Be not astonished with new ideas; for it is well known to you that a thing does not therefore cease to be true because it is not accepted by many.
Spinoza is psychological and ethical egoist.
Born in 1632 Bruch Spinoza was a descendent of the Portuguese – Jewish community. After much harassment and ill treatment by the Portugal, his family fled to Amsterdam. The unique Jewish community in Amsterdam comprised of the people originally from Spain, Portugal and France who had the urge to practise their inherited faith freely. As a pupil of the congregation, Spinoza received education that deemed necessary as a Jew. This included Hebrew, liturgy, Torah, prophetic writings, and rabbinical commentaries. Even though, he excelled as a student, he left school whether by necessity or by desire and went onto to work in his father’s business. The advantage of having an open community in Amsterdam, exposed him to the so called ‘free – thinkers’, the Protestants. The vast stream of diverse thoughts got him interested in theological issues, philosophy and science …show more content…
This ambitious multifaceted work is proved bold to the point of audacity. It tries to show that ethical truths have the same logical necessity as the mathematical truth. The truth about God, nature, self, religion and good life is well presented in the five sub divisions of Ethics. Although metaphysics, physics, anthropology and psychology take most of the first three divisions, the crucial message of work to be ethical in nature is well conveyed. I believe the motive behind Spinoza’s work is to show that happiness does not lie in superstitions that are interpreted as religion but rather in the life of reason. He goes on to explain this transition, in the five parts each consisting of definitions, axioms and
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
People from all walks of life face many ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas have consequences. Our worldview determines how we deal with these dilemmas, and guides us to the right decisions. In this essay, I will examine an ethical issues through my Christian worldview. I will also present other viewpoints, and compare them to mine.
Ethical dilemmas occur when there is a disagreement about a situation and all parties involved question how they should behave based on their individual ethical morals. (Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). The dilemma that I will be addressing in this essay involves Michael, recently employed male educator working in the nursery, and parents of a baby enrolled at the centre. The parents have raised concerns about male educators changing their child’s nappy as they have cultural practices that do not allow this practice to take place. This situation is classed as an ethical dilemma as there is a dispute between cultural beliefs and legal requirements within the workplace. There are four parties involved (parents, child, educator and director), all
In his writing, A Practical Companion to Ethics, Anthony Weston explains people are more judgmental and it causes a lot more problems than solutions. Anthony Weston feels Ethics requires us to be mindful thinkers, because it helps fight unjust prejudgment. I personally feel this could help fix court systems, federal, and state wide corruption. Most importantly being a mindful thinker could help businesses. There are so many reasons that could fall under Anthony’s theory. Getting to know the author and his work. I feel his mindful thinking is to reach out to others and interact with more people in an expressive way. Weston believes this will help our community progress in a positive manner towards others. I think he feels ethics requires us
These individuals are known to be experts of morality. The chapter proposes two reasons as to why these individuals are called upon so frequently. One, for those who believe and have some sort of religious back round, and second, for those who believe in what is called a “scientific view” of the world. This chapter presents the idea that there is some popular belief that religion and morality go hand in hand and that in order to understand morality, you must understand religion. It is explained that when we view morality from a religious perspective, we give meaning to morality in a way that a “good man” made this world that we currently live in and that we are his children. While the book proposes the question that people who believe in God, or a higher power, base their values on what those religions state is right or wrong, whereas for an atheist the question still remains; how do these individuals weigh their moral compass and place their values?
In this essay I will discuss the ontological problem of the existence of God and discuss Pascal’s Wager and how it solves the issue. The problem with the proof of the existence of God is that it is not something we will know for sure until our dying day. We can speculate and bet on his existence and “feel” his presence but at this point it is just that, only a bet. This wager is famous for opening up minds to look at the problem in a bigger picture. The problem with the existence of God is not in the answer but instead in the question. Pascal is responsible for refocusing this discussion on God to the bigger problem of the existential context of human life. In a way this can all be broken down to very black and white terms “Either God is or he is not.” But upon looking further we realize that this is a much bigger issue with many grey areas than something as simple as ‘is or is not’.
there is nothing new under the sun. For this whole chapter in the history of man is new.”
The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.
In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Descartes argument for God’s existence in the Third Meditation. Descartes tries to prove the existence of God with an argument that proceeds from the clear and distinct idea of an infinite being to the existence of himself. He believes that his clear and distinct idea of an infinite being with infinite “objective reality” leads to the occurrence of the “Special Causal Principle”. I will start by discussing and analyzing Descartes clear and distinct idea of an infinite being and how it the classification of ideas and the difference between formal and objective reality Special Causal Principle. Finally, I will examine the reasons Descartes offers for his belief in Gods existence and I will indicate the drawbacks within the proof. It will be concluded that Descartes arguments are inadequate and don’t clearly prove the existence of God.
Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right;
Once the foundations of a building are undermined, anything built on them collapses of its own accord; so I will go straight for the basic principles on which all my former beliefs rested. Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once. (384)
The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the
In South Park, South Park illustrates normative ethics in society and people. The characters and scenarios are well scripted to categorize the three main theories of normative ethics; utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics. The show constantly displays the universal mindsets of multiple people within various situations and how one effects the other and the world. Majority of these scenarios, virtue ethics brings about the best results for those within the South Park community and the main characters. In the following, I will argue why virtue ethics is the most effective theory to always follow of all theories and how always following a utilitarianism and deontology approach can cause conflict within oneself and society.
We continue our study of the history of God by looking at His attributes from a number of different viewpoints. We will first examine the view of Classical Theism, then the view of Freewill Theism, and finally that of Open Theism. We begin by defining Classical Theism, also called traditional theism or Augustinian theism.
“Brad is a production engineer at a bicycle company and part of his job includes inspecting broken bikes and drafting the design repairs for their repair” (Bartlett). Brad is considering replacing a broken brake cable with a more durable material, even though the customer did not request it in their order and specifically requested that “No aesthetic changes be made to the bike” (Bartlett). Brad’s manager suggests that his considered actions would go against the company’s policy of “The customer is always right.” Should Brad disobey the manager and the customer to possibly lose his job or go along with
In his work Meditations on First Philosophy, published in 1641, René Descartes sets out to establish a set of indubitable truths for the sciences. He begins by discarding all of his beliefs, then works to rebuild his beliefs based on careful thought. Descartes clearly states this goal, saying in the First Meditation, “I will work my way up… I will accomplish this by putting aside everything that admits of the least doubt” (I, 17). He is able to establish his own existence, but struggles to move beyond his internal thoughts to discuss external objects. Descartes decides that the Christian God is the bridge he needs to escape the confines of his own mind, and argues for the existence of God in the Third Meditation in order to move on to discussing the physical world. In this paper I will argue that Descartes’ rationalistic project would have been improved without an appeal to the Christian God, although I will also argue that Descartes thinks this appeal is necessary.