My Short Poems
- Butterflies and bees living in the trees. Flying high into the
night. Soaring through the endless sky to a new beginning. So this is
the reason for living.
- Life too strong to be confined. I'll
break free, just give me time. No such weakness as kryptonite. My soul
will forever spread light.
- Lovely universe in disguise, so many
people do not recognize. I know your true nature, I know your life. To
protect your wisdom, I strive. Love and light twined into one. May you
never feel alone.
- Living life, oh so free. Loving life, the way
it should be. Soaring through the endless skies. Flying high, no one can
deny. It's time to set ourselves free. Be who we want to be.
-
I'm walking over dead grass, running over dying sassafrass. Where's the
life? Where's the wonder? The world's been struck by thunder. We're left
to ponder.. What it is we did? How we could not have seen it? We're
acting like a bunch of kids and our world's gone to sh**. Can we make
this right? Can we fix our wrongs and see the light? Only time can tell.
We cannot fail. This is our world to heal.
- I must say, I've
never felt this way. To come this far, to finally find my star. Several
years of consideration, leading to this destination. Help from near and
far, to find myself buried deep within my being. Did I ever know the
true meaning? The true meaning of life?
- Destiny's calling,
bright and new. It's your choice what to do. Wisdom of the soul will
lead you. Whisper sweetly, ask for guidance. Connect with your inner
sense. Secrets untold, soon you will unfold.. the mysteries of life.
Believe in your inner light. You will get through the dark. Remember to
shine bright. Live to love and love to live. Not just receiving, but
trying to give.
- Life is just a mirrored reflection of what you want it to be... and that is just a reflection of itself.
-
Out of all the things I wish I could tell you, I keep my mouth shut.
Out of all the things I should tell you, I trust my gut. To live a life
unseen. To never say what I mean... Is not a life for me.
- Life
is just a memory soon to be forgotten. Love is just a reason for
falling. Friends/Family are the reason for staying. God is the reason
for praying. Everything is in it's own field of imagination. I think
we've missed the reason for creation.
- Maybe I'm not who you want
me to be. Maybe I'm just trying to get by, living free. Maybe you see a
person that doesn't exist. Maybe I'll disappear into a mist. Perhaps
you see me in a different light. Perhaps you never knew what's truly
inside. I bet if you knew the real me, you'd think me crazy. I bet if
you looked beyond the looking glass, life wouldn't be as hazy.
Jessica Burnett
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Saturday, December 21, 2013
My view on the Divine Command Theory
Divine Command Theory: the view that morality is based on
God. It is a meta-ethical theory that states that morality itself is dependent
upon God’s will and to be morally good then you must follow by his rules. “The
specific content of these divine commands varies according to the particular
region and the particular views of the individual divine command theorist, but
all versions of the theory hold in common the claim that morality and moral
obligations ultimately depend on God.” (1) While I can see the point of this
theory, I also see issues with it. A person can fully believe in God and be the
best that they can be by following the set rules and obligations that they
have, or someone else has, set before them. But, then again… we have seen many
times in history how someone can take the ‘Will of God’ and/or their
obligations to said God to extremes. There have been several accounts of
massacres, mass suicides, racism, unjust punishment, and religious intolerances
that have occurred simply because the person or people doing them thought that
their God wanted it to be done or that it is what He would have done Himself.
So, while I do contend that moral obligations should be a priority for all
people and that it is best for everyone to live by a certain set of rules,
whether they be dictated by a God, set in place by government, or decided by
the person themselves… I do not believe that causes such as these should be
justified by the means of a higher power telling them to do so.
Jessica
Burnett
References:
(1) Austin,
M. (August 21, 2006). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Divine Command
Theory. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/.
Evaluating the Teleological argument for God’s existence and its strengths and weaknesses as an empirical argument.
The ‘Non-Empirical Nature of the Ontological Arguments’
states that God’s existence relies on empirical premise. This means that life
could not exist if it were not for some higher life form simply because certain
fundamental properties of the universe would not make it possible to sustain
life. If these said fundamental properties had differed even in the slightest
then life as we know it would not exist. In fact, life itself would not exist.
This being said, the very fact that life could not or would not have existed if
one molecule in the universe had been altered is quite something to amuse
yourself with. The very thought that if one thing had shifted the entire
universe would be different is really something to ponder on. It creates a
whole new perspective. For, if not for this intelligent ‘being’ that we call
God then how else do you or would you explain the fact that we are here, alive
and breathing? What other explanation could you come up with for the very
existence of our universe and how it situated itself so perfectly as to create
life on planets, and planets as life? I know no other explanation and yet
scientists refuse to believe that there is a Creator of it all. And why is
that? Because there is no fundamental proof that ‘God’ exists? Because we have
no physical, tangible proof written in our reality? But then, what other answer
can you come up with? That it was a happy accident? That it was just something
the universe did on its own? But, if it were simply the universe doing it on
its own, then wouldn’t that mean that the universe is in actuality alive as
well? Or does that simply mean that the universe is a cosmic force we still
have yet to understand? I do not believe that anyone of this day and age could
really come up with an answer to the question of how the universe was created
and why it happened the way it did. However, I do believe with further insight
and research we may get even closer to the truth. The fact of the matter is
this; the universe is here, life exists, and if one tiny action in creating the
universe had been different we may not even exist. It’s likely that there is a
God somewhere in space and time. But, it is also likely that life itself was a
mistake and was not part of a greater design. It is up to you what you believe.
