According to Imas supernaturalism perspective, the usual definition of God is, the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the World (Gernsler 38). As Ima notes, that would make the definitions circular because God would be used in defining good and vice versa. For this reason, Ima derived a better definition because the first definition would also suggest that there standards of goodness before the will of God, instead of it creating the standards. For this reason, Ima came up with a better definition, that God is simply the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the world (Gernsler 38). By using this definition, Ima avoids the danger of circular definitions.
The definition is based on three arguments. Firstly, Ima presumes belief in the Bible, and thus, supernaturalism (SB) is true in this case primarily because the Bible teaches it. In essence, the Bible capitalizes on the use of good to be exchangeable with what God desires. Besides, the Bible has the ten commandments, which teaches aspects of SN very clearly. Secondly, Imas argument on the definition of who God is presumed a belief in God. In effect, if one believes in God, then they believe in all aspects of basic laws of Gods will (Donovan, 23). For this reason, Imas definition of who God is dependent on moral order, which distinguishes right from wrong. Because there Gods will is based on morals, the definition avoids circular definitions because there is a clear differentiation of what is wrong and what is right. Thirdly, Ima presumes belief in an objective morality, in that, when a person accepts that objective moral duties bind him, then he has to admit the source of the obligation, which can be from God, society, or other individuals. For this reason, basing the definition on these arguments, Ima can avoid circular definitions.
The law is based on the David Humes philosophy that good is indefinable, and that we cannot prove moral conclusions from non-moral premises (Gensler 49). The law states that we need moral premises to deduce a moral conclusion. For this reason, the reasoning under the law is incorrect primarily because it would only work if we could have a definition of what ought to be using social approval in that the society demands us to do such and such (Gensler 49).
As such, using Humes Law and its reasoning is bad primarily because it is consistent to support the premises and deny the conclusion, and this still happens if we substitute other descriptive premises (Hume 9). For this reason, we are not able to prove moral truths from descriptive facts alone. In effect, we are unable to provide facts about the society. Based on science, we also cannot provide facts on evolutions, which supported under Darwinism. On the other hand, based on religion, it becomes impossible to provide facts about the society based on God. Because we cannot generate facts from God or evolution, using the Humes Law, we cannot logically deduce a moral conclusion. In consequences, people can always consistently accept the facts but reject the moral conclusion (Mackie 5). Based on this view, neither religion nor science can establish the basic principles of morality (Gensler 49). In essence, since the society is what defines what we should do, then it eliminates the moral explanation of why we choose to do a certain thing, and this eliminates the scientific and biblical reasoning, which are not taken into account.
Works Cited
Donovan, James M. "God is as God does: Law, anthropology, and the definition of religion." Seton Hall Const. LJ 6 (1995): 23.
Gensler, Harry J. Ethics: A contemporary introduction. Routledge, 2011. Print.
Hume, David. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961. Print.
Mackie, John Leslie. Hume's moral theory. Routledge, 2003. Print.
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
