealed because morality, not man-made law, is our highest standard of behavior. Similarly, if a businessman could increase his profits by putting false labels on his products, he should not do so, even if he can get away with it, because it would be immoral. Morality takes precedence over deceptive business practices—no matter how profitable they might be. Morality also takes precedence over unexamined self-interest. A criminal may want to snatch a purse from an old lady walking with a cane, and perhaps he needs the money and could get away with it; however, he should not do so because it would be morally wrong.[endnoteRef:1] Surely these are eminently reasonable observations. [1: Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from the Birmingham City Jail,” reprinted in James M. Washington, ed. A Testament of Hope. Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. (New York: Harper One, 1986), 289-302.]
These thoughts remind us that morality is the ultimate criterion of good and bad, right and wrong, that we ought to live by, all things considered. Morality is ultimate in the sense that the obligations it imposes on us take precedence over all nonmoral considerations, including laws passed by legislatures, the profit and loss calculations of businesses, social customs, instincts, and the irrational impulses of ego, desire, prejudice, unexamined self-interest, and cognitive bias.
One reason to agree with Dr. King, that morality is our highest standard, is that any human law, social custom, institution, business practice, desire, action—even traits acquired through the evolutionary process--can be evaluated and judged on a moral basis, using our faculty of critical thinking.
The principles or “laws” of morality have a number of important properties. First, they are prescriptive rather than descriptive. That is to say, they prescribe how we ought to act, they do not describe how we do in fact act. Put another way, moral principles are not empirical generalizations about the way people actually behave, and they are not statements about the way people have behaved in the past or will behave in the future. Rather, they are norms or standards that we ought to follow, whether or not we do in fact follow them and whether or not we want to follow them. If someday it should come about that most people hate each other, that descriptive fact would not make it moral to hate. Hatred would still be morally wrong. If someday it should happen that every government in the world practices genocide, that descriptive fact would not make genocide morally right—genocide would still be morally wrong. For (again) morality is.
Relativism and Medical Ethics Exploring the Nature of Trut.docxsodhi3
Relativism and Medical
Ethics
Exploring the Nature of Truth & Euthanasia
When in Rome, Do as Romans Do
What is Relativism?
Relativism grounds the truth of something in the individual. So that,
when we want to know whether or not something is right or wrong,
who has the final say so? The individual. One of the major goals of
relativism is that it seeks to take away harsh judgment and replace it
with tolerance and peace.
Some Positive Aspects About Relativism
Living in America, our culture is a melting pot. Relativism reminds us
that we should not take our standards as being obvious for others.
Relativism can raise the question of whether or not we believe
something because it's actually true, or just because we are
comfortable with it.
Another example could be that we should not think of ourselves as
morally (or in any other way) superior because of our technological
advances. The temptation may be that we look down on primitive
tribes as being simple and uneducated. However their convictions and
beliefs run as deep as ours.
There are many kinds of relativism. Ultimately, the main tenants of
relativism are that:
1 There are no objective truths.
2 Objective truths are those truths which are true even if no one wants
to believe it.
3 Relativism says that because all truths are determined by
themselves, their cultures, language, etc. that objective truths
are actually an illusion.
4 Even truths such as 2+2=4 isn't necessarily truth, other than the fact
that we have all agreed historically that it is true.
• Because of this, "Man is the measure of all things". No one person's
ethics is better than another's. But with this we have to mean
that my ethics is no better than someone who lived 1500 years
ago in another country. One is no better than the other, just
different. A Buddhists' ethics are equal in merit to an American
atheist.
• Culture is responsible for the way we see and experience the world,
including our morality. Thus, we never really see things as they
really are, we always place our interpretation on reality. No
absolute standard for how we should act can be given because
we are not in a position to know (because knowledge of
universal truths is impossible) which system is "better." There is
no "better" - only different.
• As we will see, many ethical systems refer to some sort of absolute
"yardstick" to ground the correctness of their view. As we have
seen, relativism rejects any yardstick altogether. In relativism, we
are not burdened with trying to defend any sort of ethical system.
Instead we look at a common practice within a society.
• However, we should not conclude that just because there are no
moral absolutes, that therefore we should never make moral
judgements. For order and stability in our lives, we need rules,
and we life is best when we work together. This is why, for
example, it is okay in one culture to cut off the hand of ...
2. What rules do we live by? "How do people decide what is the right thing to do when faced with one of these issues?"
3. walk to statement that best fits their understanding of what: most people in the class would follow most people in Australian society would follow most Christians would follow they each personally follow (this could be 'walked' in private in your workbooks)
4. By Following my religion’s values and laws with my conscience By doing what is going to enable me to become more of what it means to be fully human – that is, more of the whole person I’m created to be By doing what increases pleasure: What is in my self interest By doing what is likely to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people By doing the most loving thing – it depends on the situation and the consequences Front of room
5. The core of the biblical prohibition to kill is therefore never to attack the life of an innocent human person. In this attack there is an extraordinary gravity in the moral aspect; it is a sin and also a crime before God and other human persons. God demands an account for every innocent human person who has been killed, since he has created man according to his image. The Catholic Church and the Sanctity of Human Life Josef Spindelböck