Jessica
Burnett
Referring to Descartes', Meditations on First Philosophy
“The Aristotelian tenet stated that everyone is born with
a clean slate and that all material for intellectual understanding must be
provided through sensation. Descartes argued that since the senses sometimes
deceive, they cannot be a reliable source for knowledge”. (1) He claimed
that even though you see it, it may not be real. After all, we cannot yet
differentiate between dream and reality. So, who’s to say life itself is
nothing but an illusion?
“All sensory
beliefs had been found doubtful in the previous meditation, and therefore all
such beliefs are now considered false. This includes the belief that I have a
body endowed with sense organs. But does the supposed falsehood of this belief
mean that I do not exist? No, for if I convinced myself that my beliefs are
false, then surely there must be an “I” that was convinced. Moreover, even if I
am being deceived by an evil demon, I must exist in order to be deceived at
all”. (1) “So, I must finally conclude that the proposition ‘I am,’ ‘I exist,’
is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind”
(AT VII 25: CSM II 16-17) (1). In conclusion, Descartes believes that there has
to be a ‘self’ but that ‘self’ is not necessarily physical. It is simply a form
of ‘being’. What we perceive ourselves to look like may in fact be wrong. But,
the thought that we do indeed exist must be true simply because if it were not,
how would we have ever had the thought?
Jessica
Burnett
(1) Justin
Skirry. (September 13, 2008). Rene Descartes (1596-1650): Overview. In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
August 20, 2013, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/desarte/#Sh2b.
“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”
“Are
morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they
morally good because they are willed by God?”
The very
concept that the only reason moral acts are morally good is because they are
willed by God brings up a lot of questions. “The dilemma states that, if you
are a divine command theorist, any action x is morally good either (A)
because God commands x, or (B) because x is good intrinsically.7”
This concept states that we, as humans, have free will but that God decides
what is morally right and morally wrong. It says that if we lead our lives by His
commands then we will forever live a moral and righteous existence. However,
how are we supposed to say what is morally right? Throughout history people
have foretold of a greater power speaking unto them and telling them all the
ways that they should live and how they should go about doing it. The issue
with this is… if one person says that ‘God’ deems one set of rules moral but
another says that ‘God’ told them it was wrong, then who should we believe? We
should, of course, believe the correct one. But, how do we know which is the
correct answer? The obvious answer should be by doing what is right. Although,
that brings up the idea that we have come up with what is right all on our own,
without the help of God. This in turn brings up the other half of the concept:
“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good?”
If we were to assume
that God, in all his righteousness, does not create what is right or wrong but
instead only states the facts… then that would mean that moral acts are not
controlled by God, but followed by him as well because they are right. This
means that God commands something because it is morally ethical to do so and
that, in His vast wisdom and knowledge, he knows what should be deemed right or
wrong in the judgment of life. This avoids the arbitrary argument that states
that moral acts are only moral because God commands it and accepts the argument
that moral acts are there with or without God present. However, this leads to
the possibility that God may not even exist at all. For, if we can deem what is
right and what is wrong on our own then there really is no need for a God’s
thoughts on the subject at all, is there?
Each of these statements
tends to make people a little uncomfortable. Either they are uncomfortable
about the fact that they do not know what is right or wrong without a God
present; which, in turn, means that what we may deem a sinful act ourselves may
actually be moral or what we originally deemed moral, may actually be sinful. Or,
it means that we pass judgment ourselves and that there really is no need for a
God’s input except to enlighten us on what most of us already know to be true.
It would mean that we could exist rightly even if God did not exist at all. The
very thought that God may not exist or that we may not need Him, at least in
that form, is what makes people not want to lean toward this part of the
argument either. So, therefore, we are in an endless struggle with what is
truth or not because on the one hand… God deems everything moral and immoral
and we are to obey whatever it is He says, or moral acts are moral simply
because they are and God does not have to exist at all for this to work.
The relationship between
religion and morality is on the brink here. We cannot say which is right and
which is wrong. The first option states that you can only act out moral
righteousness if you have heard it from God and the second option states that
moral actions are acted out without him. However, the first is invalid when it
comes to atheists… because if it were true then that would mean that everything
an atheist does is immoral and that they are inherently bad. But, this is wrong
in assuming. I am sure there are atheists who have done horrible things.
However, there are also plenty of atheists who live rightly and morally and
cause harm to no one. If you think about that then you would have to believe
more so in the second option that in the first because the second allows for
atheists to do morally good acts without the help of God.
Plato “introduces into
philosophy for the first time the two technical terms of the greatest
subsequent importance, and it is one of the earliest examples of the
application of formal logical techniques to a philosophical problem.5” Plato
introduces the Euthyphro dilemma which is originally discussed between Socrates
and Euthyphro that debates the logic behind The Divine Command Theory. There
are not just spiritual, but logical issues with the very concept of the Divine
Command Theory or the Euthyphro Dilemma, from which the majority of these
arguments stem. While many may believe whole-heartedly in the theory, the
dilemma brings their viewpoints to an abrupt halt. Not because the Euthyphro Dilemma
proves the previous belief wrong, but because it brings up philosophical
questions and logical reasoning that simply cannot be ignored.
“Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which
proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is
commanded by God. 1” “Followers of both monotheistic and
polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the
importance of God's commands in establishing morality. Numerous variants of the
theory have been presented: historically, figures including Saint Augustine,
Duns Scotus, and Thomas Aquinas have presented various versions of divine
command theory; more recently, Robert Merrihew Adams has proposed a
"modified divine command theory" based on the omnibenevolence of God
in which morality is linked to human conceptions of right and wrong. Paul Copan
has argued in favor of the theory from a Christian viewpoint, and Linda
Zagzebski's divine motivation theory proposes that God's motivations, rather
than commands, are the source of morality1”. “The Euthyphro
dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates
asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it
pious because it is loved by the gods?” 3” “At 7a Euthyphro proposes
his first definition of piety and impiety: what the gods like is pious, and
what they dislike is impious. Socrates notes the gods supposedly disagree about
many things, and that there seem to be some things that are both loved and
hated by the gods. So with that definition, some of the same things will be
both pious and impious (8a). This point is logical as well as mythological, for
by reading ‘the gods’ as ‘some gods’, piety and impiety so defined would not be
logical contraries and so might be found in some of the same things.4”
With that being said you can assume either idea to be
correct. The Divine Command Theory is one that most would be more likely to
accept and the way that Socrates and Euthyphro describe it you may even assume
it to be a logical statement. “The label “Divine Command Theory” does not pick
out any particular metaethical thesis, but rather a cluster of similar views.6”
It can be subject to change by which religion is using it and which contents of
their bible or other teachings they are choosing to read from. The only real
issue with the logical statement provided by Euthyphro is that in Catholic,
Christian, Jewish, and a few other religions there is only one God. Not Gods,
but God. So, if you were to think in the same way as Socrates and Euthyphro you
would either have to assume that there is more than one god, which few are
likely to do, or believe that God tends to change his mind often. However, if
you were to believe that God changed his mind then how could you truly believe
that what He stated to be moral was really moral? Wouldn’t it only confuse you
more?
The arguments presented may never be resolved. We simply
cannot come up with an explanation on our own. The only way to prove either
theory right or wrong is for us to meet said God and have Him tell us. However,
this is not possible. Even if there were to be a heaven and someone was to ask
God when they got there they cannot very well turn around and tell us. And even
if someone alive were to say that they communed with the dead, or with God
himself, and that they know the real answer… who is going to believe them? In
this day and age you would be considered crazy, if not overly eccentric, and if
a religious group were to believe you that does not mean that the whole world
will go along with it. The Euthyprho Dilemma will be one to last forever unless
at some point in time someone decides it is just not worth it to even debate
the subject. All in all, I would say that while the philosophical question is
certainly one to ponder on, it is not one to waste your life contemplating.
Live your life the best way you know how and go by what you feel is morally
right. If you believe that God is the one in charge, then by all means follow
Him. If you believe God has nothing to do with it and you can make your own moral
assumptions, then all the power to you. Life is not meant to be spent debating
the issue. Live on and live well!
Jessica Burnett
References
(1) Wikipedia.
Divine Command Theory, 2011. 1 September 2013.
(2) Wikipedia.
Euthyphro Dilemma, 2007. 17 September, 2013.
(3) Ackah,
K.”PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO AND SOCRATIC PIETY”. Scholia: Studies in Classical
Antiquity, 15, 17-34. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/211628972?accountid=8289. 31 August2013.
(4) Sharvy,
R. “Euthyphro 9d-11b: Analysis and Definition in Plato and Others”. Noûs, Vol.
6, No. 2 pp. 119-137. May 1997. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2216144. 31
August 2013.
(5) Hall, J.
“Plato: Euthyphro 10a1-11a10”. The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 18, No.
70 (Jan., 1968), pp. 1-11. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2218023. 31
August 2013.
(6) Richard,
J. Theistic Ethics and Euthyphro Dilemma. Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 30
Issue 1, p49. 27p. Spring 2002. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6643603&site=ehost-live. 31
August 2013.
(7) Burnett,
B.P. Euthyphro Dilemma. Word Press. August 2012. Retrieved from http://bpburnett.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/euthyphro-dilemma/. 17
September 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)